House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
A change to the taxation of online sales would require careful consideration, as my hon. Friend is aware. Many high street retailers are moving more of their business online, and we want to help them to manage that transition, without increasing the costs for them or their customers. The business rates review that we have announced will work closely with stakeholders to consider this issue in more detail. Meanwhile, as my hon. Friend will be aware, the Government have taken significant steps to support our high streets, including huge cuts to business rates and the £3.6 billion towns fund.
Duncan Baker
Clearly, we are living through unprecedented times, and I want to say thank you to all the Treasury team for the incredible work they are doing—working throughout the night—to help businesses up and down the country. Many sectors will be hugely impacted by coronavirus, not least my home of North Norfolk. We are now seeing shops being shut on the high street—quite rightly so—and I just want the Minister to consider that they will be hit enormously. When we come out of this pandemic, a 2% or 3% VAT-style tax rise to help high streets would be very well considered and welcome. Let us just remember that our last great leader was Margaret Thatcher, who said that we are a nation of shopkeepers—let us help them.
Mr Speaker
Order. I think the hon. Gentleman ought not to take advantage. We are just starting. I think he has got the message.
Jesse Norman
I speak for all my colleagues in saying how grateful I am to my hon. Friend for his kind regards and wishes. Of course, all taxes are taken into account and monitored by the Treasury, and will be subject to consideration at future fiscal events. We are living through very unusual times. I hope my hon. Friend understands that the high street, which was under pressure years before the current outbreak, is something we have supported over a period of time, most recently with a comprehensive package of support. He will be aware of the specific measures we have taken to support eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister and the Department for all they are doing for businesses at this time; it is much appreciated. Will the Minister further outline whether he has managed to close the loophole that enables massive companies such as Amazon to operate out of the UK yet pay little tax here? If not, what has been done to ensure that no one is exempt from paying appropriate tax in the UK if they trade in the UK?
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. He will be aware that, in the Budget, we left in place our digital services tax, which is specifically designed to look at online marketplaces and other areas online that have user-generated content that needs to be appropriately taxed. We continue to pursue that tax.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
The Government are committed to improving the vital transport links that people rely on every day. That is why in the Budget we announced a £500 million a year fund for potholes, confirmed £1 billion for shovel-ready local transport schemes through the transforming cities fund, and set out the Government’s intention to agree long-term intra-city transport settlements worth more than £4 billion.
Damien Moore
I thank my right hon. Friend for all that he is doing. Businesses in my resort constituency have been delivered a significant blow due to covid-19. In good times, funding for the Burscough rail link would be a boost; in bad times, it could be business critical. Will he work with the Department for Transport and do everything he can to ensure that we get the funding for that vital link for our town?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the impact on hotel and hospitality businesses in particular. I hope he welcomes the significant cash grant support and business rates holidays for those businesses. With regard to his rail line, he is absolutely right about the importance of such links, which is why we set up a £500 million Beeching cuts reversal fund. I know the Department for Transport would be happy to hear from him.
Antony Higginbotham
Rail links will be essential to revitalising the economy once we exit this very difficult period. In Burnley, we have a fantastic rail link that connects us into Manchester, but unfortunately, at the minute, the station is not disability friendly. I know several stations across the country have been given funding to get them disability friendly, and I wonder whether a similar scheme will be announced in the future so that Burnley can finally get a bridge over its platforms.
Rishi Sunak
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he does championing improved accessibility for his disabled constituents, which is why in the Budget we announced £50 million to remodel 12 stations. I spoke to the Secretary of State for Transport this morning about Burnley Manchester Road station, and he is happy to take a call from my hon. Friend.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Transport infrastructure and, indeed, all infrastructure relies on the construction industry, and in particular its workforce. We have had reports of workers working in close proximity in construction—indeed, I have seen that myself, including at transport-related facilities this morning—in some cases with no hygienic support and no evidence of enhanced cleaning. The industry has been described as a breeding ground for infection. What action is being taken to protect workers in that industry?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Member is absolutely right: we must ensure the safety of our workers in their industries. The guidance from the Government last night was clear that people should go to work if they cannot work from home. In common with other countries such as Italy or France, construction has remained open, but of course it is right that that is done safely. I know that my right hon. Friend the Housing Secretary is in touch with the sector and I believe that he has had conversations about guidance in this regard.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
My local bus company is one of many, I am sure, across the country that has had to introduce short-time working, but it is unsure about the implementation of the Chancellor’s very welcome wage subsidy. Will the Treasury top up the wages of those working two or three-day weeks, or does it have to lay off, say, 70% of the workforce and rely on the remainder to cover the rest of the routes, putting themselves at risk for a similar amount of money? Can the Chancellor clear that up for us, please?
Rishi Sunak
We said that we would aim to have the scheme up and running by the April payroll. This is a brand new system that has to be designed from scratch. Claims could be backdated from 1 March, which will provide significant support to businesses and jobs, and in common with all other schemes like this across the world, the scheme applies to furloughed workers in proportion to the hours they have worked—but to workers who are put on furlough rather than being retained in employment.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
The Government remain committed to doing what they can to support businesses, our people and public services. In the last week, I have announced unprecedented measures to support business, including over £300 billion of Government-backed loans, £20 billion of tax cuts and grants, a VAT deferral worth 1.5% of GDP and a landmark job retention scheme guaranteeing 80% of the wages of furloughed workers. We believe that these measures represent the most comprehensive and generous suite of interventions of any major developed country in the world.
Mark Pritchard
On behalf of my constituents, I welcome those announcements. The Chancellor, though, will know that 15% of the UK workforce is self-employed, equating to about 5 million people up and down the country. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, there are 5,600 in The Wrekin. When will the Government come forward with plans for the self-employed and freelancers, given the immediacy of their need?
Rishi Sunak
I thank my hon. Friend for the question. I will be making further announcements about progress on these measures. It is something that we have been looking at in intense detail over the past week in the Treasury. What I can say to him is that we are in dialogue with all the key stakeholder groups, including calls that I am having today with several of those bodies. There are genuine practical and principled reasons why it is incredibly complicated to design a scheme that is analogous to the one that we have for employed workers, but he can rest assured that we absolutely understand the situation that many self-employed people face at the moment as a result of what is happening and we are determined to find a way to support them. We need to be confident that that can be done in a way that is deliverable and fair to the vast majority of the British workforce.
Scott Mann
On behalf of my residents in North Cornwall, I thank the Treasury for the support that it has put in place for employees and employers over the last few days, with this unprecedented series of events. Like my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), I want to ask about self-employment. I have a huge number of self-employed people in North Cornwall. I know that the Treasury is under a huge amount of pressure at this time, but I urge expediency on that so that we can get a package of measures in place for them, too.
Rishi Sunak
As I said, we are looking at this in immense detail and at pace. As has been acknowledged by many stakeholders in the industry, there are genuine questions about practicality, fairness and delivery of any such support scheme, which is why it requires careful thought.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
We have an urgent question on the self-employed after this, but to add to the comments that have been made so far, there is a sense of urgency about this now. There is no Member of this House who has not been contacted by a constituent who is in quite a distressed state about that. One of the most effective ways of supporting businesses is to make sure that the whole workforce is supported. There is another group—2 million workers are on zero-hours and there are part-time workers. They are still not eligible for statutory sick pay and they appear to be excluded as well from the job retention scheme, which is focused on the definition of “employees” while, in law, these are referred to and defined as “workers”. I have written to the Chancellor about this, so will he make a statement urgently that sets out how these workers will be protected in the same way as other workers were in the announcement on Friday?
Rishi Sunak
It is not the case that those who are on zero hours are not eligible for the existing scheme. Depending on their status, they would absolutely be eligible for the job retention scheme. It could be based on an average of previous earnings over a period in order to get smoothing, but there is no reason why they should not be eligible. In fact, any worker who was on a PAYE scheme is eligible for the job retention scheme.
John McDonnell
That is really helpful. I have welcomed the statements from the Chancellor to date, and I welcome that as well. I am grateful for the work that he is doing. There was confusion, and many of us had representations on that. I would like him to clarify one other point: he might have done so earlier and I missed it. Some people are being asked to work reduced hours in the interests of the company rather than being furloughed overall, and it appears that those people may also be excluded from the scheme. There is a lack of clarity on that: again, could the Chancellor confirm whether those workers will be included in the scheme? If not, can he bring forward a fairly urgent reform to the scheme to enable that to happen?
One other category we have had questions on is those people who have work available but cannot do it because of the shutdown of their childcare arrangements and as a result have childcare responsibilities. Are they are eligible for the furlough support scheme as well?
Rishi Sunak
In common with schemes all around the world, the schemes are for furloughed workers. The check is that the company decides to put an employee into a furlough scheme rather than retain them as employed. That is exactly the same as every other scheme. It is not possible to design a scheme that deals with flexible hours, with the result that the state would essentially be subsidising the wages of almost the entire workforce. It is something that we looked at in detail and, given the time we have available, we went with a scheme that could be delivered and is in common with almost every scheme around the world that does exactly the same thing.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
It is vital that we work across party lines at this time, and the SNP very much welcomes the Chancellor’s economic package for firms and workers announced last Friday. Given that millions of small businesses, freelancers and the self-employed are understandably concerned about their incomes, we welcome the fact that the Chancellor is considering a response to that and understand that it is important to get it right, but when does he expect to be able to come back to the House and announce the details?
Rishi Sunak
As I said, we are looking at these things. I will not commit to a specific day until we know we can work through the details. One of the issues is that of course there are people whose incomes have been enormously impacted by what is going on currently, but there are also millions of people who are self-employed whose incomes may not have been impacted and, indeed, might be increasing. The ability of the Government to distinguish between those people, based on tax returns that are over a year and a half out of date, poses some very significant challenges in terms of fairness and affordability.
Richard Thomson
I thank the Chancellor for that answer, and our offer to work with him to protect incomes remains open. As part of his deliberations on this and in order to simplify the process of getting the money to where it needs to go, will he consider using the tax and welfare system to roll out a universal basic income in these times?
Rishi Sunak
We are not in favour of a universal basic income, although we have strengthened the safety net for the most vulnerable in our society, with more than £7 billion invested into improving our welfare system for this year, including improvements to universal credit, employment support allowance and, indeed, the local housing allowance. Those payments are all available more quickly, more easily and more generously than they were before, and I know that will make an enormous difference to many vulnerable people.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that seems unique to my constituency. The Isles of Scilly sit 28 miles off Land’s End, and all people and supplies travel via large and small private companies. Those businesses rely on the tourist trade in the summer, but that has completely collapsed, and every single one of those businesses is liable to collapse if the Government cannot move quickly. Can the Chancellor look at this issue urgently, because 2,500 people are relying on urgent action from the Treasury to make sure that their transport infrastructure system is sustained and retained?
Rishi Sunak
I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend further about his particular constituency issue, which I know poses particular challenges. We have committed to providing local authorities—and indeed all Departments —with any funding required to support public services, including local transport infrastructure in their communities.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
On behalf of my constituents who will benefit from the measures that the Chancellor announced last week, may I sincerely thank him for the action that he has taken and for the responsibility that he is carrying? We are all rooting for him to succeed in the task ahead. The challenge, as others have described, is that for those who do not benefit, in particular the 5 million self-employed, the anxiety has increased, because they have seen a ship sailing carrying others but not them. I think they will be reassured that the Chancellor has given a clear commitment to do something, but many are facing a cash-flow crisis right now, so can he say a bit more to reassure them about how quickly he can implement the measures that he is considering?
Rishi Sunak
1 am very grateful to the hon. Member for his warm words; I appreciate them. We are looking at pace at what support can be provided. The fact is that the universe of 5 million that we are dealing with contains such a wide variety of different people that we are unable to target support. That is the challenge in designing something that gets to the people who we want to help, while at the same time being affordable and not having to benefit absolutely everybody. That is proving to be problematic, but we are hard at work on it.
In terms of delivery, it is almost certainly going to be the case that we would have to build another brand-new system to deliver any support. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that, in terms of prioritising system design, the scheme that we have set up for 90% of the workforce who are employed should be delivered first and quickly, and that is what we have committed to do, ideally by the end of April. We are looking at how we can do these things in sequence or in parallel, but I take the hon. Member’s point: people are anxious. That is why we deferred the self-assessment tax return that is due shortly to provide some cash-flow benefit. We have also deferred VAT to a significant degree, which will help with cash-flow benefit, and many self-employed people will benefit from the business interruption loans, which are also interest-free.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
We are providing cash grants of £10,000 to over 700,000 small and medium-sized businesses across England and grants of up to £25,000 per property for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. We estimate that these combined measures will benefit up to 1 million businesses in England. Local authorities will deliver these grants over the coming weeks and consequently will have information about the number of firms that have benefited at a local level in due course.
Mr Hollobone
I declare my interest as a member of Kettering Borough Council. May I thank the Chancellor and the Treasury for coming forward at top speed with this business support package? May I also thank all the hard-working staff at Kettering Borough Council who will be delivering these grants to local businesses? Will the Minister send out the message to Kettering and the country that when the economy comes roaring back, once this pandemic is over, local authorities will have played a key role in ensuring that that happens?
Jesse Norman
I thank my hon. Friend for that wise comment. We very much share his views. Local authorities are crucial to delivery of a whole range of the support that we are now giving, and we will be very much acknowledging their role. We will also be supporting them, as he will know, through the business rates process and the hardship fund.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
As my hon. Friend will know, Rent a Room relief has been a feature of the income tax system since 1992. In 2016, the Government raised the threshold to £7,500. That was designed to deliver the Government’s objective of supporting individuals’ living standards and freeing up space in the housing market. It also reduces and simplifies the tax administrative burden for those affected and has taken some taxpayers out of self-assessment entirely.
Andrew Lewer
Given that some 37% of homes in the country are under-occupied, my right hon. Friend will realise that encouraging more owners to take in lodgers could provide affordable housing to thousands more people. Will he please look to review whether there should be a higher level, perhaps £9,500, for live-in landlords with two or more lodgers, and would he be willing to have a virtual meeting with the Lodger Landlords Association at an appropriate time?
Jesse Norman
I am always delighted to meet my hon. Friend. In 2016, as I have mentioned, the Government raised the threshold. In 2018, the Government consulted on the scheme and there was consensus among the respondents that the relief provides an effective incentive for people to make spare rooms available for rent. Of course, I take his point and he has put it squarely on the record. As with all tax policy, we will look at this and other measures and keep them under review.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Jesse Norman
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have specifically ruled out the possibility of eviction for three months, and we will continue to look at that situation as well.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
I regularly discuss school funding with the Secretary of State for Education. At the spending round, the Government committed to a £7.1 billion cash increase in the funding for schools in England by 2022-23.
Stuart Anderson
I understand that there are immediate pressing issues for the Department, but after this will my right hon. Friend arrange to meet me and the Education Secretary to discuss the funding of a secondary school in Wolverhampton?
Steve Barclay
I would be very happy to give that commitment to my hon. Friend. He will be aware of the significant allocation to capital funding that was set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget, and obviously part of the discussion at the comprehensive spending round will be the allocation of that budget.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
When the Minister is meeting the Secretary of State for Education, will he also talk about funding for the early years and nurseries sector? The 30 hours of free childcare is not working, and many of these nurseries were facing unviability before the current crisis.
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, because across the House people recognise the importance of early years and early intervention, but he will be aware of the wider package of funding showing the Government’s commitment to education, not just in primary schools and secondary schools but through the measures on further education set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
We have been clear that the NHS will get whatever it needs to respond to the coronavirus. The Chancellor announced at Budget a £5 billion response fund and we have already allocated a significant proportion of that to a range of measures.
Stephen Crabb
What frontline staff do in the NHS every single day is remarkable at the best of times, and what we are asking them to do now and in the weeks ahead will be incredibly challenging in terms of both the physical and emotional pressures and the personal risks to NHS staff, so would my right hon. Friend reaffirm that as well as providing the extra money announced in the Budget, the Government will do all they can to ensure that frontline NHS staff get all the equipment they need, including protective clothing, to get the country through this crisis?
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Chancellor has made it clear that we will do whatever it takes to protect our NHS frontline, not just through PPE, as he correctly identifies, but by looking at additional capacity, such as in the independent hospitals sector, and at the support available, including the £1.3 billion allocated to speed up the discharge of patients, the £1.6 billion allocated to local authorities for adult social care and, of course, funding such as the £30 million for diagnostics research and £10 million for diagnostic testing that has also been allocated in recent days.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
As a House, we require more specific detail about exactly what funding and arrangements are being provided across Government in relation to testing and PPE availability. We are all hearing from staff that they do not have the resources they need. The Minister talked about that funding, but to what extent is it being spent in the field, and what discussions has his Department had with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department of Health and Social Care about pulling in additional manufacturers not just for ventilators but for PPE and testing?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Lady will know from the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care that significant efforts have been made on this, working with domestic manufacturers and procuring additional resource and stock internationally. On funding, we have been very clear with the Department of Health and Social Care that it will have whatever funding it needs, and that has been the case to date.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
Last Friday, the Government announced that they were deferring VAT payments for the next quarter, so that UK VAT-registered businesses will not need to pay any VAT, alongside their normal VAT returns, until the end of June. That deferral is worth more than £30 billion, or 1.5% of GDP. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs already offers help to businesses struggling to meet their VAT payments, with arrangements such as Time to Pay. In the light of the covid-19 outbreak, the Chancellor has outlined a range of measures to help businesses through the crisis, including grants, loans and relief from business rates worth more than £330 billion. The Treasury will continue to review this and make further announcements as events unfold.
Owen Thompson
Scottish National party Members welcome the actions that have been announced so far by the Chancellor to support the economy during this outbreak. Given the particular strain felt by sectors such as hospitality, will the Minister consider reducing the VAT rate they are charged, in addition to the deferrals already announced?
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He will be aware that those businesses will fall under the VAT announcements that have already been made for the next quarter and that they are also already the beneficiaries of grants of £10,000 for the smallest businesses and of £25,000 for larger ones in the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The Government take seriously their climate change responsibilities, including the target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. That means enabling a diverse range of low-carbon technologies, and we see the use of marine renewables in the future energy mix, though developers must demonstrate how those can compete with the low prices achieved by wind and solar technologies.
Mr Carmichael
In order to compete with those technologies, these renewables have to get from the research and development stage to commercial deployment. The industry knows that and has come up with a mechanism known as the innovation power purchase agreement. Is there any reason why the Government are not engaging with that? I have to tell the Minister that these developers are not going to hang around in this country forever. If they cannot make that step here, they will go elsewhere and do it.
John Glen
I am very aware of the 1,700 people who work in this area in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency and across Wales and Scotland. I am also aware that he wrote to the previous Exchequer Secretary, who moved post before he could get a reply. At the moment, renewables are five times more expensive than wind and solar, but the Government will engage in a dialogue with the industry as we look to resolve this and move forward constructively.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
Low-paid workers will continue to benefit from above-average pay rises, with the national living wage set to reach two thirds of median earnings and to be extended to workers aged 21 and over by 2024, providing economic conditions allow. That is projected to benefit nearly 4 million low-paid workers.
Paul Bristow
I thank the Minister for that response and for everything he is doing to protect jobs in Peterborough and across the country. I was proud to stand on our manifesto in December and, in particular, on our commitment to protect the low paid. The Government have taken vital steps in the short term to protect jobs. Will he confirm that this Budget is also providing a £200 tax cut for the typical family in Peterborough?
John Glen
Absolutely. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that a typical employee will be about £104 better off next year through the cut in national insurance and the freeze in fuel and alcohol duties, and the abolition of other taxes, such as the tampon tax, will also be of benefit to many of his constituents, for whom he has been fighting hard since he came to this place.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Many low-paid workers are self-employed. When I raised this matter with the Leader of the House yesterday, he said:
“The Government are inevitably conscious that when we close places by order and that has an effect on people’s livelihoods, there is a societal responsibility.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2020; Vol. 674, c. 27.]
Many of these low-paid self-employed people work in the music industry. I know that we have an urgent question coming up, but I say to the Minister that they will be looking for more reassurance than we have heard so far this morning that the Government are going to introduce a scheme and do it soon.
John Glen
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set out clearly not only the range of measures that we have taken but our determination to come up with an enduring solution that addresses the range of challenges. The whole Treasury team is fully aware of how distressing and challenging people are finding it out there and we are working as fast as we can to come up with a solution that works for everyone.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
If the current coronavirus and financial crisis has taught us one thing, it is that we need to look again at zero-hours contracts and the difficulty that they put many of our constituents in. I very much welcome the measures that have been brought forward on support for businesses and employees, and I very much hope that we will hear about support for the self-employed in the response to the urgent question this afternoon, but there is a lot of concern among zero-hours workers. Will the Minister outline what support the Government are going to bring forward for zero-hours workers in Glasgow East?
John Glen
If they are on pay-as-you-earn, they are eligible for the job-retention scheme, but the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the range of concerns that exist, and we continue to look carefully at what we can do to enhance the measures that have already been announced. He will be aware of the enhancements to the welfare package—my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced that an additional £6.5 billion has been put in so far—and we will continue to look at what more can be done.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I encourage the Minister not to make the perfect the enemy of good in the design of the scheme. Many self-employed workers are worrying about their inability to put food on the table this week. They are finding the universal credit system completely overwhelmed, so I encourage Ministers to announce the scheme and make sure that the cash gets through. It has to be soon; otherwise, people are going to be in real hardship.
John Glen
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. That issue is why we have tried to move forward on interventions that could be done quickly and have done them as quickly as we can. In respect of universal credit, we have increased the UC standard allowance from £317.82 to £409.89 per month for single claimants. We have increased the local housing allowance, we have relaxed the earnings rules for self-employed UC claimants, and we will continue to look at every measure that we can to make an impact in the lives of those people who are suffering as the hon. Gentleman describes.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Minister talks about looking at every measure that we can, but the Chancellor just appeared to rule out a universal minimum basic income. Is that not quite disappointing? The way to answer these questions—the way to avoid thousands of people being laid off, ending up on universal credit and potentially getting trapped in the benefits system—is to provide a minimum income guarantee for everyone. That would also help to provide a fiscal stimulus in the economy once we start to get through this crisis.
John Glen
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out clearly the reasons why we have some concerns about, and indeed would not want to have, that universal guarantee. We want to make sure that the interventions we make are targeted at those who are most in need at this time, and not giving money unnecessarily to people who are wealthy.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
We are facing an unprecedented challenge as a country, as a Government and as a society. The spread of the coronavirus has precipitated the extraordinary but necessary actions taken by this Government over the past week to protect people’s health and livelihoods and the economy we all rely on. There will be challenging times ahead, and despite the significant economic interventions that we have put in place, we will not be able to protect every single job or save every single business, but I am confident that the measures we have put in place will provide support to millions of people and businesses and ensure that we do get through this, get through it together, and emerge on the other side both stronger and more united.
Joy Morrissey
The start-up loan programme has been hugely successful in getting thousands of new businesses off the ground, particularly in my constituency of Beaconsfield. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the announcement that the programme will be extended is hugely welcome news for entrepreneurs right across the country?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is a champion for entrepreneurship in her constituency, and rightly so. The start-up loan programme is an excellent programme, providing grants of £25,000 for budding entrepreneurs. It has been operational for some years now and has provided almost 70,000 loans, putting to work more than half a billion pounds. It is absolutely right that, as we think about our future coming through the coronavirus, it will be the entrepreneurs of tomorrow who will help to create new jobs and drive the prosperity that we will all want to see.[Official Report, 21 April 2020, Vol. 675, c. 1MC.]
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
May I again welcome much of what the Chancellor is doing, and say that we wish to work with him as positively as we possibly can in this very difficult period? I just wish to return to the issue of zero-hours workers. The Chancellor said very clearly that this applies to all those who are on PAYE, and I welcome that, but the point that we have been making is that many of these zero-hours contract workers—in fact, most of them—are not on PAYE. They are called limb (b) workers, so the scheme does not apply to them. I understand that he is doing his best and I understand the complications, but he has also said that for zero-hours workers, employers may compensate on the basis of average hours worked. The unions in this field representing those workers have urged that this should be mandatory and applied to all zero-hours and variable-hours workers based on average earnings over the previous weeks. That is exactly how those workers’ holiday pay is calculated at the moment, and it is an accurate reflection of what they earn. We need some urgent action for this sizeable group of workers. There are at least nearly a million zero-hours workers, perhaps a million more.
Rishi Sunak
As we are putting in place the detailed guidance for the scheme, we are actively considering the question of how best to average the earnings of people in this situation. I very much take on board the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman has made, and I know that my team are engaging with those unions as we speak to try to get the details right.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of cash flow, which is why we have targeted our interventions specifically at smaller businesses by providing extra cash flow support. We have done so through the £10,000 grant to every business in receipt of small business rate or rural rate relief and, indeed, through the deferral of VAT, which starts from today for the quarter. As my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said earlier, that represents more than £35 billion, or 1.5% of GDP-worth of tax deferral, providing immediate cash-flow support. We have done the same thing for self-assessment payments that are due in the coming months and have also, as of yesterday, launched a business interruption loan scheme, which my hon. Friend has done fantastic work developing. It will provide 12-month interest-free loans to small businesses, again, to help provide them with the liquidity that they need to get through this.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for the suggestion, and we will certainly look closely at the Child Poverty Action Group’s recommendation.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
Rishi Sunak
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and pay tribute to the work that he is doing to represent his constituents and make sure that his local businesses get the support that they need. I hope that his businesses welcome the various interventions that we have provided in terms of cash flow support, tax relief deferrals, and subsidised loans to help them get through this difficult period. If he has further ideas that he thinks we should consider, I would be very happy to talk to him further.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Supply teachers play a vital role in our schools. Many thousands, including my constituent Ellie Atkinson, have found themselves out of work, so may I urge the Treasury to look at a way of supporting these vital workers, either with direct financial support or by ensuring that they can actually work in the schools that are being kept open?
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
The right hon. Gentleman will know that school budgets have been allocated, so the schools already have that money to spend; that will not change. The announcement that the Chancellor has made about the PAYE system is about supporting people through that mechanism. If the right hon. Gentleman has other proposals, I am happy to engage with him to discuss them further.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
Rishi Sunak
I thank my hon. Friend for her support, and join her in paying tribute to Sandwell Community Caring Trust, which we will be relying on through this difficult period. I can confirm that charities are eligible for the job retention support programme. Further to that, we have allocated extra funding to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to provide money to local charitable or caring organisations, especially to help those we are attempting to shield—the most vulnerable—in order to protect them against the effects of the coronavirus.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Yesterday in the Chamber, I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) raised the question of escalating prices in local shops and concerns about profiteering. We understand that the Competition and Markets Authority may be looking into this issue, but may I ask the Minister to urge it very rapidly to look at where this is taking place? Is it local shops, wholesalers or cash and carry, or suppliers? Is it even to do with the international market in terms of perishable goods? This is a matter of real concern. Once the Government have found out where the problem is, will they bring forward measures to crack down on this profiteering?
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very reasonable point, and sets out a range of issues. The Government will be looking into this, and I will liaise with my colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure that they are focusing on all the dimensions of the problem that he has outlined.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Rishi Sunak
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. It is certainly possible to use those historical returns. They are a year and a half out of date, so they will be necessarily imperfect. They also do not provide an easy way to distinguish between those who are deserving of support and whose incomes are being affected by what is happening, and those who are much wealthier and whose incomes are potentially increasing currently, but they do provide a basis and a universe to look at.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
When I mentioned earlier that the universal credit system was overwhelmed, the Minister may not quite have taken on board the point I was raising. A self-employed worker sent me a screenshot of their attempts to use the system yesterday; 33,383 people were ahead of them in the queue to use the claims section of the website. Unless this is resolved, people who need money right now—limited though that money is under universal credit—simply will not be able to get hold of it through the system.
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the pressure on the Department for Work and Pensions at this time. That is a key reason why the design of the schemes that we have been looking at and that have been put forward by the Chancellor do not add complexity and pressure on the DWP. We have been actively working on identifying where we can free up and reprioritise resource in DWP to assist with this issue. I have been discussing the matter with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and working closely with her on it.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Obviously, airports and airlines are particularly adversely affected by the covid-19 situation.
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is right, especially given his constituency, to highlight the importance of airlines and airports. They have been particularly impacted by what is happening. I am in active dialogue with the Secretary of State for Transport and expect to write soon on that matter.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Ind)
In Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath and other constituencies, public service workers, not bankers or nuclear weapons, will get us through this crisis. We must therefore change our focus. Will the Chancellor consider whether the nurses, doctors and other public service workers, who will be doing double shifts and working extra hours to get us through, can get tax relief on those extra hours so that they are properly rewarded and recognised for their tremendous efforts?
Rishi Sunak
We pay tribute to our public sector workers, particularly those who are on the frontline of the NHS as we speak. We have said that we will make any and all funding available to the NHS to provide and support that workforce. That is exactly what we are doing, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary outlined earlier. In the Budget, we specifically changed the taper relief, which was causing hours challenges for senior doctors and GPs. That was a significant fiscal intervention—we are providing more than £2 billion of tax relief to ensure that there is no disincentive for those senior clinicians to provide the extra work at this time.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
The economic interventions that the Chancellor spoke about are greatly welcome in Bournemouth East. Will he join me in paying tribute to the armed forces for what they are doing and what they will do? We should all recognise that that is in addition to their day job of keeping the nation safe. What will happen in the spending review? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that there is additional capacity for our armed forces so that they can deal with the threats that continue to exist, but also have the ability to step forward to help the nation in times of crisis?
Rishi Sunak
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of our armed services, and I join him in paying tribute to them for what they are doing, not just to keep us safe every day, but right now when we are calling on them to help us meet this public health emergency. As we speak, they are doing extraordinary work to help our healthcare system to respond to what is coming. We recognise that, and it will be recognised when we think about funding for the armed services not just today, but in the future.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
One newspaper is already reporting that the Chancellor will implement an income protection scheme for the self-employed and make an announcement in the next 24 hours. I must say I got a slightly longer timescale from the Chancellor’s earlier reply, when he talked about the end of April. To come back to the point about reassurance, will he give some real reassurance now to those anxious self-employed people across the country that an announcement will be made very shortly?
Rishi Sunak
We hope to have something to say very shortly. Implementation will take longer for the reasons I outlined, when a good point was made about capacity, whether at HMRC or DWP, to deliver brand-new schemes. However, in terms of saying what we plan to do, hopefully we can do that relatively shortly. Implementation will take longer because of the clear delivery challenges that the scheme would pose.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend and the Treasury team for all their work to help people through this crisis. Will my right hon. Friend outline when employers can access the scheme for job retention scheme and furloughed workers?
Rishi Sunak
Detailed guidance is available. Further guidance will be provided and our aim is to build the new scheme so that it is operational by the end of April. That is a challenge. We are already working night and day to construct something from scratch, but claims will be allowed to be backdated to 1 March so that businesses have the security of knowing that the cash-flow rebate will be coming. As I have said, the aim is to have the scheme up and running so that the April payroll can be reimbursed through it.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
One of the problems with this crisis is that we do not know how long it is going to last. I have businesses in my constituency—events companies, conference companies and sporting companies—that have long lead-in times to organise their events, but they cannot cancel them yet and thereby claim insurance because there is no Government guidance. Do the Government have any plans to give guidance, particularly to the insurance companies and events companies, that will perhaps say, “No events for the next six months”?
John Glen
We are working closely with the insurance industry, and obviously events companies are underpinned by contractual obligations. We established that if they have cover relevant to non-specified diseases, the announcements by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have triggered those policies to be paid out, but I am happy to look at any specific cases that individual Members want to bring to me, which I can take up with industry representatives.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
In the wake of the last economic crisis, when we needed the banks to stand on the side of small businesses, too often they did not, and many of us have seen too many examples of small businesses being bullied into bankruptcy. What can my right hon. Friend the Chancellor say about the posture he wants to see from the banks at this time?
John Glen
The Chancellor and I have had dialogue with individual heads of high street banks. I have been speaking to the head of UK Finance this morning and will be convening a meeting of bank representatives later today. We anticipate that the banks should be taking the most sympathetic forbearance measures possible, and we have set out very clearly, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor did, that the loan scheme is interest-free for the first 12 months, with no fees or repayment penalties. I expect the banks to step up to the mark, as I know they will. We have to remember that many of the people actually delivering this service in high street branches or in call centres are not very well paid and are working flat-out to deliver a key service to our nation at this time.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The message from the Prime Minister last night for our constituents to stay at home could not have been clearer, but many of our constituents who are staying at home will have increased energy bills as a result. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) is co-ordinating a cross-party letter to the Government asking for a reduction in VAT on energy bills. Are they willing to look favourably upon that to support our constituents, who will have higher energy bills as a result of staying at home?
Jesse Norman
We are certainly very happy to look at whatever letter the hon. Gentleman or his colleagues on a cross-party basis may wish to present.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
I want to follow on from my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) and talk about our great armed forces. I expressed my delight at the budget of £10 million identified for veterans’ mental health. Will the Chancellor confirm that that will remain a priority, as the problem does not go away?
Steve Barclay
I am happy to give that assurance. I know my hon. Friend is a champion—rightly so—of our armed forces and speaks with great experience and authority on that. He will be aware of a number of measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced. That is one of them, and we stand by it.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
A couple of times in the context of the self-employed, the Chancellor has mentioned wealthy people whose incomes are increasing. That is not who we are talking about. We are talking about people who have lost their entire income overnight. Will he please provide some more reassurance that it is his intention to provide help to those people? Does he intend to say how he will do that very soon and say to the banks in the meantime that they should be extending credit on a free basis, on the basis of what he has promised, so that people can get on with their lives?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Gentleman illustrates exactly the issue with such a scheme. Looking at historical tax return data from a year and a half ago gives absolutely no guide as to whether someone today who is self-employed is prosperous, and indeed that their income may be increasing versus someone, who is not. Of course I am sympathetic to those whose situation is being adversely affected by what is going on. The issue is one of finding a way to target help at them, rather than having something that provides blanket cash subsidies to 5 million people, many of whom will not need it, which will end up costing all our constituents on modest incomes a considerable amount. It is about finding a way to target support for those who most need it, and that is what is requiring time and thought.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Will the Chancellor join me in thanking Shropshire Council and the hard-working people at Telford and Wrekin Council? Cash flow is becoming a real issue for many local councils, with many having to borrow. Could he encourage his officials in the Treasury to be a bit more flexible as to where finance can come from and the use of reserves?
Rishi Sunak
I am happy to look at specific suggestions. I pay tribute not only to my hon. Friend’s council but to all councils for the sterling work they are doing in delivering our grant schemes to many of their small local businesses. We are in dialogue already with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to ensure that councils’ cash-flow needs are adequately met. There are things we are doing actively in terms of the timing of the various grant payments we make, to ease some of the near-term cash-flow pressures.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Can the Chancellor clarify whether the emergency cash grant scheme is intended to help per shop for businesses with more than one premise in different towns, or is it just for the business as a whole?
Rishi Sunak
The detailed eligibility criteria are online and will be provided by local authorities. The grants of £10,000 are done on a per premise basis for businesses that are in receipt of small business rate relief and rural rate relief. There are larger grants for those in the retail, leisure and hospitality sector of up to £25,000. The Business Secretary has written already to local authorities, which are, as we speak, writing to businesses that are eligible for those grants to seek their bank details and start making cash payments as soon as is practically possible.
Mr Speaker
Before we move on to the urgent question, I should say that I am bothered that Members are rather close in some areas of the Chamber. If it is possible to spread out, I would be very grateful.
Self-employed Persons: Financial Support
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor to make a statement on financial support for the self-employed in the light of the covid-19 pandemic.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
We know that many self-employed people are in real distress, but we are working urgently to address this problem, and I say to the self-employed: we have not forgotten you—help is coming. But the policy and delivery are complex, and we cannot and should not rush to announce a scheme that gives rise to more questions than it answers. The Chancellor has held meetings this morning with representatives of the self-employed and will continue to meet them this afternoon.
It is important to remember that covid-19 is an urgent challenge to our entire economy, affecting workers of all types. It is essential that we respond swiftly, so that people can keep their jobs and businesses can carry on. That is the basis of our coherent, co-ordinated and comprehensive plan. It is a plan that gives those on the frontline the tools they need to tackle the virus, with all the support the NHS needs, backed up by an initial £5 billion fund for public services. It is a plan that puts a shoulder behind business with a statutory sick pay relief package for small and medium-sized enterprises, business rates holidays for all retail hospitality, leisure and nursery businesses in England, and grant funding for small enterprises, as well as support through Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ time to pay scheme. As of yesterday, businesses with cash-flow concerns are also able to access the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, offering up to £5 million for SMEs through the British Business Bank. For larger firms—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. It might be easier if Members pass notes down the line, rather than going round and speaking to everybody.
Steve Barclay
The coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, on which Members across the House have raised questions, is now available, offering up to £5 million for SMEs through the British Business Bank. For larger firms, the Bank of England is providing a new facility to help support liquidity.
I urge all Members of the House to continue speaking—as I know many are doing—to the business leaders in their constituencies and ensure they are aware that they are not alone and that help is coming. In this House, we are all standing behind business and everyone who works in it. To encourage businesses to retain staff, we are deferring VAT, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced the job retention scheme to facilitate that.
Taken together, this is a huge programme of support, and we will keep thousands of workers in jobs, but we know that there are thousands of self-employed people who have been wondering what the future holds for them. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already set out a range of measures in support. Sole traders and freelancers will be able to access the business interruption loan scheme as long as activity is channelled through a business account. We are also removing the minimum income floor for the self-employed workers affected by coronavirus so that they too can access universal credit in full. That is not only the standard allowance, but a wider package of support for those with children, disabilities or, indeed, housing needs. At the same time, the next self-assessment income tax payments will be deferred until January 2021, helping those who have set money aside for those payments with immediate cash flow. That means there is a package on tax, on loans and, more widely, through universal credit, to support those with that safety net.
Let me reassure everyone in this House and the self-employed people they represent that further help is indeed coming, but we have to make sure we get this right and that we target the right support to those who are most in need. The Chancellor will provide a further update on support for the self-employed in the coming days.
Sir Edward Davey
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for that answer. He knows that parties on all sides of the House have been supportive of the way in which the Chancellor and the Treasury have given support to businesses and to employees. But I have to tell him that the 5 million self-employed people across the country, who are in all our constituencies, are in real stress and are deeply worried. While we all understand that there are complications, the Government have to move as fast as possible to meet their concerns, because they are literally, in many cases, simply running out of money.
I want to say to those on the Treasury Bench that it is important we remember who the self-employed are: 80% of the 5 million self-employed are sole traders. They are our neighbours, our friends, our family. The vast majority are not wealthy people. They are cleaners, taxi drivers, plumbers, hairdressers; they are musicians, tutors, journalists; and they are builders, electricians and child minders. These people are literally running out of money now, and we have to support them.
Of course there will be stories about wealthy people who are self-employed, but they are the minority. If we look at the figures from HMRC’s own data, 36% of sole traders—the majority of the self-employed—have taxable incomes of less than £10,000 a year. That compares with just 15% of employees on incomes that low. We are talking about people on low incomes: 60% have profits of less than £10,000 a year. These people were struggling before the coronavirus pandemic, and they are now facing ruin.
I think that an urgent package of help is needed now, and it needs to be at least the equivalent of that offered to employees. While we all know the problems that the Treasury is facing, may I say to the Chief Secretary that if the package is capped as it was for employees, if it is temporary as it was for employees and, especially for the self-employed, if there is some sort of clawback mechanism if people are given money that they did not need, surely we can come together as a House and as a country to make sure these people get the support they need? It is not uncommon for the self-employed, when they do their annual self-assessment tax return, to have to pay money back to the Treasury. Surely, if money is given now so they can deal with cash flow—capped, in a temporary scheme—then that money can be clawed back the next time they do their self-assessment, if it turns out that they did not need it.
I honestly urge those on the Treasury Bench to move fast, and not to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. People need the money now: please act now.
Steve Barclay
The right hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the importance of timing and speed in this regard. He spoke about how that can be targeted and the fact that there are many very deserving causes within the population, but it is probably useful to draw the House’s attention to the fact that one in 10 of those who are self-employed are over state pension age. Over two in 10, according to the 2017-18 figures, were earning less than £2,000, which suggests that it was not their main source of income. Between one and a half and two out of 10 are already on universal credit. Some remainders will be quite well paid, such as law partners and so on, and some will be in employment and returning self-employment tax forms for part of their income in addition to their employment. The point is that the population itself is complex and we need to ensure that the measures are targeted correctly.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the mechanism. One of the themes that has informed the Treasury’s approach is this: what is operationally deliverable? That is one of the things we are working through. For example, HMRC does not hold people’s bank accounts, which is why the support the package for those in employment was through the PAYE—pay-as-you-earn—system. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out at Treasury questions, tax data is one and a half years old. Those are the issues we are working through. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that urgency is important—that is why the Chancellor is engaged on this—but we are seeking to target a complex population.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
Recognising the complexity of solving this problem, can my right hon. Friend give some indication of how quickly we can expect to have at least an interim solution in place for those who are desperate for help and desperate for clarity at this point?
Steve Barclay
For some within this population—not all—there will be some solution already through the £5 million loan that is available as of yesterday. That will not cover the entirety of this population, but, in accordance with the business needs of some who are self-employed, there is support. For some of the population—again, by no means all—there will be some relief through some of the measures the Chancellor set out on property and business rate relief, but part of the complexity of the target population is that different measures work for different groups. That is part of what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is working through, but I recognise the point my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) and others have raised. We do recognise the importance of timing on this issue.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Can I say to the right hon. Gentleman and other Members that no one is looking for a row over this? We are looking for a solution. The reason some Members became irritated earlier was the emphasis, in one of the Chancellor’s responses, on the rich self-employed. They are not the people who are contacting us. The ones who are contacting me at the moment are the plumbers and the hairdressers. Yes, some freelance artists and others are in desperate straits, but I do not think there is a Member who has not received representations. We are just looking for something we can go back with today to give them some assurance. We know how complicated it is, but we have to find a solution quickly. I urge the Government to at least set a deadline, so we can go back to our members and say, “By the end of this week, there will be a proposal brought forward.”
The other assurance that people want was raised by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey). If we can go back and say, “You will get the equivalent of the 80% or whatever that was offered to other workers,” it would lift people’s spirits that something was on the way.
Many self-employed workers, just like other workers, are having to sign themselves off sick. They do not have access to statutory sick pay—still. I have to say that asking people to survive on £94.25 a week is just an impossible ask. When the Secretary of State for Health was asked on television last week whether he could live on it, he said no. I agree with him. We need the level of sick pay raised for everybody if we are expecting them to choose not to work, and not have to choose between health and hardship.
Finally, in Treasury questions my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) raised a point about different categories of workers. I know that it is complicated, but we do have to consider agency workers. I have had many emails and telephone calls from people working in the construction sector who do not know whether they should be at work today, or whether they would be safe if they were. Let us use this opportunity to look at the exploitation by payroll companies and umbrella companies of people who in many instances are forcibly designated as self-employed.
We do not want a row over this; we want to work with the Government. In fact, Anneliese and I are happy to come and work a shift in the Treasury, if that is what Ministers want. [Interruption.] We might come up with slightly different solutions. We need this quickly and we need it to be effective as soon as possible.
Several hon. Members rose—
Steve Barclay
May I first welcome the constructive tone that the right hon. Gentleman has struck? His offer to come to the Treasury might contravene some of the recent social distancing requirements, but I appreciate the spirit in which it was made. He is right that we need to move at pace and to work together. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was involved in further meetings this morning, as he will be later today, as we work through how to take this forward.
The Chancellor was drawing attention to the complexity of the target population. I think that a number of Members would have concerns, not least as we look to the future, if we were subsidising some very wealthy self-employed people. I take the point that they are not the ones getting in touch with the right hon. Gentleman, but it is important that our approach is mindful of the target population.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of reassurance, which is a legitimate concern, and one shared across the House. I draw the attention of his constituents, and those of colleagues across the House, to the Chancellor’s comments this morning. We are working at pace on this and we recognise the issue being raised. I hope that provides reassurance, certainly in terms of an announcement, although the operation of any solution may take further time, as the Chancellor set out.
Considerable work is being done, but the population is complex. We are looking at the burdens of different delivery mechanisms, whether on the Department for Work and Pensions or local authorities, which have their own staffing pressures because of the number who are ill. That is why we are exercising flexibility in lots of other areas in order to reprioritise resources, but it is important that the scheme is deliverable and mindful of the other challenges we are dealing with.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
May I make a point from a public accounts point of view by urging the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to consider a system that is humane, rapid and, above all, simple? The Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions have traditionally been obsessed with complexity, targeting and clawback, but what we need is a simple system. About 40 years ago I suggested having a universal basic income to Mrs Thatcher, and I got an earful for my pains. But we need something like that, which could be rolled out very simply and claimed by taxi drivers, cleaners and those sorts of people, because rich people would not bother with it. So just get on with it, make it simple and do it now.
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend wants us to get on with it. I refer him to the meetings and the considerable work being done to allow us to get on with it. As a former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, he well knows that many policy ideas start with the simple but then the devil is in the detail of delivery. I recall many an interview that he has given to draw attention to simple schemes that were then less simple in their delivery. It is worth bearing in mind that a small number of self-employed people—a very small proportion—might be doing quite well in the current climate, while many others are suffering, but that is not what we are focusing on now. The question that we are seeking to address is how we target our measures at those who are most deserving, which is what the attention of the House is focused on, and we need to ensure that the scheme that is brought forward does likewise.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Years ago, I read in the newspapers that there was a red Ed in the House of Commons; I did not realise that it was the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh).
I, too, will try to strike a conciliatory tone in talking to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Obviously, there is very real concern. Like other hon. Members, I have been bombarded with emails from people who are self-employed. When this crisis is over, we should really sort out who is self-employed and who should be directly employed, but that is a debate for another time. Countries such as Norway, Denmark and Belgium have come up with schemes for the self-employed; is he looking at those international examples? Surely what works in those countries can work in the UK. There are 330,000 self-employed workers in Scotland, working in areas such as the creative industries, agriculture, forestry, fishing, construction, and as taxi drivers. Are the Government looking at increasing weekly sick pay from £94.25 to the equivalent of a week’s pay at the real living wage? Are they considering removing the lower earnings limit for qualification for sick pay to ensure that everyone can access it? Are they looking at ending the five-week wait for universal credit, so that the first payment is a grant—a real payment—and not a loan?
Steve Barclay
On the issue of advance payments and universal credit, the Chancellor has increased the standard allowance. That is not the total quantum that people will get; I referred earlier to those with children, housing needs or a disability, who would get more. We have also made changes to access, so that people can get payment quickly, from day one, without face-to-face meetings. Concerns about subsequent repayments have often been raised in the House, but clearly, the £20 a week increase in universal credit that has been announced eases some of the repayment issues; it means that there is more in the allowance with which to address the issue of repayments. There has been a significant increase in universal credit, in part to address those issues. There is some operational complexity around a shift to a grant system because of the way that the universal credit IT system has been set up. We have sought to address the concern to which the hon. Gentleman refers through the increase, and of course an advance can still be offered.
Changes have been made to facilitate statutory sick pay being paid from day one, and changes have been made in respect of employers with 250 or fewer employees; the Chancellor set out measures to support those businesses with those costs.
The hon. Gentleman made a point relating to what I said about simplicity in a previous answer. Let me clarify the point that I was making. The vast majority of people who are self-employed are suffering; we recognise that. We are looking at how we can design a scheme that addresses the operational challenge that Members have spoken about.
Let me give an example. Part of the merit of the scheme that the Chancellor set out on furloughing members of staff, which is, I think, for many people a new concept, is that it gave clarity about delivery of the scheme. In answer to the previous question and the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, we are looking at what is operationally deliverable quickly; what recognises other challenges in the Department for Work and Pensions and elsewhere; and what will not result in support going to a small proportion of people who should not be getting this targeted action, and instead allow us to focus it on the much larger cadre of people who deserve that help.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
In designing his scheme, will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury recognise that many self-employed people in the tourism sector have very seasonal businesses, so using February, for example, as a reference month would not be appropriate? Will he see what can be done to help recreational charter fishermen, who, because they pay harbour dues rather than business rates, have not been able to access the grant aid that their friends across the road from the harbour have been able to?
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend draws attention to the challenge that emerged from some earlier questions: the simpler the scheme, the less it accommodates often legitimate and deserving issues that Members raise on behalf of their constituents. I am very happy to have further discussions with him, but he will recognise the tension between simplicity and addressing all the concerns that colleagues raise.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Two of my constituents are musicians. One is in an orchestra, and the other is a freelancer. One will get 80% of his income paid, and the other will be on statutory sick pay. Surely, it would be better to have a system where one wealthy freelancer benefits but 100 do not go hungry.
Steve Barclay
I refer to my earlier comments. We are trying to target the support towards those who are in need, in a way that is operationally as deliverable as possible, mindful of the issues that have been raised. We also want to accommodate the other point that colleagues from across the House have raised, namely that we must ensure that those who have legitimate needs are not excluded from the measures.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will Ministers consider suspending the application of the loan charge for the period of this emergency, thus stopping the hounding of the self-employed people who were the subject of an important debate in this place last week?
Steve Barclay
I can provide a degree of reassurance to my right hon. Friend that the self-assessment has been deferred from July to August. That is one of the areas where the Chancellor has taken action to address concerns.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Many of us, up and down the country, depend on sole traders for jobs around the house. People in many communities that experienced flooding are expecting others to come to their homes and do work for them. How on earth are those households supposed to say, “We cannot have you helping us out and repairing our homes?” They are desperate for plumbers, electricians and so on. Those electricians, those plumbers and the owners of those properties want to do the right thing. What is the advice of the Government?
Steve Barclay
Without straying into individual cases, the key advice from the Government is to follow the medical advice that was set out following the Prime Minister’s statement and updated on the Government website. That sets out the advice to workers, including what is safe to do and what is essential.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
In its unprecedented support for employed workers, the Treasury took a fairly generous overarching approach. I urge the Treasury—I am not the only one saying this; it represents the mood across the House—to take a similarly broad approach to benefit the majority of self-employed people who will need support, accepting that certain people may get support even if they do not quite need it.
Steve Barclay
The Treasury is looking at those issues in the design of the scheme. We recognise that the vast majority of self-employed people face very considerable challenges, and we are mindful of the urgency that goes with that.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
More than 400 self-employed sole traders and freelancers have contacted me over the past 24 hours, and many of them have already lost their work because of this crisis. As well as echoing others’ calls to introduce support for them as soon as possible, can I ask the Minister to ensure that such measures are backdated, as in the job retention scheme, to help to address the disruption that has already been caused by the covid-19 epidemic?
Steve Barclay
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about backdating. The Treasury has brought forward a range of measures, and one of the challenges to date has been that it is not always understood what has been announced and what is already available. I draw attention to the fact that we are deferring income tax self-assessments, which will not need to be paid until January; we are supporting people through the welfare system with the measures that I announced earlier, including on contributory ESA; we are increasing universal credit and working tax credit by £1,000; we are suspending the minimum income floor for 12 months; we are increasing a three-month mortgage holiday for those in difficulty; the self-employed will be eligible to receive support with their tax affairs through time to pay; the business interruption loan scheme will be available for some self-employed individuals, up to the £5 million limit; and we have delayed IR35. Members of the House can assist our small business community, and particularly the self-employed, by drawing attention to the measures that have been announced. We in Government also stand ready to do that through a comms campaign.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I know that my right hon. Friend is working night and day to help businesses, and to help people stay in work. I am incredibly grateful for all the support he has given me as I respond to the self-employed in Wealden. The decision to take out a loan is proving to be quite an anxious one for the self-employed, if that is the only thing on the table. I will read out an email from Anna, a self-employed wedding photographer who has had to give up work, and who is going to try to find work elsewhere:
“I am loath to take any…loans offered, as there is no guarantee that future work will be able to take place because we have no idea how long this pandemic will last.”
I ask my right hon. Friend to take into account Anna’s dilemma before making any announcement concerning the self-employed.
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the pressure
and decisions that Anna and so many self-employed people are facing at this time. I draw attention to the fact that the loans are interest-free for 12 months. One of the key themes we are very conscious of is that it is a health emergency that is impacting on our economy. These were viable businesses before that health emergency arose, and they will be viable businesses after we have overcome it. The question is, how do we bridge the gap? How do we support Anna and others through this period? The interest-free loans are not the only measure; I have just drawn the House’s attention to other measures that are available, and I urge Anna and others to take advantage of them.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I appreciate the difficulties in coming up with these arrangements, but I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that small traders are simply applying for universal credit, blocking up the universal credit system, because they are desperate for money from somewhere. That is causing a problem for the Department for Work and Pensions, so delay does not get the problem to go away. People do not wait; they just try to find something else, which causes a knock-on problem.
Steve Barclay
I accept the concern the hon. Lady raises, but I think she would equally accept that this is an unprecedented challenge and that staff in the DWP and elsewhere are working heroically to address the increased volumes. The best way for all of us to address this issue is through wider support for the economy as a whole. That is what was behind, first, the £30 billion of fiscal measures announced by the Chancellor at the Budget; the further announcement of the £350 billion, including £330 billion of loans, and the wider package last Tuesday; and the further measures announced by the Chancellor on Friday. That is on top of the measures the Bank of England has taken—for example, reducing base rates, and the £200 billion of bonds. A range of measures have been taken to support the economy and to reduce that blockage, but I absolutely accept that the numbers have increased, and we are reprioritising work in the DWP to assist with that.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
My rural constituency has one of the highest concentrations of self-employed people in the country, so while I and other Conservative Members thank my right hon. Friend for the timely and unprecedented measures he has come forward with, I add my voice to the growing consensus across the House for measures to be extended to the self-employed.
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend speaks with considerable business and financial experience, and he will know the cash-flow issues and the challenges that many of the businesses in his constituency face. We absolutely hear his message, just as we do the message from Members across the House, and that is why we are moving at pace to address them.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Further to the point I raised at Treasury questions, which was echoed by the shadow Chancellor, the newly under-employed must be supported further. One of my constituents is a self-employed taxi driver with no work, due to the lockdown. His wife and four children have underlying health conditions. Any universal credit application would mean their tax credit ceasing. A jobseeker’s allowance application would mean having to prove that they are seeking work and engaging with their accountant. Will the Chief Secretary tell them how they can possibly put food on the table and pay their bills?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman speaks to a real concern and a real issue, but I draw attention to the fact that one of the challenges is to communicate what support has already been announced by the Chancellor. To give an example, a family renting in Sheffield with two children would be eligible for around £1,750 a month in support—far more than the £94 per week, if we take account of additional things such as housing and children’s support. It is about what package of support is available, and the Chancellor has already announced considerable measures in that regard.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend said. He acknowledged that the vast majority of self-employed people were being impacted. If he makes sure that whatever help is given is taxable, we can claw back any money that is overpaid to those who are doing well. However, what self-employed people are looking for is a clear commitment today that whatever scheme is set out is of a similar magnitude to that for employed workers. If the Chief Secretary can say that, it will give people confidence to borrow, knowing that they can pay the money back. That will go a long way towards solving the problem.
Steve Barclay
As I have said, the Chancellor held meetings with small business leaders this morning. He is having further meetings on this issue today. He is very aware of the concerns raised by my right hon Friend and other Members, and we continue to work at pace on this issue.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I am sorry that the Chancellor is not here, but may I ask the Minister to pass on to him that the self-employed people contacting me are not wealthy individuals? They are individuals such as Andrew Brown, who I raised last week—a self-employed graphic designer whose income has disappeared. They are taxi drivers. They are small catering companies. Unless action is taken now for these individuals, not just to relieve the hardship they are facing, their businesses will no longer be in existence. My fear is that we will generate unemployment among these people for a long time to come.
Steve Barclay
I agree with the first part of that. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the vast majority of these people. I have made that point repeatedly. I referred earlier to the fact that the target population has different elements, but the vast majority of those who are self-employed face enormous challenges. We absolutely hear that, and I accept that. On his second point, we have taken a number of measures, but we recognise that more is needed. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is meeting leaders on this issue today to look at what further measures we can bring forward.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
May I say that I do understand that this is difficult? If it were easy, the Chancellor would have announced it last Friday with the rest of the package. The self-employed people I represent just want a sign; they just want some hope and an indication. I think they have had that today from the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor, but may I make a suggestion? For self-employed people and all other people right now, if they cannot get the same in, they have to send less out. The Government worked magic last week with the mortgage companies, which seem to be falling over themselves to offer mortgage holidays, but all the other fixed costs that our constituents face—utilities; insurance premiums; car finance; council tax bills, which landed on the doorstep last week; and even, for some, a business improvement district levy due next week—are still there. I wonder whether there is something the Minister can take back to the Treasury, perhaps with help from the shadow Chancellor, on those sorts of fixed costs, because they are dragging people down at a time when they have a lot less coming in.
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is right that there is a range of costs. As I say, we are looking as part of our support at what action can be taken. He can see, as an illustration of that, the action that has been taken on mortgages and in support of renters—both for mortgage holders directly and in terms of the buy-to-let market. Measures have been taken, but we stand ready to look at further measures.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The local economy in Brighton and Hove is overwhelmingly dependent on the self-employed, so I cannot overstate how urgent it is that we have action on this. I do not know whether the Minister gave a deadline when he spoke to his colleague earlier, but if he did not, will he please tell us that we will have action by the end of the week? Universal credit is not a fair option for many freelancers, because it means they have to delve into savings that they have put aside because they do not have pensions. We are going to push them into greater insecurity right now if we cause them to have to rely on that instead.
Steve Barclay
As I said in my opening statement, the Chancellor is meeting on this today and we hope to bring forward proposals in the coming days.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I welcome that the Treasury is working hard on supporting the self-employed. We must remember that these are local freelancers. They are mobile hairdressers, childminders, freelance driving instructors, photographers, musicians, IT consultants and home-based travel agents. They have lost all their income. Can the Minister confirm that the package for the self-employed, freelancers and sole traders will be announced by the end of the week?
Steve Barclay
I refer to the answer I gave a moment ago. We are actively looking at this and we hope to bring forward proposals in the coming days.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The way around the problem that the Minister, and the Chancellor before him, identified of giving money to people who do not need it was given to him by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey). The money can be recovered later. Do not let that concern about a handful of people get in the way of putting the scheme in place and deny desperate people, who cannot put food on the table, money they need right now.
Steve Barclay
As the hon. Gentleman’s earlier question in Treasury questions suggested, that is not the sole consideration. It is a question of what the operational delivery issues may be: for example, we do not hold details of people’s bank accounts, so how would we do it? It is how we roll this out, but we recognise his wider point that there are immediate issues for many self-employed people. That is what we are actively working on, and that is what my right hon Friend the Chancellor is engaged on in further meetings today. As I said in my previous answer, we hope to bring proposals forward in the coming days.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
My right hon. Friend mentioned earlier the business interruption loan scheme. Will he confirm that all self-employed people will have access to it and that they will not have to give personal guarantees? Will the Government widen the scheme to include institutions such as OakNorth and Aldermore, which are currently excluded from eligibility?
Steve Barclay
We are looking into that, but it is available as of now. It goes up to £5 million and my understanding is that it does not require personal guarantees. If it is any different, I will come back to him on that point.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
A constituent in East Fife runs a mobile catering business, providing a service to both private and public events such as festivals. Having no fixed premises means that they will not benefit from the support announced so far, and the relaxation of planning rules that other food outlets can benefit from to do home deliveries is also an issue. They are also struggling, like many others, to access business interruption insurance. The independent mobile catering sector could be utilised to support and provide sustenance for our key workers. What amendments to the measures will the Chief Secretary consider to support that critical sector?
Steve Barclay
I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is looking at a range of options in terms of how we adapt to the change of circumstances. For example, many pubs and restaurants had significant food orders, so we are looking at what can be done there. There is food that would have been exported previously, but that may now be difficult, so there is a range of measures in terms of the food supply within which mobile caterers will have a role. I know that my right hon. Friend is looking at those issues.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
In my constituency I have a large number of families where one partner works in the national health service and the other is self-employed. The children have been sent home from school and there is no one to look after them, because if the self-employed parent does not work, they do not get paid. Can my right hon. Friend look urgently at a scheme? Also and specifically, council tax bills are due on 1 April—next week—and people are worried, particularly in London, about how they will be able to pay. Can council tax bills be suspended?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend will recall that the Budget included targeted action specifically on council tax, with a £0.5 billion package to allow targeted support on council tax. I think he is drawing his attention to a slightly wider issue of concern, particularly where one member of a household works in the NHS as a key worker and one is at home, but of course that draws attention to the fact that this is a complex scheme that we are seeking to design. Those are the sort of issues we are working through.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I have so many self-employed workers in my constituency, including more than 1,000 taxi and private hire drivers. They will understand from what has been said this morning that the Government have good intentions, but they will respond to me that good intentions do not pay their bills. Given that there will be a lag with the new system coming in, what more can the Government do in the meantime, through offsetting tax bills and also encouraging banks to be more generous with free overdraft facilities to help families through this? Let us not forget that we all bailed out the banks when they needed it, so maybe it is time for them to do something now.
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman is right in terms of the role of the banks, and a clear message has been sent by the Bank of England Governor about the importance of banks showing forbearance at this time. That applies to things such as credit card debts, but also he will be aware that, for example, for many of his constituents in a London constituency, their rent is a significant issue, as well as the measures we have taken on mortgages. We have looked at what we can do to assist on some of those fixed costs, but the banks have had a clear message from the Governor about the need to show forbearance.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I commend those on the Treasury Bench for the calm way they are dealing with this unprecedented situation, but clearly something needs to be done for the self-employed. One of my constituents has made three points. First, they will be disadvantaged because they will not get the topping up that an employer might give an employee. Secondly, there will not necessarily be an immediate return to work, and finally seasonality may affect their income, which of course it would not for an employee. Will those three very good points be taken into account by those on the Treasury Bench?
Steve Barclay
They are good points, and again they draw attention to the conflict between simplicity and addressing the various specific issues that Members have raised. One of those is seasonality, which obviously has an impact. That is why the design of the scheme is more complex than perhaps meets the eye, but we are looking at the issues and we intend to bring forward proposals in the coming days.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Like many other Members, I have been contacted by many self-employed people in my constituency who are welcoming of the support already offered, but in need of the absolute guarantee about what is still to come and quickly. Going into the shop to buy essential groceries for feeding their family and telling the checkout supervisor that the Chancellor says that they can pay for it soon is not going to get them their shopping, so how soon can we give that certainty?
Steve Barclay
We hope to bring forward proposals in the coming days. I absolutely appreciate the concern that the hon. Gentleman is quite rightly raising for his constituents. This does not address his specific question but, in part, that is why we have been strengthening the safety net of the welfare system, and why the main measures we have taken are to support the economy as a whole. That is the best way to get viable businesses, including the self-employed, back and earning money once we have dealt with the health emergency. We are looking at the specific issue of the self-employed, and we intend to bring forward proposals in the coming days.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
While many of our supermarket shelves are empty at times, a food source currently going to waste is fish. Most of our fishermen are self-employed, but they have seen their markets collapse, because pubs and restaurants are closed and overseas markets are closed to them. Will we look for a bespoke package to support our fishermen through this time and, in particular, to find ways to get their fish sold to people who could buy it to feed their families?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and one that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is aware of. I am sure that he will be happy to have further discussions with him in the coming days. My hon. Friend is right, the pub and restaurant trade having collapsed, there is not only food that would have been provided to them, but capacity in our fishing catch, because of the quota rules.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I know that the Minister has been sent out with a new three-word slogan from the Government’s three-word slogan unit, namely, “Help is coming”, but may I remind him that the previous one was, “Whatever it takes”? That is what the Government pledged, and it should apply to self-employed people too. He just said that, in the coming days, there will be some further clarity. There is fear across the House that we might not sit next week, and that the Government may be getting to the point where they do not have to come back to the House to account for what they are doing for the self-employed. What assurance will he give us that whatever “Help is coming”, it will constitute “Whatever it takes” and will be equivalent to what is being offered to employed people?
Steve Barclay
I am very happy to make it a six-word slogan, if the hon. Gentleman prefers: “Help is coming”, and we will do, “Whatever it takes”. As to whether the House will sit, that is not an issue for the Government, as he well knows as an experienced Member of the House. Whether the House sits—whether Ministers are called to answer questions—is a matter for the Chair, and not for Ministers. In fact, we had an urgent question last week, and we have one here, so that suggests that Mr Speaker is keen to ensure, quite properly, that Ministers are held to account.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Many self-employed have already taken the right decision and socially distanced themselves—the hairdressers who have not gone into care homes, the taxi drivers, the driving instructors—but they are looking for some reassurance from my right hon. Friend that they have done the right thing and will not be penalised for it.
Steve Barclay
Again, that is quite right in terms of the self-employed, which includes many hairdressers, but my right hon. Friend will also be aware of measures we have already taken—they will support many hairdressing businesses—such as the business rate relief and the grants. The £10,000 grants targeted at the 700,000 smaller businesses are, again, part of the package of measures to apply to some of that population. However, it is clear from many of the questions that populations are not tightly set, and that there is a degree of overlap and underlap, which is what we are working through.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Many farmers are self-employed, often on family farms, with a husband and wife team, or a son or daughter. The Minister and others in the House will know that lambing is taking place now, and the first lambs will be sold in July, but the prices for lambs and beef cattle are the lowest they have ever been. What help will the Minister and Government give to farmers who face financial ruin at this time?
Steve Barclay
As I see from the farmers in my own constituency, there is considerable demand from for UK-produced food. I am very happy to continue to work with the hon. Gentleman, and we have often had conversations about farming issues in the past. I am happy to continue those conversations, alongside those with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, about how we support our farmers, but I think their products will be in great demand moving forward.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
May we please have further clarity on how builders, plumbers, electricians and plasterers should be conducting themselves at work or, indeed, whether they should be at work at all? There seems to be some confusion as to whether they should be on site or in premises. A leading builders merchant contacted me this morning to say that it had to shut up shop because it feared that the collection of the builders outside its premises were failing to socially isolate, and it was concerned about what that would mean. It seems that there has been some confusion over the past 24 hours, so I wonder whether the Minister can clarify the advice for those crucial people.
Steve Barclay
I am very happy to draw my right hon. Friend’s concerns to the attention of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care so that precise medical guidance can be given to address the concern he raises.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I am sorry that we have to come to an end. There will be disappointment, but if we had helped each other, nobody would have missed out.
British Citizens Abroad: FCO Help to Return Home
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on what measures he plans to introduce to assist British citizens abroad to return home.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. We have FCO staff in all our 280 posts in 168 countries and 10 overseas territories, and they are working round the clock to respond to this global pandemic. Over the last three days, we have seen 80 countries place restrictions on their borders. That situation is unprecedented in scale, and our overriding priority now is to assist the thousands of British travellers who need and want to return home, bearing in mind the hundreds of thousands of UK nationals who may be travelling at any point in time.
Following last week’s decision to advise against all but essential travel globally, last night I changed our travel advice again because of the rate of new border restrictions. We strongly advise British people who are currently travelling abroad who live in the UK to return as soon as possible, where they are still able to because commercial routes are still running. Where commercial options are limited or prevented by domestic restrictions, we are in close contact with the airlines and local authorities in those countries to overcome those barriers to enable people to return home. With my ministerial team, and indeed across the diplomatic network, we are engaging with numerous Governments to keep commercial routes open, particularly in transit hubs. The Department for Transport is working closely with airlines to ensure that travellers can rebook or find alternative routes home.
I know that hon. Members in all parts of the House will have had constituents contact them in relation to particular countries, so with your forbearance, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on just a few of those countries. I spoke to the Peruvian Foreign Minister at the weekend, and we have agreed special arrangements for flights to return British nationals later this week and for Peruvian nationals to get back to Peru. I spoke to the Singaporean Foreign Minister this morning, and we have agreed to work together to help those stranded to get back to their homes in the UK. Given Singapore’s role as a transit hub, this commitment to work with us to enable UK nationals to transit via Singapore is particularly important, not least for those currently in Australia or New Zealand. In New Zealand, the high commission is working with airlines, airports and, indeed, the Government to keep flight routes open and to reopen some that have closed. In Australia, the high commission is doing the same. It has also opened a register of British nationals hoping to return to the UK and is supporting British nationals via phone calls and walk-in appointments at the high commission, as well as updating social media pages.
For those trying to get home in other countries, we are providing as much practical advice as is physically possible. We would first advise all travellers to take a look at the travel advice online, which is the best and most comprehensive source of information and is updated in real time. If people are in need of urgent assistance, they should call our embassies and high commissions. They will be automatically connected to our consular contact centres, the global centres based in Malaga and Ottawa—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) will allow me. We know that there has been considerable pressure because of the restrictions being placed in countries around the world and the rate at which that has been done, with either limited or no notice. We doubled our capacity. We are now doubling it again to deal with the surge in demand. We are helping to reduce travel costs by encouraging airlines to have maximum flexibility on changing return tickets. Where people are in real need, our consular teams will work with them to consider their options. As a last resort, we offer an emergency loan.
More broadly, the United Kingdom is working alongside our international partners to deliver our international strategy, which rests on four key tenets: to provide resilience to the most vulnerable countries; to pursue a vaccine; to keep vital trade routes and supply chains for foodstuff, medicines and other things open; and to provide reciprocal support for the return of our nationals who otherwise are at risk of being stranded. These are the right priorities. We are working day and night to keep British people safe at home and abroad.
Caroline Nokes
There is an MPs’ helpline that rings with no answer. Emails are acknowledged but not replied to. Embassies are closed, with staff flown home days ago and doors shut to our travellers. Guidance was issued by the Foreign Office yesterday advising British tourists to return to the UK where commercial flights are available, but they are not available. They are either banned entirely, are trying to transit via countries where no layovers are permitted, or are priced at tens of thousands of pounds and via airports that are expected to close imminently.
What help exactly is my right hon. Friend’s global network offering? He knows that the situation is dire, but he knew that last week when he stated in this House that
“we will look and liaise with the airline operators…to make sure that, where there are gaps, we can always provide as much support as possible for vulnerable or stranded constituents.”—[Official Report, 17 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 809.]
There are gaps. My constituents stranded in Argentina, Honduras, Venezuela, Australia, New Zealand, India, Peru and Egypt have much in common: an inability to get through to consular services on the phone, a standard acknowledgement email telling them to contact their tour operator, airline or insurer, and an increasing inability to find accommodation. Hotels are shutting, flights are cancelled, borders are closed and there are no routes home. Many are hours away from large airports in countries operating curfews. Those in Australia and New Zealand are looking for routes via Singapore, so I welcome the comments my right hon. Friend made about working with Singaporean allies, but to them, it looks like his words of last week were empty. I ask him today, as I asked him last week, to explain how he is working with airlines with unused planes parked at airports around the globe to bring our people home. He must get the process fully under way. The vision of British citizens sleeping rough on the streets of Caracas is not a good one.
Dominic Raab
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. In relation to embassies, she said that they have been closed, but actually, a very small number of posts have had to be closed. What we have found—this is not a choice that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has made; it is a direct result of the restrictions that have been put in place by Governments in those countries—is that they have had to work remotely, and indeed, a large chunk of the consular staff work from home. That is not a decision that we made—it was forced upon us—but I reassure her that in all the jurisdictions that she mentioned, we are trying to respond to what I hope she will understand, given her experience, is an incredibly fluid situation. Some of these restrictions are being imposed with no notice or limited notice, and that is very difficult, of course, for our constituents, but we are making sure that we provide them with as much advice and support in real time as we can.
My right hon. Friend mentioned Peru. As a result of the work of the FCO, and having spoken to the Peruvian Foreign Minister, we now have agreement for flights to come out of Peru. There is, of course, a challenge because not everyone is based in Lima, which has the international airport, so we also have to try to work out how we get UK nationals travelling in more remote parts of the country to the capital. We are actively working on that. We have several flights lined up, but we also need to work around or try to overcome the restrictions that have been imposed.
I hope I have explained what we are doing in Australia and New Zealand. My right hon. Friend is right, and I thank her for her remarks, about the critical importance of keeping the international hubs open, and not just in relation to Singapore. We are concerned about other international hub airports. We must try to keep those open. Tomorrow, I will lead the discussion among the G7 Foreign Ministers on this and our wider international strategy for tackling coronavirus. This is extremely difficult. We have hundreds of thousands of British nationals abroad, but I can reassure her that, from the call centre to the support they are receiving at post, we are doing everything we can to give them as much support as swiftly as possible.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and I thank the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for securing it. This is a medical crisis, not a wartime one, but she certainly gave the Foreign Secretary some friendly fire, and she spoke for us all in the concerns she expressed for the hundreds of thousands of British nationals stranded overseas.
Since the House last discussed these issues, we have seen some progress, especially in the planned provision of repatriation flights for British nationals stranded in Peru, and I thank the Foreign Office for its work on that, but as today’s media coverage shows—indeed, as is shown by the dozens of emails, calls and letters that Members from all parties are receiving from Indonesia, New Zealand, Morocco and Pakistan, where I understand no outbound flights are now available—this is not a crisis that can be resolved one traveller, one airline, or indeed one country at a time. It is a crisis affecting British nationals in every continent, many of them accompanied by young children, many of them with worsening health conditions, and many of them running out of money and in danger of losing their accommodation.
They are all in desperate need of reassurance from the Government, so I hope the Secretary of State will take the chance today to clarify the statement he made yesterday, which was reported across the media as an instruction to British nationals abroad—indeed, this is a direct quote from him—to
“come home…now while you still can.”
Despite the headlines, the Secretary of State obviously meant that for individuals who have the option of taking a commercial flight to Britain, but does he accept that that is now very much the exception, not the norm, and that for hundreds of thousands of British nationals the option he highlighted is simply no option at all? Will he make it absolutely clear that the Government remain committed to helping all British nationals; that embassies will have telephone lines available so that they can get the support and advice that they need, whenever they need it; that the Government will find a flight to get them home, no matter how long it takes; and that they will be guaranteed continued accommodation in the meantime?
Does the Secretary of State have a plan to ensure the safe care and medical assessment of British cruise line passengers and their current health assessment? Is he negotiating with countries to ensure their safety during quarantine? Is he arranging safe travel home for all who are stranded? How is he keeping in touch with worried citizens abroad and their families here in the UK?
What discussions has the Secretary of State had with his foreign counterparts about the extension of visas, which may expire during the lockdown in other countries? What action is he taking on airlines to stop the profiteering that is going on, with inflated prices for flights home? In other words, will he send a simple message to those British nationals stranded overseas: “You are not in the last chance saloon; you are in safe hands, and this Government will get you home”?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman makes some important points, and we certainly want to give as much reassurance and as much advice as possible, but he will know—he has worked on the international brief for a while—that we have in this country a great tradition of travelling abroad, and that even if we take expats out of the equation we are talking about hundreds of thousands of people at any one time. Given the national restrictions that are being imposed, at pace and sometimes without notice, it is very difficult to give cast-iron guarantees about the situation. What we can do is lead internationally, in the way I described, with the G7, which we are doing tomorrow, and work as hard as we can with all our international partners.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the progress in securing the return home of UK nationals; I can tell him that we have already repatriated more than 1,000 British nationals, and also 254 non-British nationals, where we have had capacity, from 26 countries—places as far-flung as Wuhan over to Cuba.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Morocco in particular. We have facilitated the return of thousands of British nationals via commercial routes, with 49 commercial flights bringing 8,500 passengers home—in fact, it is even more than that now.
The hon. Gentleman is right that we cannot do it alone, which is why I am spending any moment that I am not in this House talking to Members hitting the phones, talking to Foreign Ministers and working our way through the problems. We have talked to the Peruvian Foreign Minister, as I mentioned, and I spoke to the Singaporean Foreign Minister first thing this morning.
The hon. Gentleman rightly raised the issue of accommodation, because where people are travelling for two to three weeks, that is ultimately the issue for them. In Spain, where a large number of Britain nationals are holidaying, the original Government decision in Madrid was to close all hotels today. I spoke to the Foreign Minister of Spain and we secured the flexibility whereby they would not be kicked out on to the streets, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. We have also secured flexibility to ensure that the airlines can come in and, given the large number of Brits in Spain, we can secure those flights home. On the detail of the travel advice to which he referred, we have given that advice based on the rapid rate of new restrictions that Governments and jurisdictions are placing, sometimes on internal travel, which will inhibit people’s ability to get to the airport, but more often on external flights coming in and out.
The hon. Gentleman also asked, rightly, about cruise ships. To the best of my understanding, on the basis of advice from the Department for Transport, no further cruise ships are hitting the water, so we are dealing with the stock of existing ships. We have successfully returned 684 people, including 669 British nationals, from the Braemar cruise ship, which was in the Caribbean, struggling to find a port of entry. We did that via Cuba. That is a good example of reaching out to—[Interruption.] I thought that would get the Leader of the Opposition excited.
Dominic Raab
I am happy to say that we work with all our partners across the world; we would not allow dogma to get in the way of securing the rights of British nationals. I am proud that we have that flexibility and I am grateful to the Cuban Foreign Minister for arranging it. We also had close to 3,000 British nationals on the Azura, docked in Bridgetown, and they arrived back in the UK over the weekend without incident. We had 355 British nationals on the Norwegian Spirit, and they took a flight back to the UK on 23 March. That is the progress we have made, but the hon. Gentleman is right to highlight cruise ships that were travelling after we changed the travel advice for such ships. We have a specific eye and focus on making sure that Brits on board those cruise ships get back safe and sound.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Let me help the House by saying that I am thinking of running this until 2.15 pm.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the progress he has announced on the Peru cases, and thank him and his team for the discussions we had last week about the need for a repatriation plan for my young constituents who have been stranded there. Given that so many of us across the House have numerous constituents stranded in different countries and given the problems they are all facing in getting timely, correct information from embassies and consulates, will he impress on all the ambassadors and high commissioners in these countries that we expect them to be leading the effort? We understand the constraints that the embassy staff are under in these countries, but we are expecting the people at the top of these organisations to be leading from the front and helping to put together plans for all British citizens stranded overseas.
Dominic Raab
I thank my right hon. Friend for that. He is absolutely right in what he says. I can reassure him that every one of our networks takes this incredibly seriously. The ambassadors and high commissioners are apprised of their leadership role in securing the return of UK nationals or otherwise protecting them as best we can. I say honestly to the House that there has been a challenge because of the spike in calls—I have been absolutely straightforward with the House on that—and we have doubled the capacity and we are looking to double it again. We want to make sure that that first point of contact—the pastoral care that the consular officers provide—is there, and then further detail, the technical advice, can be provided. He mentioned Peru and I can tell him that the first flight has capacity for about 200 passengers. Obviously we would want to prioritise the most vulnerable. He mentioned his constituents. We will have a final manifest shortly, before the flight departs tomorrow. Given the numbers in Peru and, as I mentioned, the issue of the remoteness of some of them from Lima, the capital, and the airport, we are, of course, going to have more flights. We hope to confirm the details of all that in due course. I can also tell him that 1,000 UK nationals have registered with our embassy in Lima, so although there is this idea that we have not got a system in place in Peru, we have actually responded very swiftly.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Since the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) left Government, I find myself agreeing with her on a regular basis, and I commend her for securing this urgent question.
As with everything else at the moment, I appreciate that this is a challenging and fast-moving situation, but we all have constituents stranded abroad who are worried sick about being able to get home, many of whom have no further funds to support their continued stay if that were to prove impossible. Many of us have constituents stranded in Peru, and I am grateful for the Government’s commitment on that. I have constituents stranded in Australia and New Zealand who have made every effort, as the Foreign Secretary has asked, to get home but have been blocked by cancelled flights, internal travel restrictions and international travel bans. Two of them are NHS doctors, and some of them have health issues, including asthma and a chronic respiratory condition, and are running low on medicines. I am sorry to say this, because I know that the service is hard-pressed, as the Foreign Secretary outlined, but they have all been particularly scathing about the lack of consular support available.
Can the FCO commit to providing clarity about the situation directly to UK citizens abroad who are worried and isolated, and about support for returning home, or support from UK embassies to get accommodation and access to healthcare that they need, should that not be possible? I strongly urge the Foreign Secretary to support citizens to get home, whatever it takes. In addition to our own citizens, will he commit to ensuring that all foreign nationals living in the UK will be treated with compassion and flexibility should they find themselves in need of essential treatment and care in this country, particularly if they are not able to imminently return home? Will he pass on the Government’s support to concerned embassies that are trying to look out for their citizens?
Dominic Raab
The first thing to say is that we have all had constituents contact us to say that they feel vulnerable or are stranded, and I think we all understand how anxious people are in that situation. The No. 1 thing we want to do is provide some certainty. That starts with the point of contact, which is why I mentioned the call centre. It also relates to the missions. There have been some mistaken, if not outright flawed, suggestions that embassies or high commissions have closed. The buildings may have been restricted because of the measures taken by domestic Governments and local authorities, but those embassies and missions—with a very small number of exceptions, all of which are subsidiary missions —are all open for business, with people having to work remotely.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the cost of flights. We are working closely with airlines and travel companies to ensure that as many people as possible can get commercial flights home in a rapidly changing and fluid situation, and we are encouraging airlines to be as flexible as possible when people have to change their return flight.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Australia and New Zealand. I have set out in some detail the support that is being provided, but given the new restrictions that the Governments have introduced and the question hanging over transit hubs, I appreciate that there is acute concern for people there. We have had to rapidly respond to that. I have given information to the House on what Australia is doing. The high commission is open. UK nationals abroad can call the embassy or register their details. I have an email here about how that can be done, which I can give to Members on both sides of the House. I can tell the House that more than 1,700 British nationals have registered their interest. In relation to New Zealand, in addition to the work being done, we are—as I think I mentioned in my opening remarks—working to find accommodation for those who want to know that they at least have a place to stay, if they cannot get a commercial flight out.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I have a number of constituents who are key workers, including in the NHS. What specific support can the Foreign Office offer to ensure that those individuals can come back, so that they can support the efforts against covid-19?
Dominic Raab
We are providing support right across the board. If there are key workers abroad, that just highlights the imperative of getting people back. I have to say to my hon. Friend that we are prioritising the most vulnerable, but where we can get commercial flights out of those jurisdictions, we are looking to have enough capacity to get all of them out. I hope that that provides him and his constituents with some reassurance.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I understand what the Foreign Secretary is saying about embassies and consulates being open, but the reality is that, when constituents are calling and calling and getting no answer, they assume they are not open because they cannot get any response. May I raise Bali in particular? British news reports that 150-odd British nationals are stuck at the airport after Emirates cancelled flights and said they would have to stay in Bali for three months. I tried to raise that on the Foreign Office line and the covid-19 line. The covid-19 line said nothing could be done and those people would have to remain in Bali. Surely the Foreign Secretary could think about commissioning a repatriation flight for all those British nationals stuck in Bali, including two of my constituents.
Dominic Raab
I am very concerned about the situation in Bali. The embassy office in Bali is open and has been reinforced from Jakarta. The consular team is in direct contact with UK nationals there. Flight options have obviously been curtailed in the way the hon. Member described. The Emirates route is closed, but operational routes are still available via Jakarta.
There are something like 6,000 British nationals in Bali—that is an estimate—and in fairness 2,000 of them are long-term residents. We are working with London, Gulf posts and the transit hubs in the way I described to try to free up many of those links to enable those people to get home.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary is making efforts to rescue people abroad and bring them home, but is he aware that many high commissions and embassies are simply not responding to British people in desperate need of help? The British Government have an absolute duty to deal with that without delay. Will he please use all the Foreign Office’s staff to ensure that they are there to look after people in their hour of need?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend and give him this reassurance. There are only three posts that we have drawn down in their entirety: Wuhan and Chongqing in China, which are subsidiary posts, so they can be backed up from Beijing; N’Djamena in Chad; and Goma in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. That was done as a last resort, thinking about the situation there. We are ensuring that, in those jurisdictions I described where Governments have taken action, we have as much capacity, albeit working remotely. We have doubled call centre capacity and we are looking at doubling it again. I hope I can reassure him that we are doing everything we can to ensure that constituents of all Members on both sides of the House have a point of contact. Again, I stress that posts and the Foreign Office network are trying to deal with an unprecedented situation in terms of scale and the rapidity with which restrictions are being imposed.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
As others have said, the reality on the ground does not correspond to the picture being painted by the Foreign Secretary. I have constituents stuck abroad and I am particularly worried for David and Ann Watts, who are stuck in the Dominican Republic after British Airways cancelled their flight. He has serious health conditions and has run out of medication. Flights are available from the Dominican Republic to European Union destinations, but they have been told at the airport that there is no guarantee they will be accepted into those countries, which is not my understanding of the situation. Will the Foreign Secretary speak to other European Governments and to the airlines concerned to make it clear that we should be mutually supporting each other to repatriate our citizens from wherever they are?
Dominic Raab
We are regularly talking to European Governments and I am speaking to my opposite numbers in Europe and across the world on a regular basis. I will look into the case of the Dominican Republic. Of course, it is less well travelled than some of the other routes, which is part of the challenge, but that just means we need to redouble our efforts.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly raised the fact that we will not get the hundreds of thousands of Brits stuck abroad back home by just lobbying airlines or engaging unilaterally on actions that we can control. I reassure him that I will lead the conversation on behalf of the UK at the G7 meeting, which will take place tomorrow remotely through virtual media, and that the four prongs of the strategy are: helping the most vulnerable countries; pursuing a vaccine; dealing with the economic response; and, critically, ensuring that we improve international collaboration on returning our nationals. That is true for me, as it is for the Peruvian Foreign Minister—we talked about Peruvian nationals here who want to get back home. We must ensure that we keep vital air links and, in particular, regional and international hubs open to drive that effort forward. I will lead the conversation for the UK in the G7 tomorrow.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
It is important that we put on record the enormous thanks of everyone in this House to the FCO staff who are working in the crisis centre and across the country, and who have brought thousands of Brits back to the UK in the last few weeks. Nothing matters more to Foreign Office staff than protecting British nationals, and I know that because I have worked at the Foreign Office in this crisis. Let us remember that it is not easy. The Malaga team took 28,000 calls in one day a few Fridays ago. As Foreign Office staff, we are spat at and abused when trying to help British nationals to come home. These staff are working in tough situations, so I caution any Member suggesting that there are easy solutions. Will my right hon. Friend kindly reassure the public that, as he has said, when an embassy is closed it is, in fact, not closed? Will he also confirm that the safety of our staff is important, and commit to scrapping the cost of calls to consular lines?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for paying tribute to consular staff and FCO teams, and the work that they are doing, and for the general points that she has made. I can reassure her that embassies are being kept open wherever possible in order to give British nationals who find themselves stranded or in a vulnerable position the support that they need, even if they cannot physically access the embassy or the high commission building. I can go further than that and tell her that we have spent the last fortnight reprioritising the work of the Foreign Office and our missions, so that the lion’s share—all but the most essential alternative business—is focused on the consular effort. We are limiting the drawdowns, in the way in which some hon. Members have suggested, to those that are required because of vulnerability or safety, and reprioritising them to meet the challenge of providing the consular services that we need.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I have constituents stuck in Peru, Australia, New Zealand and Spain, and I just wonder whether the Foreign Secretary might be able to use Members of Parliament as a way of disseminating information. Doing so might mean that multiple constituents are not phoning FCO lines but coming to us for information. I have to say that the current communication flow has not been acceptable. I have one constituent who is stuck in Peru, but in Cusco, not Lima. They want to get from Cusco to Lima so that they can get home. Can the Foreign Secretary try to ensure that we as Members of Parliament are involved, in order to take some of the load off the Foreign Office and help our constituents?
Dominic Raab
Yes. Cusco is a very good example of the challenge in Peru, but we believe that we have the capacity. We have the political agreement of the Government in Peru; we just need to ensure that the military, who run the airport, deliver on that. In Cusco and elsewhere across Peru, 1,000 UK nationals have registered with the embassy to ensure that we are in contact with them. This is a logistical challenge, because I think—from memory—it is at least a day’s drive from Cusco to Lima, so in all likelihood for most people the journey will require an additional internal flight, and we are working very hard to secure that. The hon. Gentleman will know the challenges involved, but certainly the more that he and all hon. Members can disseminate the contact points and information about signing up for real-time travel advice, the better; that would be helpful.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I commend the Foreign Secretary for his statement. At present, I have constituents stuck in Bali, Peru, New Zealand and on the Coral Princess. May I just highlight a couple of issues? Commercial flights in New Zealand are currently collapsing like a stack of dominoes. With the Coral Princess currently docked in Rio, it also looks as if my constituents will not be able to disembark and will be on that ship for another two and a half weeks.
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I have addressed the situation in New Zealand at some length. We are of course looking at that as a matter of urgency. The big thing for getting people back from Australia and New Zealand is going to be the international hubs; I hope that he has been reassured by the reassurances that I secured from the Singaporean Foreign Minister first thing this morning. My hon. Friend also asked about the Coral Princess cruise ship. Our embassy in Brasilia is working with the Ministry there and the cruise operator to secure permission for the ship to dock at Rio in order to take advantage of the onward flights available to London. Some British nationals have already got places on board confirmed flights. We are doing as much as we can logistically to support them, and to get them and the other nationals home.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I have 32 constituents who are stuck in eight countries—that we know of. I am concerned that some of them are running out of money. What support might be available, how should they access it and what can my caseworkers do to assist?
Dominic Raab
I do understand the situation in which people find themselves: they planned to be abroad for a certain period of time and have run out of cash. Given the scale, the Foreign Office cannot provide a direct subsidy or grant. Our priority is to try to ensure that people can get back home and, in extremis, if they have run out of money, we are willing to offer temporary loans to facilitate that situation, so we are doing everything that we practically and realistically can.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) about the Coral Princess, may I urge the Foreign Secretary to check on what is happening with this vessel? The information that I had from Ken and Doreen Hodge on board is that they are heading for Fort Lauderdale in the US, and they fear that they may then be required to stay for 14 days in isolation before coming home. Will he make a particular point of checking what is happening to the Coral Princess and the people on board?
Dominic Raab
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I think that I have described the latest data that I have, but, of course, we are tracking the cruise ship in real time. It has been a challenge on that bit of coastline and, indeed, in that region, to get onward flights and to get permission to dock in order to take advantage of them. None the less, we are tracking the situation. I track the cruise ships in real time every day. I can also reassure the House that we have changed the travel advice on cruise ships, and my understanding is that no further cruise ships are setting sail, so we are dealing with the stock that is at sea and making sure that we do everything we can to get everyone home. I have already explained the success that we had with the Braemar, the Azura, and the Norwegian Spirit. We are looking to do the same for those on the Coral Princess.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I have constituents trapped in New Zealand, Bali, the Philippines and Peru. Some have understood only the message that their local embassy is closed. Others are still being told to contact their airline or their insurer, when, at this point in time, the Foreign Office is the only place that can help them. Even in Peru, where I understand that good work is taking place, my constituents are dismayed at the lack of communication on the internal travel arrangements that need to be made to get them to Lima. May I urge the Foreign Secretary to look again as a matter of urgency at the quality of communication that his Department is providing to people who are very, very distressed?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Lady can certainly help in that regard, because I can give her the special email address that the embassy has set up to make sure that all those who need to register for flights can do so. I do not think that the situation is quite as dire as she suggests; 1,000 British nationals have already registered, but flights are limited. We are working to make sure that we have enough flights to deal not just with UK nationals in Lima, but, critically, with the logistical challenge of getting to Lima in time for those flights those who are not necessarily in Lima, close to the main international airport, but in other parts of the country.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I acknowledge the work of Foreign Office staff who have already helped some of my constituents return safely to this country. However, I do have a constituent who is stuck in Bali. They are recovering from cancer and have a hospital appointment at Addenbrooke’s on Tuesday. I urge my right hon. Friend to press the airlines, including Emirates, to give more information to passengers who are struggling to find out whether flights exist and whether they will be taking off.
Dominic Raab
Yes, I certainly will take on board all of those concerns.
I have updated the House on what we are doing in relation to Bali. Flight options are still available, but they are decreasing hour by hour, and we are working not just with the Government and the transit hubs but with the airlines to try to keep as many options available as possible. Of course, in a case such as the one my hon. Friend described, we will do our utmost to get people on board the first available flight.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Like many others here, I have a number of constituents trapped abroad, including a group from St Andrew’s University who are currently trapped on the Honduran island of Utila with no medical services. I was advised last night by the FCO that commercial flights from Australia and New Zealand were still available, but with worldwide hubs closing, that simply is not the case. Although I appreciate that this is challenging, and I am grateful for the update, I probably expected a bigger list. People contact their MP when they have no other options, so what measures are in place to ensure that the info that we are given as MPs is accurate and up-to-date and that we are not causing unnecessary distress to people at this time?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady and greatly appreciate the way in which she approached her question. Junior Ministers, and I as Foreign Secretary, are always available to provide as much detail as possible. We can always be contacted via our Parliamentary Private Secretaries. We are aware of the particular situation with the St Andrews group and we are in touch with the university about them. We have also made the Honduran authorities aware of their situation, so I hope I can reassure her that that has not slipped off the radar for either the Foreign Office or Ministers, and that we are doing everything we can to cater for them and for the others who are in Honduras.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I have a number of constituents abroad in difficulties, and that number is increasing as the travel situation gets worse. May I also place on record my thanks to the Foreign Secretary, his ministerial team and his PPSs for the prompt attention that they gave to cases I raised last week? I know from my experience as a Minister that everybody in our posts abroad and in the Foreign Office, from the heads of missions down, will be working their damnedest to get our people supported and home. They should know that they have our support as they work very hard to do so.
Dominic Raab
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and for his championing of his constituents, particularly when they are in a vulnerable situation. It is important to pay tribute to the incredible work the consular teams are doing. We are doing everything we can to reinforce them in terms of manpower and resources, from call centres to posts, and they are doing an incredible job. It is not just British nationals; when I talk to my interlocutors around the world, I hear that even some of the smallest and poorer countries have nationals doing the same thing. Given the number of Brits travelling abroad, the consular teams are putting in a great shift, but the reality is that we will do everything we feasibly can to increase that capacity and provide as much help and support as we can to get Brits back home.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Given that we are still in a transition period with the EU, can the Foreign Secretary clarify whether UK nationals can access flights operated by EU countries? I understand that a number of them are operating flights and it might be possible and easier to get back to the UK from European countries rather than from other continents.
Dominic Raab
In general, nothing in the transition period regime is hampering the repatriation effort. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that, given the number of Brits in European countries, we also have more airline capacity coming back. It is probably easier to pick up the phone to some of our European colleagues, who we know very well. The key thing is the bilateral dialogue: the calls I am making, and those that our embassies and junior Ministers are making hour by hour—not even day by day—to cover all the particular circumstances. The biggest problem is perhaps not some of the cases we all know about, such as people in Spain and Peru. Once we are on the case we can put a plan in place to get those nationals home. What catches out both British nationals and missions abroad is the fast-changing situation in smaller jurisdictions or those to which people travel less.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Italian-owned company Costa Crociere has a number of cruise ships in and around the Mediterranean, in particular the Costa Victoria, which has literally hundreds of UK citizens on board. Unbelievably, they are going full steam ahead to dock at Venice. Of course, everyone on board is concerned about how they will get home from Venice, whether they will be admitted to Venice, and whether they will be infected with coronavirus as a result. Will my right hon. Friend make representations to ensure that these ships dock not in Italian waters but in other countries that will offer a safe haven and the chance to get home?
Dominic Raab
I shall certainly look into that particular case. The key thing for all cruise ships right now is to find a port of call where they can dock safely and to get those people a cordoned corridor to a repatriation flight as soon as possible. That has tended to be the basic two-point mechanism that has worked in getting British nationals back home, but I shall certainly look into that case.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I also have constituents stranded in Vietnam, Australia, Bolivia and Costa Rica, but I want to ask about the travel advice the right hon. Gentleman issued yesterday. Where UK citizens abroad have an underlying health condition and feel it would be better not to travel home and are able to stay, perhaps because they are with family, for example, does his advice potentially invalidate their insurance if they choose to stay and subsequently become ill?
Dominic Raab
I cannot comment on individual cases, but I understand exactly the hon. Gentleman’s concern. That is why, when we have changed travel advice, we have always said that people have to take into account the circumstances and look at the pros and cons of staying put if they have accommodation, financial resilience and medical support, as opposed to returning home, depending on how quickly and easily that will be to do. Of all the various things I can do, I do not want to give medical advice.
In terms of insurance, the standard terms of insurance tend to follow the travel advice rather than the other way around. What we cannot do—there are legal reasons for this—is base our decisions on anything other than the risks to British nationals abroad.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
I put on record my thanks to Foreign Office staff in the UK and around the world, as well as the FCO team, who are doing an incredible job in very difficult circumstances. I am reassured by what my right hon. Friend has said about the conversations he and his team are having with other Foreign Ministers around the world. Is there more we can do not only through the G7, but the G20, which has a number of key transit hubs within its membership?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend, first, for the credit he has given to the consular team at the Foreign Office, but also for raising the point of the G20. We also have a G20 leaders meeting, which will be virtual and remote, coming up. It is critically important that we make sure we work not only with the G7, the G20 and within the EU, but with all international forums, not least because of the broader range of countries involved and the ability as a result to secure routes back via hub routes and, in particular, transit routes. I have mentioned Singapore, but there are many others we can talk about, particularly in the Gulf.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State’s Parliamentary Private Secretaries, who have been enormously helpful. He may be aware that in Australia, British embassy officials are telling people to contact their Members of Parliament, so there are two things I ask him to raise. First, the travel insurance companies are providing no help and are refusing assistance to people who have been stuck abroad. Secondly, there is the exploitative nature of some airlines. The cost to leave Australia with Qatar Airways has ramped up to 10,000 Australian dollars. Will the Foreign Secretary condemn that practice and take those sorts of practices up with airline companies?
Dominic Raab
First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tribute he paid to FCO staff. I can tell him that we are constantly talking to the airlines about limiting the additional cost expense put on travellers. Of course, the airlines are under acute pressure right now, with the number of jurisdictions to which they can fly limited. The high commission has set out the details so that people who are concerned can register so that they can be informed about the flights that will be organised to take them home. We have more than 1,700 British nationals who have already registered. That works, so the key thing is to disseminate those contact details. If he needs them, I am happy to provide them.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Office team for their help in getting constituents home from Vietnam and Morocco. A couple of young constituents of mine have just made it safely to Lima for their flight home later this week, but I still have constituents stranded in Mauritius, India, Australia, Bali and New Zealand. Will the Foreign Secretary and all his team continue to work hour by hour through the night to secure the airline capacity we need to get those constituents home?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I thank him for his kind words. With the effort to get people out of Morocco, where we have worked with the airlines in what was a model and template for the future, we managed to get 8,500-plus passengers back home. We will seek to replicate that in all the jurisdictions he has mentioned.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I have been contacted by constituents stuck in India and Pakistan because of the closure of the airports there, but all around the world thousands of planes and pilots are underemployed or, indeed, even laid off. Is there not a real role for Government to mobilise the aviation industry and the airports and, indeed, to co-operate with those other Governments to actually get the airlift working to bring our people home?
Dominic Raab
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Transport Secretary is already engaged in those discussions with individual airlines. There is a practical, legal question of whether those airlines can get into the relevant countries and jurisdictions, and that is why I will be raising the matter at G7 level tomorrow.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary has mentioned thousands, and in one reply he said that hundreds of thousands of UK citizens are currently abroad. Could he provide the House with a more definitive estimate of the number of UK citizens abroad? He will recall that last week I pressed him on the use of the Royal Air Force in extremis. What further discussions has he had with Defence Ministers on deploying the RAF when required?
Dominic Raab
We do not regularly have a register of UK nationals travelling abroad. I checked in response to his earlier question, and we are obviously engaged with the Ministry of Defence, but the approach we are taking is to keep as many commercial routes open as possible. We have already arranged or worked with our international partners to charter flights in extremis. That is the surest way to get home the number of people who are currently travelling as opposed to being resident abroad. The range is in the hundreds of thousands, so we are talking of a scale that is unprecedented.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Peru have not only closed their international borders, but are considering imposing internal travel restrictions. Under such circumstances, can the Foreign Secretary reassure us that UK nationals who find themselves under lockdown will be supported to get from remote towns and villages to the main transport hubs?
Dominic Raab
In relation to Australia and Peru, there is a possibility of commercial flights, but of course they are limited. The reason that there is a possibility is that we have been working closely with those Governments and the airlines to make sure that there is a link out for UK nationals to avoid their being stranded. We are doing the same with New Zealand, and we will continue to put our shoulder to the wheel to get all those people, who might otherwise remain vulnerable or stranded, back home.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for all he is doing. Like other colleagues, I have constituents all around the world, but the bulk are in Spain. Will he tell the House exactly how we will get them home as soon as possible?
Dominic Raab
In relation to Spain, where we have probably one of the largest numbers of UK nationals travelling and resident abroad, my hon. Friend will know that all sorts of domestic restrictions have been put in place, as has been the case across Europe. There are also restrictions on travel in and out, and indeed there was an announcement that it would close the hotels, which was due to take effect today. I have spoken to the Spanish Foreign Minister to make it clear that, as we pursue that effort with the commercial airlines to get the Brits back—that will take some time, because of the volume—no British national should be kicked out of their hotel as a result of the new regulatory restrictions being put in place.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My 78-year-old constituent David Keating is stranded in Brazil with his wife and daughter. He has an underlying heart problem and requires medication, and he has only nine days’ medication left. He has had four flights cancelled already. The consulate is telling him that other European countries are arranging flights for their citizens. Please will the Secretary of State intervene with other European countries to help him and his family get home?
Dominic Raab
I will check, but it does not seem to me to be correct that others are pursuing options that we have just sat on our hands and avoided. That is not the approach. I can tell the hon. Member that, in relation to Peru, we will be the first of the European countries to have a flight coming home, on the current projection. In relation to Brazil, of course we will be working actively, as we are in all the South American countries where we are particularly concerned about the restrictions put in place, to get British nationals—including his vulnerable constituent, who I understand has a particular medical condition—back home as soon as possible.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for all the work he is doing in returning Wolverhampton residents back home. I have two major concerns in relation to India and Pakistan. I have people there with medical conditions who cannot get the medication they need and cannot return home. Will he do everything in his power to return my constituents back to Wolverhampton?
Dominic Raab
Yes, I certainly will. I understand the difficult situation that my hon. Friend’s constituents find themselves in. India and Pakistan have had logistical challenges that are separate from the ones I have mentioned in the House, but I assure him that we are well aware of the particular challenges, and we are working day and night to try to overcome them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
My constituent Dean Lawson is stuck in New Zealand. He is hoping to come back through Australia, but that has not been confirmed. The Secretary of State has mentioned that Singapore was a hub on the way home. I am not here to embarrass anybody, but I understand, as of an hour ago, that Singapore is no longer an option. If it is not an option, may I ask him what happens with those people who cannot go to Singapore? Where do they go?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is certainly right that the Singaporeans have introduced fresh restrictions. That is why at 8 o’clock this morning I was on the phone to the Singaporean Foreign Minister. We talked about the need to act reciprocally, and the understanding was very clear that we would work together to make sure British nationals can get back via Singapore—not just those travelling in Singapore but those who use it as a transit hub.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I have a couple of constituents stuck in New Zealand who are intensive care unit doctors. For obvious reasons, how can the Foreign Secretary help, please?
Dominic Raab
We are working to get all the Brits in New Zealand back home. I have updated the House in some detail about the measures we are taking. If my hon. Friend has any problem getting his constituents the advice that the high commission is providing, please get in contact with me and we will make sure that we personally make that happen.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) talked about poor communication. That is leading to constituents contacting their Members of Parliament. They are rightly worried, and individuals here are worried, about loved ones abroad. Yesterday afternoon, the MPs’ hotline did not work when my office contacted it about a constituent stuck in New Zealand. Will the Foreign Secretary give an assurance that, if we are given email addresses or telephone numbers at the Foreign Office to raise individual cases, they will actually work?
Dominic Raab
The email addresses all work. The right hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the challenges the call centre faces, but it is not a question of it not working; when a whole string of Governments announce restrictions, demand goes through the roof. We understand that. We have doubled the capacity—I have mentioned that already—and we are looking to double it again so that we can deal with this issue. I hope that he will be mindful not just of the scale of British nationals abroad but of the rate of new restrictions that Governments—
Dominic Raab
The right hon. Gentleman says, “No”. Well, then he is staring the challenge in the face and not quite appreciating it. The rate with which changes have been imposed over the last few days has made it an unprecedented challenge, but I am confident that we will rise to it.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I have 18 constituents stranded overseas who have contacted me for help getting home. Some of them are running out of money or medication. I recognise the extraordinary circumstances that we are in, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, his Ministers and consular officials for the work they are doing. One constituent, Brianna Lewis, who is in Cusco, has lost her passport and has no travel documents. She cannot contact the consular offices to get a replacement passport or emergency travel documents. Will my right hon. Friend say what someone in those circumstances should do? She is worried that if she turns up to the airport, she will not be able to get on the plane.
Dominic Raab
I suggest that my hon. Friend contacts me or one of the junior Ministers and we will look into that case directly. Obviously, that creates something of a challenge, but not one that should be insurmountable.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I have around 20 constituents affected, one of whom is in Peru with his Irish partner Niamh, who has lived and worked in England for around 19 years. Last night they got an email from the FCO saying that it will try to help him but that it does not think it will be able to help her. At this hugely stressful time, they face being separated, in spite of the fact that Niamh was advised by the Irish embassy that their best chance of getting out together was to go via the UK Government. I wonder whether there is anything the Foreign Secretary can do to help those constituents.
Dominic Raab
That is a plight that quite a few people have found themselves in. When we have talked to the Peruvian authorities, we have been clear that we will bring back UK nationals and any foreign national dependants who are with them. We have had excellent co-operation with the Irish authorities. I have spoken to Simon Coveney in the last few days. We are always willing to share the burden of getting UK nationals, Irish nationals and European nationals back home, including their dependants, who may not be of the same nationality. I will look into that case.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
This morning I received a couple of emails. One was from Lucy Kelly, who is stuck in Australia facing a 140% hike in air fares to get back to the UK. The other was from Kamaljit Dhesi, who, like many families from Warwick and Leamington, is stuck in India due to the lockdown there. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must either introduce some sort of price cap for these carriers or exercise some sort of requisitioning powers to get our people back?
Dominic Raab
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s suggestions, and the spirit in which he makes them. In relation to India, if there is a full lockdown we will need to negotiate with the Indian Government to facilitate access for commercial or charter flights. In relation to the other situation, we are working closely with the airlines, and that is work that the Secretary of State for Transport is taking forward. We want to get to a situation, given the huge pressure that the airlines are under, where we can provide stability but also the reassurance that repatriation or return flights can take place. This is an urgent priority for the FCO, and we are working closely with the Department for Transport to secure it.
Covid-19 Update
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on covid-19. The spread of coronavirus is rapidly accelerating across the world and in the UK. The actions that we took yesterday are not actions that any UK Government would ever want to take, but they were absolutely necessary. The goal is clear: to slow the rate of transmission in order to protect the NHS and save lives. Our instruction is simple: stay at home.
People should only leave their home for one of four reasons: first, to shop for basic necessities, such as food, as infrequently as possible; secondly, to exercise once a day, for example a run, walk or cycle, alone or with members of the same household; thirdly, for any medical need, or to provide care or help to a vulnerable person; and fourthly, to travel to and from work, but only where it cannot be done from home, and employers should be taking every possible step to ensure that staff can work remotely. Those four reasons are exceptions to the rule. Further guidance is available on the gov.uk website.
I want to be clear that where people absolutely cannot work from home, they can still go to work. Indeed, it is important that they do so in order to keep the country running. Key workers, for example in the NHS and social care, pharmacists and those in the medicines supply chain, should go to work, unless they are self-isolating because they or someone else in their household has symptoms. We will be publishing guidance later today to explain the steps that employers must take to ensure that employees are safe, including making sure that there is a 2-metre gap between workers wherever possible.
In addition, all non-essential shops and community centres are closed as of today, and gatherings of more than two people in public must stop. These measures are not advice; they are rules. They will be enforced, including by the police, with fines for non-compliance starting at £30 but up to unlimited fines.
I want to update the House on the shielding that was introduced yesterday. We are writing to up to 1.5 million of the most vulnerable people in the UK to advise them that they will need to shield themselves from the virus in the coming months. We will provide targeted support for all those who need it so that they have the food supplies and medical care they need to make it through. Guided by the experts, we will look at the evidence and continually review the effects of the measures.
We are engaged in a great national effort to beat the virus. Everybody now has it in their power to save lives and protect the NHS. Home is now the frontline. In this national effort, working together, we can defeat this disease. Everyone has a part to play. I commend this statement to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State, as always, for advance sight of his statement. As he knows, yesterday we called on the Government to move to implement the enforcement of social distancing measures, so the Prime Minister was quite right last night to call for people to stay at home.
May I put to the Secretary of State a few quick questions? The virus thrives on inequalities. It is the most vulnerable, without financial security, who are especially at risk. I therefore urge him to consider abolishing prescription charges for the duration of the outbreak, especially for those with conditions such as asthma. We are very mindful of the mental health implications of asking people to stay at home, and we are also deeply concerned about the potential for domestic violence to increase. What support is available on those two fronts?
We also need clear and unambiguous advice around which workers can and cannot go out. The Opposition would call for just key workers to be able to go to work. We have seen Sports Direct, for example, insisting that its workers turn up today. We are hearing stories about warehouses insisting that agency workers turn up and about construction sites not putting in place social distancing measures. That is putting workers at risk, and it is putting the lives of us all at risk. We need clear enforcement; if we are telling people that they will be fined for leaving their house, why are we not fining employers for insisting that their employees turn up to work when they should be staying at home? My right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor will be putting more points to the Government about income protection in the debate later today.
Let me quickly turn to personal protective equipment. I understand the efforts the Government have made, but there are still NHS staff saying that they have no access to adequate PPE. We still have hospital chief executives expressing concern that they do not have access to FFP3 masks, that they are not getting the visors and sanitisers they need on time and that, when they do get masks, they are different from the previous masks, so staff have to be retrained. I urge the Government to move heaven and earth to get the PPE our staff need to the frontline. We also need PPE in social care. We are beginning to see outbreaks of covid-19 in social care homes. What support is in place for the residents of care homes, and when will we get the PPE that we need into the social care sector?
Enforced social distancing is welcome—we called for it—but in many ways it is a blunt tool without ramping up testing and contact tracing. That is how countries such as South Korea have managed to suppress the virus. We are still testing only around 5,000 people a day. We do not have enough community testing. We are still not testing enough NHS staff. As the World Health Organisation has instructed the world, test, test, test.
Leaked emails today suggest that, on Sunday, the Government were asking to borrow research institutions’ testing kits—we have called for that, and we do not disagree with it—but the emails also said that the Prime Minister had said:
“there are no machines available to buy”.
Many of our constituents, and indeed NHS staff, will be asking why we did not procure machines and kits sooner.
On intensive care capacity, there are reports today that the ExCeL centre will be turned into a field hospital of 500 beds and that staffing ratios for intensive care are being relaxed. We understand that, given the staffing demands we face, but if we are setting up more field hospitals, will the Secretary of State tell us what oversight there will be? That change also means that more of our specialist staff will be stretched further—we understand why—but what guidance will be in place? Will the Secretary of State update the House on how many intensive care beds are now open, and how many more will be opened; how many ventilators we have, and how many more will be purchased; how many beds with oxygen we have; and what the current extracorporeal membrane oxygenation capacity is?
Will the Secretary of State quickly update the House on an issue that has emerged overnight about access to abortion care, as a result of some of the implications of the Coronavirus Bill? Will he assure the House that women who want access to abortion care will continue to be able to get it?
Our constituents are worried; our constituents are fearful. I hope the Secretary of State understands that when we put these questions to him, we are doing so because we want the national effort to defeat this virus to succeed.
Matt Hancock
I will go through the answers to the questions the hon. Gentleman reasonably asked. He asked about the most vulnerable. A programme of work is under way to ensure that those who need support because they are staying at home—especially those who are victims of domestic violence—get that support. It is incredibly important and difficult work, but we are doing what we can in that space. He also asked about prescription charges. Only around a fifth of people pay prescription charges, so those who are the least able to pay already get free prescriptions.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Sports Direct. Sports shops are not essential retail, and therefore they will be closed. I have seen a bit of the noise that has been going on around today about Sports Direct in particular. I want to be absolutely clear that sports kit is not essential over the next three weeks, so we will be closing Sports Direct, along with other non-essential retail. He also asked about fines for corporates as well as individuals—absolutely, those fines are available if that is necessary.
The hon. Gentleman asked about protective equipment, and he is quite right to do so, because as we discussed yesterday, having protective equipment for staff on the frontline—especially those in the NHS and social care, but also in other frontline services—is very important. We are moving heaven and earth, and the military involvement is ramping up the delivery of that equipment. He asked specifically about social care. I am glad to say that the current plan is to get protective equipment to all social care settings by the end of this week, and then we will have to keep going. We have put in place a hotline. If someone needs PPE and they are not getting it, they should call the hotline so that we know where the difficulties are in getting PPE to the frontline, and we can respond to those calls and get it to them. I feel that very strongly.
The hon. Gentleman asked about testing. As we have discussed many times, we are ramping up testing as fast as we can, including buying millions of tests. My team are currently buying these tests, which we will make available as quickly as possible. He asked about there being no machines ready to buy. I do not recognise that at all. I have not seen any leak, and I would not want to comment on a leaked email—certainly not one that I have not seen. It is true that we are bringing testing machines together to provide a more efficient testing system, and I am grateful to the universities that have put these testing machines into the system. This is a national effort, and they are playing their part. We are also buying machines where we can.
The hon. Gentleman asked about staff ratios, which have been publicised this morning. It is true that we are having to change the standard staff ratios for delivery of certain types of procedure, including ventilation. The reason is that we cannot easily train somebody to intubate a patient and put them on a ventilator. We are training those who we can train to the standards necessary, but this is an incredibly difficult task, and it is therefore safer to have the doctors who are trained to do it and experienced in doing it doing it to more people, with more support staff than in normal circumstances. That is absolutely necessary to respond to the quantity of need, because this is a very specialist part of the NHS and of medicine that suddenly has much bigger demand than could ever have been envisaged outside a pandemic scenario.
I pay tribute to the staff who will be working much more intensively and who are putting their vital skills at the service of the nation in order to save lives. I am grateful to all those who have worked with the royal colleges to ensure that we get these ratios right and stretch the capabilities we have as far as we safely can in the circumstances. Finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned abortion. We have no proposals to change any abortion rules as part of the covid-19 response.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I thank the Health Secretary for the superhuman efforts he has taken to resolve the issues around PPE in the last week. The evidence is that we are in a much better situation now than we were a week ago. He will not mind if I follow up what the shadow Health Secretary said about testing. The concern is that we appear to be testing on a daily basis virtually no more people than we were over a week ago, when the commitment was to increase the daily number of tests from 5,000 to 25,000. Given that this is a vital part of the success of the suppression strategies in South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong, can he give us an estimated date when we will get back to routine covid-19 testing in the community of all suspected cases? Even if that is three or four weeks away, a date means that there is a plan, and without a date, people will not be confident that this really is the plan.
Matt Hancock
Although I was not in the Chamber, I heard the comments that my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee made about this yesterday, and he is right to push on this issue. I am not going to give him a date today, because we are in the middle of buying the tests that are needed, especially the new tests that have just come on stream. I have been able to give him the update that we have now purchased millions of these tests, which will arrive in the next days and weeks. I will be in a position to give him a more concrete timetable, and I will make sure he gets that as soon as we can make it public.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I extend our continued thanks and gratitude to all who are working around the clock to help keep us all safe, and to look after us and the most vulnerable in our communities. I also extend our thanks to the millions of people who have already acted on the Government’s advice to stay at home. The importance of that cannot be stressed nearly enough, because that is what we all need to do to protect our friends and families and the vulnerable people in our communities. It is deeply unfortunate that some employers, such as Sports Direct, seem to be acting in an entirely irresponsible manner, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments about that.
In looking to see what more we can do, will the Secretary of State outline when he expects all frontline NHS staff to have the PPE that they need? We need to do everything we can to support them, given the extent of the risks that they are facing. How many additional ventilators have we managed to procure since the Prime Minister put out the call to manufacturers? Are the Government planning to accept the EU’s offer to share in central procurement of ventilators, testing kits and PPE?
Scotland has a number of qualified doctors and nurses who arrived in the country during the refugee crisis. Will the Secretary of State commit to talking to the Home Secretary about what possible actions could be taken to relax the existing rules, to allow those qualified medical professionals to support the country that they have adopted as their home?
In the light of the outcome of the Keeling study, which was published by the Government on 20 March, is the Secretary of State ensuring that we have rapid and effective contact tracing? The review showed that such action could reduce the number of people infected by each case from 3.11 to 0.21, and that would be a significant step towards greater containment of the current outbreak.
Finally, I stress to the Secretary of State the need to impress on other Cabinet members the urgency of finding support for the self-employed, who are still waiting to find out what position they will find themselves in. We know that people with no financial backing come under pressures that may have an impact on their health, which would put further pressure on the system.
Matt Hancock
On the last point, there was an urgent question about exactly that issue. It really is a matter for the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman is right that contact tracing is incredibly important, and the amount of contact tracing that we have done is one of the reasons why we have managed to be behind other European countries in the curve. At this stage in the epidemic, it is not possible to have contact tracing for everybody, as we can when there is a very small number. We are looking at how we can do that better and enable individuals to contact trace, including by using technology.
The hon. Gentleman asked about refugees. I do not know whether he was in the Chamber yesterday, but that subject was brought up and I said that I would look into it. I will get back on that as soon as I can.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the number of ventilators. We started with around 5,000 and we now have more than 12,000, which we have bought. We have also made the call to arms for manufacturing capability to be turned over to ventilators, and that has been very successful.
I strongly endorse and support the backing of the Scottish Government and the SNP in the UK-wide approach to getting the message out to everybody that the most important thing anybody can do is stay at home.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I commend the Secretary of State for his heroic efforts in our defence so far. Given that the proscription on travel is now legal and not simply a recommendation, will he give us some clarification on what is meant by the care exemption, and confirm that it does not apply just to professional carers? At the moment, and since special schools have been closed in the last week, a great deal of support has been given from one family to another, for example in providing respite care for special needs children. That is very important and the people doing it are often being very responsible about self-isolation, which they are already applying to their families. Will that continue to be possible, and will my right hon. Friend enable it in future?
Matt Hancock
I will say three things in response to my right hon. Friend’s questions. On special schools, one of the carve-outs in the closure of schools was keeping open schools for those who are vulnerable, including those with special educational needs. The Bill includes a power to enable us to move from that position, but we do not propose to exercise it unless absolutely necessary. The position therefore is that if someone wishes to send their child to a special school, that is fine. It was one of the specific carve-outs. In the same way, if a key worker needs to send their child to school and cannot look after them at home, schools are available.
My right hon. Friend asked about care. I want to make it clear that for people who are volunteering in response to covid-19 and those who are caring, even if their responsibilities are unpaid or informal, they are okay to do that and should do that. They should stay more than 2 metres away from others wherever possible, but that has to be a practical instruction, because of course we need to care for people. As I said in the statement, travel allows for caring, and I want to make it clear that volunteering in the response to covid-19 is a legitimate reason to travel. For example, the increasing numbers of volunteers in the NHS are important. Although it is not paid work, it is work in the national effort to respond to covid-19.
My third point is that the Patient Safety, Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Minister is sitting next to me and close to me, because she has recovered and all the evidence shows that people cannot catch covid-19 twice, at least not in quick succession. I welcome her back to her place.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Following on the volunteering theme, I know that the Government have already made arrangements for schools and given advice that volunteers may still go in for certain purposes. Will the Secretary of State expand that to cover organisations such as Samaritans, which uses volunteers to travel to call rooms? Will he make it clear that it is acceptable for volunteers to do that?
Matt Hancock
Yes, it is acceptable. It is right that volunteers in that sort of work, for example Samaritans, should travel to do it.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
The Secretary of State will know that, following the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday, all tourism and leisure providers have closed. I commend those in my constituency that closed before the advice was given, in order to protect people. However, those who take lots of deposits are obviously being pressed by our constituents to return that money, and that may put them in financial distress, but equally our constituents need the money back given their financial circumstances. I accept that the Secretary of State may not have an answer for me now, but will he at least commit to take the issue away and see whether an answer is forthcoming, perhaps with the support of the Treasury?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I will get my right hon. Friend an answer from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Independent Food Aid Network oversees the work of many food banks, and I listened carefully to the Secretary of State’s comments about volunteering. That organisation is worried about the closure of community centres and churches. Will he reassure it that its valuable work and volunteers will be covered by the guidance?
Matt Hancock
We will set out the breadth of the guidance precisely on gov.uk.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Like my honourable colleagues, I commend the Secretary of State’s superhuman efforts. On the subject of procurement, may I say two things? First, he will know that the Public Health England change of guidelines has caused some concern. Will he ensure that they are clear to people? Secondly, a senior A&E consultant reminded me that they need more blood gas machines as well as more ventilators.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
It is good to see the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), back in her place—I am not sure whether the Secretary of State still needs to have 2 metres distance.
May I press the Secretary of State on personal protective equipment? I hear what he says, and it is good that the military are being involved in the distribution, but is there enough PPE available for all healthcare workers and social care workers? If not, what is happening with manufacturing and the procurement from around the world, because we are told there is some available from around the world?
Matt Hancock
Yes, we have a huge quantity that we hold ready for an eventuality such as this. That was, in fact, enhanced in our no-deal preparations, but of course we are also using that up, so we are buying to make sure that those stocks are replenished.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I am very reassured to hear that by the end of the week, care settings will all get PPE, which is not what the leader of my council was being told recently. I accept the Secretary of State’s reassurance: it is really good news. Can he further reassure me that the PPE, when it arrives, will be to the right specification, in particular FFP3 respirator masks and not simply paper masks, which are next to useless?
Matt Hancock
If there are specific concerns about the non-delivery of PPE to council settings, I want to know about them through the hotline that we have set up precisely to short-circuit such problems having to be brought to my attention on the Floor of the House. Let us fix them directly. On the second point, it has got to be the right stuff according to the clinical guidelines.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
We have been told that by the time covid-19 peaks, 44,000 women will need access to early medical abortions. Women should not have to leave their homes during lockdown to access basic healthcare, so will the Secretary of State commit not to oppose moves in the other place to enable individual healthcare practitioners to certify abortions and to reinstate the regulations that were put up for a short while on the Government website last night, so that we can have use of abortion medication and one practitioner being able to prescribe on the phone?
Matt Hancock
There are no proposals to change the abortion rules due to covid-19.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
Care homes are being asked by local authorities to contract for block bookings of beds, but at the moment they would bear the liability if something were to go wrong—if residents were to come to them with the infection. May I urge my right hon. Friend to look urgently at the question of whether an indemnity can be provided?
Matt Hancock
I will get back to my hon. Friend on that very, very important point. I am grateful that he raised it with me privately earlier, and I am sorry that I have not been able to get a reply in time.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Will he join me in commending Pact House, a charity in my constituency in Stanley, which is delivering meals and food to the elderly with some 90 volunteers? It contacted me this morning because it is concerned that the building it operates from may need some type of certificate to keep operating, following the announcement yesterday.
Can he clarify the position? Will it just be allowed to open, or will it have to apply for some sort of letter to say that it can operate?
Matt Hancock
As long as it is operating within the guidelines that the Prime Minister outlined in his address to the nation last night, which are set out in detail on the gov.uk website, it is doing the right thing and does not need any further certification.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
One of the glimmers of light in these troubling times are the amazing community volunteer projects that have sprung up in all our constituencies. The Secretary of State will be pleased to learn that on Sunday, we set up a “shopital” outside Worthing hospital, and I spent several hours selling rice, spuds and, crucially, loo paper to more than 100 ambulancemen, nurses and doctors. Should not that sort of arrangement be happening anyway with the supermarkets and with the new scheme delivering food packets, to make sure that NHS workers for whom going shopping at eight o’clock in the morning during the “golden hour” is not appropriate can get on with their job much more easily?
Matt Hancock
I did not know that my hon. Friend was engaged in that sort of activity on a Sunday morning, but I am delighted that he was. Making sure that we get hot meals to NHS staff who are working often many more shifts than gives them time to make a good meal is incredibly important. It is something that we are working hard on, but I am really glad when it happens spontaneously, as well as when we try to sort it from the Department.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I am being inundated, as I am sure many other Members are, in relation to small firms that are still insisting on their staff going in and undertaking roles, including fitting windows and doors, and those that are saying, “Well, the business is coming in; we’re going to stay open and carry on making new work,” despite having to travel house to house to offer what is fundamentally a non-essential service. Will the Secretary of State raise this issue with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and other Ministers to ensure that those small firms, which arguably do not need to be working, are keeping their staff at home?
Matt Hancock
I will raise that question and make sure that the appropriate guidance is put on gov.uk.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Secretary of State is doing an excellent job and is being incredibly responsive, despite what I appreciate must be the huge volume of correspondence coming into his inbox. He is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. However, there is confusion about whether people should be going to work or not. From both a health and an economic perspective, as a business owner, I would much rather have a short, sharp shock, with everything closed down for 30 days to get this disease under control and allow the Secretary of State to get his testing and tracking in place and defeat it.
Matt Hancock
I agree with what my hon. Friend has said—and not just the first bit—but I repeat what I said in my statement. I want to be clear that, where people absolutely cannot work from home, they can still go to work. Indeed, it is important that they do so to keep the country running.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
That is the nub of the confusion, because I am hearing reports from constituents and from elsewhere in the city that, for example, workers in call centres for outbound sales calls—which will undoubtedly be disruptive to those self-isolating at home who receive them—are being asked to come in and work in cramped conditions, which we know exist in such places. Should those employers not be taking advantage of the Government’s furlough scheme, so that their employees do not have to come into work? Is it not the case that no employee should be punished for doing the right thing and following the Government advice to stay at home?
Matt Hancock
That sort of activity can technically be done from home and, where work cannot be done from home, employers should be following the guidelines to keep people more than 2 metres apart.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
There are many essential jobs and repairs that need to be done in people’s homes by workmen. So long as those homes are not specifically shielded or self-isolating because of suspected disease, and so long as the proper social separation is maintained, surely those ought to proceed, ought they not?
Matt Hancock
If they are essential, yes, but the aim here is to try to absolutely push down the speed of transmission of this disease over the next few weeks, to get a grip on its spread. That means that, while we have set out four reasons where it is reasonable to leave one’s home, people should stay at home if they do not have a good reason.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I will not read the text message that I have received from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) because it contains unparliamentary language. However, further to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), I think the Secretary of State needs to give the House a clear explanation as to why it was yesterday that clear guidance was provided by the Government on access to abortion early in the day, only for it to be removed from the Government website later in the day. Why is that? Why are the Government not listening to the royal colleges, and why are they making it more difficult for women to get access to an essential procedure during this time of crisis?
Matt Hancock
All I can do is repeat the clarity that there are no proposals to change abortion law.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Will my right hon Friend confirm what the advice is on visiting loved ones in hospital? Will he also confirm that Rutland is not a “hospital desert”—as reported by Sky News, which has concerned my constituents, who have access to Leicester and Peterborough—and urge the media to be cautious about deeply unhelpful and sensationalist reporting?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State not agree that the attempt to alter the abortion regime through the Coronavirus Bill is not the right use of those measures? Any change to abortion legislation, which is almost the last protection for our unborn children, deserves adequate scrutiny and appropriate debate, which is not possible right now. Will he, for the record, assure me that no changes to that legislation, which regulates life and death, will be made in this way through stealth and opportunism?
Matt Hancock
I repeat an answer that I have given before: there are no proposals to change the law around abortion.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Sorry to return to the “going to work” point, but last night the Government were saying, “The only reason you may leave home is to go to work (if you’re a key worker)”, but then the part in brackets changed to “but work from home if possible”. I think that is where there is confusion. People are not sure what they can and cannot do. That is a pattern that we have, sadly, seen repeated, and which has led to “lockdown/not lockdown”. Could the Secretary of State say what the advice is again? I am not wishing to cause trouble; I am just looking for clarity.
Matt Hancock
The Prime Minister was clear in his address to the nation; I have been clear in my statement today; and the guidance on gov.uk is absolutely clear on this point.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Many hon. Members are not here because they are being responsible and allowing some of us to represent them, so that we can observe proper social distancing. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) has asked me to raise the issue of irresponsible employers. She tells me that the Home Office in Sheffield is requiring workers to come in to do word processing and administrative work that could be done at home. Will the Secretary of State undertake to communicate my hon. Friend’s concerns to the Home Secretary, and if what my hon. Friend describes is the case, ask the Home Secretary to put a stop to it straightaway and set a good example?
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the army of volunteers in Bournemouth and across the country—the individuals, businesspeople, charity groups and local organisations—who want to be part of the solution, and to help the elderly and vulnerable, allowing us to adapt to this new way of life? Yesterday, a 30-day lockdown was spoken of; this will require some form of enforcement. Can he say what role the armed forces might play in that?
Matt Hancock
The armed forces are doing an absolutely fantastic job of supporting civilian efforts, for instance in the NHS on the logistics of delivery of protective equipment and much more; but the armed forces will not be involved in the enforcement of the law. That is for the police, who will levy fines, starting at £30 and escalating if people continue to flout the rules.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
One of my constituents is a home carer who has been unable to get PPE. She stopped working because her daughter has asthma, and obviously she is concerned about the potential for passing on the virus. I am pleased about what the Health Secretary said about the availability of PPE, but people such as my constituent, and their employers, need to know how to get hold of it. He said that that information would be on the gov.uk website, but not everybody knows about the website. Could he improve awareness of how to find out this information, and make sure that we have access to the website and the phone number?
Matt Hancock
I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman gets the phone number, so that he can pass it on to his constituent, and so that others in the same circumstances know how to make that happen.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
NHS workers are on the frontline of this battle, at huge personal risk. Many have returned to the NHS especially to fight coronavirus. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when this is over, we need to find an appropriate way to recognise and honour their bravery?
Matt Hancock
Yes. My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, which is that we as a nation owe a debt of gratitude to those who work in the NHS, and we need to constantly search for ways to show it, so that they all know how much we value the work that they do.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I echo the points made by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) about an absolute shutdown, and absolute clarity for the public. Does the Secretary of State agree that we urgently need to get more FFP3 masks out there? That is what the frontline health workers are demanding, because they are terrified by the prospect of this crisis. The masks provided to the construction industry would be suitable for healthcare workers, I understand.
Matt Hancock
I will look into that point. The masks need to be clinically right; it is not for me to make that decision, but I will take this up with the chief medical officer.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
May I personally thank my right hon. Friend and the Department for the rapid response he has given to every inquiry that I have made on behalf of my constituents? I also praise the NHS in Dorset and, of course, throughout the country for all the fantastic work that everyone is doing in the face of this appalling virus.
First, we are still having problems getting PPE; I heard the Secretary of State say that the phone line, to which he kindly referred me, is still the best way to try to follow up on that. Secondly, supermarkets are impossible to get hold of so that food banks can go online to request regular deliveries. Is there some way that we can get a message to all supermarkets to help out in that regard?
Matt Hancock
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his first point. He is right that the hotline is the best way to sort out the PPE supply issues. I am told that it has already responded to more than 2,000 inquiries, is moving through inquiries fast and has a lot of people on the other end of the line to make sure that people can get hold of somebody. I shall take up the latter point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for the sterling work he is doing. Will he provide some clarification on the definition of essential retail? The general store that purchases a freezer and says that it is a food store quite clearly is not, but the garden centre that incorporates a farm shop that may serve a local community might well be.
Matt Hancock
These things will inevitably end up being a judgment at the boundary, but if there are two types of shop in one organisation, we will sometimes require some parts of it to close. If there is a café in a shop that sells essential supplies, the café must close but the essential-supplies part can stay open.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I, too, praise the Secretary of State and his wonderful team for their heroic efforts in fighting this killer virus. Will he confirm that volunteers such as those in the Holme Valley Covid Mutual Aid group, who are providing shopping services, delivering food parcels, picking up prescriptions, posting mail and dog walking, should continue to supply those services for their community, in a safe way?
Matt Hancock
Yes, they should. They should stay 2 metres away from other people, wherever possible, but we are actively encouraging the voluntary effort in support of covid-19 and we actively support it.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for all he is doing and I thank the thousands of retired nurses who have answered his call to come back to the NHS, but may I just raise a wrinkle in my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme? A nurse wrote to me who is 58 and retired at 55. She has returned to work for 16 hours and is happy to work full time, but she is concerned about the possible effect on her pension. Will the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of Exchequer work together to look at the situation and make sure that there are no financial barriers to heroes such as her coming back to work for our NHS?
Matt Hancock
Yes. We solved several of the problems in the pension system at the Budget, and there are further solutions in the Bill. I have not come across any further problems in respect of pensions, but if my hon. Friend writes to me with the individual case, I will check that that is the case in that instance, too.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
On Saturday, I met the chief executive and the incident management team at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn in my constituency, where sadly two patients who tested positive for covid-19 died last week. I pay tribute to the dedication of all the staff who are, as the Secretary of State knows, working in buildings that need more investment. Will he make sure that those on the frontline continue to get the PPE that they need and have more access to ventilators?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely—on all counts. I just want to add my thanks to all those working on the frontline, and throughout the NHS and social care, to my hon. Friend’s thanks to those in King’s Lynn. I also put on the record my thanks to my extraordinary civil service political and Public Health England team, who have done amazing work and continue to work incredibly hard in response to this crisis.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to our fantastic NHS staff at Blackpool Victoria Hospital? Some private firms in my constituency have offered free or discounted parking to NHS staff, to help them out in these difficult times. Will he commend those firms and encourage others to do the same to make sure that it is as easy as possible for staff to get to work?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I will. I pay tribute to all the staff at Blackpool hospital. I met some of them during the election campaign and I know that they are working incredibly hard in preparation for what is to come. I absolutely commend all those who are giving free parking to NHS staff and we are looking at what we can do to make that happy occurrence spread more broadly across the NHS.
Bill Presented
Contingencies Fund Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Prime Minister, Steve Barclay, Jesse Norman, John Glen and Kemi Badenoch, presented a Bill to make provision increasing the maximum capital of the Contingencies Fund for a temporary period.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time now, and to be printed (Bill 123) with explanatory notes (Bill 123-EN).
Wellbeing of Future Generations
Tuesday 24th March 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Wellbeing of Future Generations (No. 2) Bill 2019-21 View all Wellbeing of Future Generations (No. 2) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for requiring public bodies to act in pursuit of the United Kingdom’s environmental, social, economic and cultural wellbeing by meeting wellbeing objectives, publishing future generations impact assessments, accounting for preventative spending, and through public services contracts; to establish a Commissioner for Future Generations for the United Kingdom; to establish a Joint Parliamentary Committee on Future Generations; to require companies to consider the impact of their activities on the United Kingdom’s wellbeing; and for connected purposes.
It is a great honour to introduce the Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill today. I pay tribute to the Bill’s co-sponsors, the indefatigable Lord Bird and everyone who has been involved in the Today for Tomorrow campaign so far. I wish that I was introducing the Bill in very different circumstances, but I am confident that hon. Members can see that it does not conflict with our immediate priorities, which are rightly elsewhere. Indeed, at times like this, it is only human to ask, “What could we have done differently to prevent this from happening? How can we stop something like this ever happening again?” Our common interests, our connectivity to one another and our compassion are all burning bright in an otherwise dark moment. Acting today for tomorrow is as relevant now as it will ever be.
As we wrote yesterday, as co-sponsors of the Bill, in a letter published in The Guardian:
“It is essential to deal with coronavirus as it is—a global emergency—but it is clear we must work harder to predict and prepare for the existential risks we face. Not only the threat of pandemics, but the climate crisis”
too. That is the nub of the Today for Tomorrow campaign. It is backed not just by all the sponsors of the wellbeing of future generations Bill, but by over 70 MPs in total and many in the other place who spoke eloquently in favour of its proposals.
The future generations Bill is also gaining support from across civil society, my constituents and, I am sure, from many others as well. It all suggests that the desire to be better ancestors is incredibly strong. To me, it also suggests that we know in our hearts and in our heads that the way that we currently make policy and legislation does not adequately prioritise the wellbeing of our children and grandchildren.
When we are rebuilding on the other side of this pandemic, we can choose to do so with greater consideration than ever to future generations, with stronger compassion for every person and their wellbeing, and with an unshakeable commitment to building an economy and society that works for everyone now and for the future. It is these values of compassion and consideration, co-operation and courage that hold us together in times of disaster, and the same values are at the heart of this Bill, which it wants to centre in our politics at all times.
We are all aware of the pressures that regular election cycles place on decision makers to pursue policies that show benefits quickly and the difficulty that that can add in addressing longer-term challenges. The climate crisis is an obvious example, with decades of delay between today’s emissions and the full impacts of their heating. The glacial pace of climate action shows that economies and political systems the world over are failing to value future lives and, indeed, the wellbeing of current generations in the manner they deserve. Last month, a landmark report from the World Health Organisation, UNICEF and The Lancet found that no single country is sufficiently protecting children’s health, their environment and their futures. That index, which compares performance on issues from child flourishing to greenhouse gas emissions and equity, finds that countries the world over are failing the next generation. We can and must do better than this. The same is true in other areas, including poverty, regional inequality, environmental degradation and the over-consumption of finite resources. Each of these have their impacts today, but each also harms the health, means and opportunities of tomorrow.
The concept of our obligations to future generations is not new; it exists in every political tradition. It can transcend party politics. The Big Issue’s Today for Tomorrow campaign has secured pledges from the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the former leader of the Lib Dems, the First Minister of Scotland and the leader of Plaid Cymru. I hope that the Prime Minister will therefore ensure that this Bill continues its journey through the House in due course. The Bill’s co-sponsors represent all the major UK political parties and every one of our four nations. Initiatives to put wellbeing at the heart of decision making can be found in many countries around the world. New Zealand’s wellbeing budget, led by its Treasury, invests billions in tackling deep-rooted social problems, including child poverty, mental health issues and family violence. Different approaches can be found from Gibraltar to Ghana, and from Malta to many other places, but inspiration for this Bill was found closer to home.
The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, passed by the Senedd in that year, was pioneering. It was the first legislation in the world to enshrine in law a duty on public bodies to safeguard the wellbeing of future generations. It created the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, who is responsible for promoting sustainable development. The commissioner, Sophie Howe, gives future generations the voice they currently lack here, and her recent progress report shows that the legislation is making a real difference. Our Bill, similarly, would create an independent commissioner for the whole of the UK, to represent those who cannot yet represent themselves. It would empower the commissioner to bring legal proceedings against a public body that is failing to fulfil its wellbeing duties. It is important to say that the Bill has carefully considered the Welsh experience and taken on the lessons learned, so that it is even stronger legislation, set out to be even more effective. For example it would strengthen the duty ensuring that wellbeing objectives are actually met.
In addition to the independent UK commissioner for future generations, I wish to highlight a few of the other key provisions in the Bill. It contains: a duty on the Secretary of State to publish national indicators that measure progress towards wellbeing goals and report annually to Parliament; a duty on all non-devolved public bodies to balance the needs of the present with the needs of the future; a requirement on companies of medium size and above to consider how their activities relate to the wellbeing of the UK; provisions for the establishment of a joint parliamentary Committee for the future, to scrutinise legislation for its effect on future generations, to hold Ministers to account for short-term decision making and to report on future trends; and a requirement on public bodies to report on and seek to increase their preventive expenditure.
A study from Scotland illustrates the importance of preventive spending, finding that 40% of all public spending was devoted annually to alleviating social problems and tackling “failure demand”—demand that could have been avoided had earlier preventive measures been put in place. It would be insightful if the Government could provide an equivalent figure for England. Another study, by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, found that poverty costs Britain £78 billion a year, with £1 in every £5 of Government spending making up for the way in which poverty damages people’s lives.
In conclusion, I am acutely aware that this Bill is concerned with preventive spending and the next generation when an urgent crisis is facing this one, yet as we have seen in the response of communities across the country, emergencies can bring out the best in us, and give us a common focus and a common purpose. The author Rebecca Solnit says that disasters give us
“a glimpse of who else we ourselves may be and what else our society could become.”
So, with the eyes of future generations upon us, this Bill presents Parliament with an opportunity to act today, for tomorrow. This Bill is not a panacea but it might just help us head in the right direction, by enshrining long-term thinking and the voices of future generations at the heart of decision making, precisely where they belong.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Caroline Lucas, Bambos Charalambous, Simon Fell, Dr Philippa Whitford, Wera Hobhouse, Liz Saville Roberts, Claire Hanna, Abena Oppong-Asare, Bob Blackman, Anna McMorrin, Kevin Hollinrake and Alex Sobel present the Bill.
Caroline Lucas accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 124).
Point of Order
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday afternoon, I questioned and criticised Airbnb for continuing to provide holiday lets at a time when people are being discouraged from using holiday properties to escape their normal place of residence in the midst of a crisis. In doing so, I highlighted that other holiday home providers, such as Sykes Cottages, were no longer taking bookings for the immediate period ahead. I have since been inundated with emails and messages from many very unhappy Sykes customers who tell me that the company is withholding payments that have been made to it at a time when many families, who are not now able to go on holiday, really need that money to get through what is a challenging period for most family finances. I wanted the record to reflect that. I hope those on the Treasury Bench have heard what I have said. In terms of the efforts they are undertaking to encourage responsible business at this time, I hope that that message will also be heard by the management of Sykes Cottages.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, which I can well understand if yesterday he had been praising a company only to find that he was being inundated with emails to the contrary of what he said. He has put the record straight and those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his comments. I am sure they will feed back to the appropriate Department the points that he has made.
Contingencies Fund Bill: Business of the House
Contingencies Fund Bill
Tuesday 24th March 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 24 March 2020 - (24 Mar 2020)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I wish to inform Members that under the Order of the House of today, notices of amendments, new clauses or new schedules to be moved in Committee of the whole House may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a Second time. In order to be eligible for selection, Members should table amendments within the next five minutes.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
As the House knows, we are living in unprecedented times. The Government have made it clear that they will do whatever it takes to mitigate and limit the effects of the covid-19 pandemic on the United Kingdom. To that end, we have a coherent, co-ordinated and comprehensive plan to support public services, equipping our doctors, nurses and other essential staff with the tools they require on the frontline in support of their work. It is a plan to protect businesses, jobs, wages and incomes through this difficult and uncertain period for the economy. At the heart of the Bill is a recognition that the Government must act swiftly and boldly to provide the resources necessary to limit, and ultimately defeat, the virus.
As the House knows, Parliament provides the Government with the authority to expend resources, capital and cash via the supply process. The process is begun with the publication of the main supply estimates, which we debate in this Chamber, and then the introduction of a supply and appropriation Bill. It is only once that Bill receives Royal Assent, usually in July, that Governments get the bulk of their resources, capital and, most importantly, cash to carry out their approved functions. Until the supply Bill passes, typically in July, Departments live on what is described as “vote on account” money. This money usually represents about 45% of the departmental spending on services from the previous year. It allows Departments to start spending from 1 April, and it normally provides sufficient funds to tide them over until the balance is delivered via the supply Act in July, as described. However, as events have been unfolding, it has become clear that additional departmental spending will be needed compared to last year, and for good reason. The scale and spread of the virus mean that we must act now to safeguard lives. The Government cannot afford to wait. No one in this House would want us to wait until July to deliver the resources that Departments need for the next financial year.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Bill is necessary because the economy has come to a halt; we have effectively halted it in order to put an end to this virus. There is a narrative that actually we could have toughed it out, and that we have sacrificed the economy for healthcare. That never really was a realistic alternative, was it?
Jesse Norman
The Government have not had any time for that narrative, nor has there been any decision in our mind other than to act as decisively, effectively and comprehensively as we can to defeat this virus and to protect livelihoods, businesses, jobs and wellbeing. That is what we are seeking to do. I do not agree—if I may say so to my right hon. Friend—that the requirements that this Bill seeks to address would or could have been accommodated in any other economic circumstances. To move at the speed at which we are moving to offer the support we are offering demands the cash movement that this Bill is designed to achieve.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Can the Minister confirm that the amounts that we are talking about in this Bill relate to departmental spending that may need to happen over the next few months, and that they do not relate to the balance sheet of the Bank of England or any of the lending facilities that have been made available to business?
Jesse Norman
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This legislation, as I will go on to describe, relates to departmental spending. It as an advance against departmental spending that will be properly ratified, accommodated and acknowledged within the estimates process, as one might expect.
Departments—this goes straight to point just made by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey)—need money from 1 April, and they need more than the House has already allocated to them via the vote on account. The Government cannot afford to wait until July to deliver the resources needed for the next financial year, and the Bill seeks to close that gap.
The House has long recognised that the Government sometimes need to act without recourse to the normal processes, which is why Parliament has historically provided for the existence and use of a contingencies fund. But Parliament has wisely limited the amount that can be issued from the fund to 2% of the previous year’s cash spend. For 2020-21, that amounts to some £10.6 billion, which would be more than adequate in a normal year. But, as we have discovered, we do not live in normal times. These times are without precedent in the modern era. Through this Bill, the Government therefore ask the House temporarily to raise the limit on the amount that sits in the contingencies fund to 50% of that expended last year; I should be clear that that is approximately £266 billion.
Let me go further and say—again, this is a response to the point made by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton—that this is not new spending and it is not a blank cheque. All advances will have to be repaid once the main supply estimates are voted on in the summer, when the House will have the opportunity to scrutinise and debate where the resources have been allocated in the normal way. Nor does this represent additional Government borrowing. The Chancellor has said that he will update the Debt Management Office’s financing remit in April to reflect his recent announcements.
Quite simply, this Bill is about cash flow and the need to deliver the support we have announced without delay. It allows the Treasury to provide cash advances where they are urgently needed, and it provides for a safety net between supply estimates. This is an exceptionally short Bill, but it is an exceptionally important one in that it allows the Government to deliver the extraordinary package of support announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. It solves a cash timing issue arising from the current process, and balances the need for an urgent response to the unfolding crisis with the necessary parliamentary scrutiny and oversight.
This Bill is yet another demonstration of the Government’s commitment to fighting the threat from covid-19—protecting businesses, jobs and, most importantly, our fellow citizens, from the ravages of this deadly disease. I wholeheartedly commend it to the House.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
May I start by assuring the Treasury Bench that the official Opposition will support this Bill? I support the Government throughout, obviously, but as the Minister might expect, we will be constructively critical as well throughout the process.
This Bill, as the Minister says, will enable the Government to access the resources to tackle the crisis. I have to say, there is a sense of irony here, because only three months ago I hoped to be bringing forward a Bill for about £250 billion as well, for long-term investment in our infrastructure—but that is another story. It probably would have been supported as well, because it was infrastructure spend. Anyway, we will support this Bill, but we have the opportunity to raise some issues on the way in which the resources will be applied—forgive me if I do that.
We recognise that this is the gravest crisis facing our country that any of us in this House has known. We are debating matters of life and death, and the proposals that we make now and the decisions that we need to take in the coming months obviously deserve scrutiny, and that scrutiny should be welcomed on all sides. Last night, the Prime Minister was right to call for people to stay at home to protect our NHS and to save lives. We called for enforcement measures yesterday morning, and the Mayor of London and many others have been making private representations for greater clarity and greater action.
Clear and detailed guidance to employers and workers is needed on which workplaces should close. As we saw in the earlier response to the statement, a lack of clarity remains about certain operations, particularly within the construction sector. We have received reports from unions, particularly those representing construction workers, that there is utter confusion on the ground at the moment about what operations should be maintained and which workers should be on site. For anyone who has been anywhere near the construction industry or worked on site at any time in their lives, things have not changed that much in recent years. These workers also work in some of the most insanitary conditions, so we have to ensure that they are properly protected.
The Chancellor and the Government must act immediately so that every single worker has a protected income. We discussed that earlier today. We want to ensure that every single household is secure in their home, whether they rent or mortgage, so that no one who makes the right choice to stay at home faces hardship. Last week, the Chancellor set out an unprecedented scheme to underwrite 80% of the wages of all workers “furloughed”—as he put it—promising that no redundancies or lay-offs were needed and that the Government would do, “Whatever it takes”. Today is the time to deliver, with clarity and security for everybody, including our most vulnerable, whatever it takes to keep them protected and safe. That is why we are supporting this Bill to enable the resources to be available.
Last night, the Prime Minister effectively shut down every non-essential business. I want the Chancellor and Treasury Front Bench to make it clear now that every single worker, in every single one of those businesses, will be covered by the 80% income protection scheme, and that if, as a result of that 20% cut in incomes, they fall below the thresholds for universal credit or housing benefit, they will be eligible for top-ups. I ask the question, will the Government consider setting a national minimum wage floor for the income protection schemes? That would protect the lowest paid, because 80% of low pay might result in some people being paid below the national minimum wage.
Will we now get more clarity on exactly when the income protection scheme will be operational? Will the Government also condemn employers such as Wetherspoon that have now stopped wage payments and told employees that those will not resume until the end of April? Some senior members of the Government have an influence over that particular employer, so we would welcome the Government making it clear to that employer that that he should pay his staff and that he should close so that that company can play its part in protecting the health of our community.
The Government cannot act only for workers who are furloughed. They must also step up for the many who will be having their hours reduced but not stopped altogether, by topping them up to at least 80% of their regular wage, or through some other scheme. When the Minister responds, will he clarify what will be the protection for workers who have been put on short time?
Sadly, many workers have already been laid off as a result of this terrible virus. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was extremely candid and honest last week when he said that he could not live on the £94.25 per week statutory sick pay. I do not think any of us can. How can the Government expect entire families to afford a week’s shop on that sort of income? Will the Government therefore increase the appallingly low level of statutory sick pay and ensure that all workers are eligible for it? So many are not at the moment. Will they also increase the £73 rate of jobseeker’s allowance and employment support allowance for disabled people? Will they also look at the even lower rate of carer’s allowance? Carers are expected to live on £66 a week.
As we discussed earlier today, there are 5 million self-employed workers in this country, many of whom cannot work from home. We desperately need a scheme that will be ready for them soon. It needs to guarantee them the 80% of income that others have been guaranteed. Whether it is a cabbie, a childminder, an actor or a plumber, there are battalions of self-employed out there who need their security. We need confirmation that a scheme will be brought forward not within days but within hours, to give them that assurance.
We also urge the Government to work with the construction industry and the trade unions to find a solution that covers the particularities of that sector—we have pointed them out before—with workers employed through payroll companies and umbrella companies. Most of them are forced into self-employment, and often exploitative self-employment of the worst sort.
I turn to housing. We welcome the moves to protect mortgage holders, with payment holidays now put in place for mortgagees, but we need the same security for renters and for the Government to understand the difference. For a renter, a rent holiday is not the same as a mortgage holiday. Rent is paid continuously during a tenancy, while mortgages have a fixed term, meaning that repayment terms can be simply extend. It is therefore important that the Government act to ensure that rents are paid, not merely that payments are suspended for this period.
We are extremely disappointed by the legislation published yesterday. Frankly, many believe that the Prime Minister has broken his promise to the country’s 20 million renters in 8.5 million households. It was not an evictions ban, as the Prime Minister promised. That legislation will not stop people losing their homes as a result of the virus; as my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said, it just gives them some extra time to pack their bags. To be frank, it is just not good enough. The Government must look again; we urge them to look again.
There are also wider problems. Over recent years, austerity cuts have lessened the value of support available via housing benefit. The Government must immediately suspend the benefit cap and rid us of the bedroom tax that has affected so many families. We welcome the moves announced last week on local housing allowance, but the Government must go further and restore the local housing allowance from the 30th percentile back to the 50th percentile of market rates, as it was before 2010.
People will have made rental decisions based on their incomes, and they should not be penalised by the unforeseeable impact of the coronavirus, when we are asking people to lock themselves away. Now is not the time for families to be downsizing or sofa surfing with parents, grandparents or friends in cramped conditions. Many of us represent constituencies where overcrowding has become the plague of modern existence.
May I briefly pay tribute to the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan? His team has worked tirelessly and creatively in securing hotel accommodation to get London’s rough sleepers off the streets, though we would like to know more about the duration and the cost of the deal that the Government have procured with hotels. It is important that the Government act to keep households in their homes so that that attachment to work, school and study can continue seamlessly at the conclusion of this extraordinary period. We cannot have a situation in which, at the end of this, tenants have either depleted all their savings or, worse, have amassed large and unpayable bills. If this is the case, the Government will be deferring evictions only a few months down the road, so the suspension of evictions for private and social tenants should be extended, we believe, from three months to six months. Shelter has estimated that as many as 20,000 eviction proceedings are already in progress and will go ahead over the next three months unless the Government take action to stop them, and they must be stopped. When the Financial Secretary to the Treasury rises to his feet, he must be clear that there will be no evictions of any kind during this period.
In addition, we also believe it necessary to suspend all bailiff proceedings for the same period. Practically speaking, there are clear health and safety issues about bailiffs entering the homes of families who may be self-isolating. Furthermore, what measures is the Chancellor proposing for suspending payments of household utility bills? That was raised in the discussions this morning and we will support measures that are brought forward. During this period, we cannot have bailiffs and we cannot have disconnections of water, energy or internet.
What are the Government doing about those without internet access? Many people in our communities rely on libraries to access the internet, but now those libraries are closing. What measures will the Government bring in to ensure that people can get online, whether for benefit services or to maintain some form of social contact? These are huge demands being placed on the civil service, and I pay tribute to all those public servants throughout our public administration who are working day and night to establish these schemes. They are not often praised, but they are in this situation.
The civil service has been depleted by a decade of austerity. As extra demands are placed on, for example, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions, other civil servants are being redeployed. Are those recently retired or made redundant from the service being asked to come back to assist, just as we have invited other professionals to come back into the NHS?
Will the Minister also confirm that the current round of HMRC office closures and redundancies will at least be paused, if not reversed, at this stage? What adaptations have been made for those working in the mass call centres of HMRC and the DWP? Is the telephony technology there for them to work at home? Is there greater social distancing within the call centres themselves? We all know that universal credit cannot cope now, but its roll-out was again delayed in the Budget. Millions more households are becoming eligible for universal credit, housing benefit and other payments, so are the Government confident that the system can cope with this increased demand, because the feedback that we are getting from our constituents on the frontline is that they find it impossible because of the long waits to get through and have their case dealt with successfully. No one is blaming the civil servants; it is about resources and investment.
What are the Government doing to encourage businesses to take up business interruption loans, when some businesses see loans as less effective than grants for keeping them afloat? Is there potential for increasing the level of grants and extending their range? Have the Government considered our proposal that such loan agreements should include job retention clauses, which would mean that when businesses receive a loan, they can give workers the security they need in the knowledge that they will not lose their jobs? It is not much to ask of a business receiving financial support from the Government in this way that they work towards our overall objectives.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The difficulty with what the right hon. Gentleman suggests is that most businesses do not know the extent of this crisis and the impact it will have on them. It is impossible at this point to determine exactly how long this will last or how deep a recession might be. Is he not asking the impossible of businesses?
John McDonnell
In the real world, that is exactly why trade unions have asked that when loans are given or support is provided through the jobs retention scheme, there is a requirement for businesses to sit down with their trade unions and work through a plan for the future. In that way, security could be given to workers, because they would be involved in determining that, and judgments can then be made at different stages of the business development process. We are looking for some form of assurances that will give wider security than there is at the moment. If a company is being supported by a loan or the job retention scheme, it is not much for them to sit down with their workers to work honestly and fairly on a plan for the future to see how they can work together to secure those jobs.
Consideration has been given to extending grants to many small businesses that cannot afford to take on additional debt. We would welcome information on how the Government will extend coverage by extending the range of eligibility criteria, to make the grants more flexible.
We also need clarity for workers beyond the retail sector—those on construction sites in particular, but also in factories, call centres, warehouses, distribution and other settings. What are essential workplaces? What is the clear definition? I think that many of these issues can be dealt with fairly readily in the discussions that the Government are having with the trade unions, but they need to be more detailed and on a more permanent, structured basis.
The NHS was promised budget increases over the next five years. We suggest that the Chancellor brings forward the funding for years two, three and four into year one. Can the Minister assure us that we will not have another weekend when doctors and nurses working in intensive care have to go on the media to beg for personal protective equipment and clothing? There were instances over the weekend, and we have heard assurances from the Government, but action is needed rapidly. Can he also assure NHS workers that they will get not only the equipment they need but the tests they need? The World Health Organisation has made it clear from the start that its advice is test, test, test. The scale and the speed of testing need to be addressed.
Can the Minister assure the House and the public that everything is being done to procure more critical care beds? I welcome the news that 7,500 recently retired staff have returned to the NHS, and I pay tribute to each and every one of them. The Government have begged retired NHS staff to return. We believe that the same must happen with social care staff. Chronic low pay in the care sector, with many paid just the minimum wage, means that staff have left for less stressful jobs in retail and other sectors. Those workers need to be brought back. They need the appropriate personal protective equipment and clothing, and they need proper recompense.
Many will have seen the devastating news from the Oaklands nursing home in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), where 16 of the 20 residents and seven staff have coronavirus symptoms. I was most concerned about the reports that, despite pleading for it, the home has been unable to source the proper protective equipment. Just yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Minister for social care, my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), demanded an urgent action plan for social care—a system that looks after those most at risk from the virus. As the Chancellor said, our social care system needs whatever it takes. Whether that is residential care, domiciliary care or family carers caring for loved ones in their own home, the resources have to be there now. Can the Minister tell us how much has been allocated immediately to councils and care providers?
Let me turn to local government. I welcome the sectoral consultation that is taking place and the dialogue with trade unions across all departments. Councils have a key role to play as the guarantor of social care provision, but they too have been devastated by cuts and now have the responsibility of the hardship funds to administer. Will the Minister be clear what extra resources are being made available to local councils, especially as many are likely to start seeing drops in council tax and business rates revenue? What extra funding is being made available so that councils can extend council tax support schemes in this period as well?
Although we fully back the measures outlined yesterday, there are unfortunately some households where these measures could mean more abuse and even risk to life. This is where domestic abuse takes place. For victims of domestic abuse and for others, this home isolation will be terrifying. We need the police, refuges, mental health services and other social services to have all the resources and capacity they need. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, who has raised these issues repeatedly. We need a positive Government response that is backed by sufficient resources and full consultation.
Others, like me, have raised the issue of the charity and voluntary sector. Many charities whose work is essential in filling the gaping holes in our public services and our safety net are desperately worried about their finances. Charities dealing with the immediate response to the coronavirus and its effect on the most vulnerable need access to enough grants to allow them to scale up their operations. Others need to be assured that they can access the same level of support that small businesses are rightly getting so that they can suspend some of their operations without having to lay off their hard-working staff and can restart once the crisis passes. Can the Minister tell us what reassurances have been provided by the Government to the charity and voluntary sector? Will the Government work with the sector to find suitable reliefs in these unprecedented times and can the Government outline what schemes are available now to charities struggling with the loss of revenue?
On schools and education, I understand that schools remain open to the children of key workers and to vulnerable children, but only if no safe alternative is available. As for the universities sector, may I ask the Minister about the fees that will have been paid by students in further and higher education and what refunds and deferments will be available? Many students—in fact most students these days, because of tuition fees—work in term-time and during holidays, and that work will no longer be available to them. May I ask the Government immediately to reduce the interest rates on student debt to zero for the duration of this crisis to assist those students?
On transport, what provision has been made by Her Majesty’s Treasury to refund lost revenue for transport authorities, whether that is Transport for London or those that run bus services across the country? On railways, I echo what my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Transport has said: we back the measures that will keep key workers and freight moving on our railways during this crisis, which has exposed, as he says, the fundamental weaknesses of the franchise model. May I also thank all the railway staff and bus workers who are keeping the essential parts of our country moving? Will the Minister assure us that all public facing railway staff will also have the appropriate personal protection equipment and clothing that they need? Can the Minister tell us whether any consideration has been given to making public transport free for key workers who are risking their lives every day? NHS staff are receiving free rail travel in Wales and a similar move is being rolled out in other countries, such as New Zealand. We would welcome that in this country.
Prisons were understaffed and overpopulated before this crisis. This is not just a question of resources but of safety. I welcome moves to escalate prisoner release schemes for those who do not pose a threat to our society, but the probation service was in crisis before this virus hit us and the lockdown announced yesterday complicates matters even further. Can the House be assured that the police and the probation service will have every resource possible to keep people safe and to monitor those who need supervision? I welcome the moves last week to release detainees from detention centres due to health and safety concerns. Can the Minister be clear about what extra resources are going in to protect people’s health overall?
I was brought up a Catholic. Our local parish priest optimistically calls me a lapsed Catholic, so I welcome any sinner who repents. I therefore reach across the divide and pay tribute to the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), who yesterday said that
“many people who we considered to be low-skilled are actually pretty crucial to the smooth running of our country”.—[Official Report, 23 March 2020; Vol. 674, c. 17.]
I also echo his call to the Home Secretary. The point has been made repeatedly by the shadow Home Secretary and many of our Members on the Opposition Benches. The hon. Gentleman asked for the new points-based immigration system to be reviewed, in his words,
“to reflect the things that we have learnt during this time”.—[Official Report, 23 March 2020; Vol. 674, c. 17.]
Have the Government given any consideration to temporarily suspending no recourse to public funds, which is blighting so many people’s lives, or to allowing temporary access to benefits for non-UK nationals so that they can survive this period? That is important at a time when more and more people are out of work and unable to travel.
As a public service to all Conservative MPs, I say that the market does not distribute wages fairly or efficiently in a capitalist society, and there is no correlation between pay rates and the social value of many jobs. If there is one lesson that we learn from this crisis, maybe that will be the one that lasts the longest.
Just three weeks ago, I asked the Government to take a lead internationally in tackling this virus. It is vital that we are engaged in all global health and political forums and that we learn from best practice and share solutions, because this virus respects no borders. By helping others globally, we help ourselves. By neglecting others, we neglect ourselves. Will the Minister assure the House today that extra resources are being made through the international development budget to aid the poorest countries in combating this virus?
I think we will look back at this period as an unprecedented moment in our lifetimes. I know that this is already a tragic time for so many, and all of us will be hurt by this, but I want us all to be able to look back with pride about what we did in this period—to be able to say, “We widened who was covered by our safety net when we had to. We protected people and their jobs and wages. We cared for people around us. We provided all the support that was needed and, as a result of that, we came through this all the stronger.”
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
This Bill, as the Minister said, shows decisive leadership by the Government and, indeed, by the whole House. It is supported by the Opposition parties. As the Minister explained, this is really a cash flow Bill. It is not a provision at this juncture for the extra £266 billion of Government spending for Departments; it is an advance to those Departments.
The first question I ask the Minister is, bearing in mind the advance, what is the Treasury’s current estimate of how much extra it thinks it will be borrowing when we come to estimates in July? That is something the House would like to consider and start thinking about.
Another point related to the fiscal and monetary management of this crisis, which I think this Government have done admirably, is whether the Treasury has done any thinking about the Government balance sheet, and in particular the balance sheet that will be looked at by international sovereign investors. Bearing in mind that this crisis is affecting every country in the world, have they done any thinking with our partners on whether money spent relating to this particular crisis may be somehow itemised differently on the balance sheet, rather than just being lumped in with all the other Government spending that may have taken place? If we could somehow delineate crisis spending and normal spending, that may well help investors, this House and anybody else in the future in trying to assess the fiscal health of this country and others. I think that is something the Treasury should consider.
However, there is a broader issue here. This is obviously thought about as primarily a global health crisis, but many people think about the economic impacts, and that is indeed correct. However, the health crisis and the economic crisis are intertwined, and I will focus, as so many in the House have today, on the self-employed, although this issue does not relate just to them.
This virus requires us to do social distancing, which is a phrase all of us have become so familiar with, although I do not think any of us knew it existed up until two to three months ago—all I can say is, bring back Brexit. To save lives, we are having to shut down major parts of the economy, and for people to save their own lives and the lives of others, they are having to shut down their personal economic activity. These people have families, houses and responsibilities; if they do not feel that they can meet those responsibilities, some may choose to take the path we have asked them not to take. Some may choose to do the risky thing and not what they know to be right, because they are caught in this difficult conflict between health and wealth. The job of any Government in a responsible society—indeed, this Government have met this challenge—is to make sure nobody is faced with that choice. I think that principle has underpinned all of the response from the Treasury and should continue to underpin it when the Treasury comes out with its proposals for self-employed workers.
I have a couple of specific questions for the Minister. I have been contacted by many constituents who are trying to use the business interruption loan scheme. Could the limit on unsecured lending be extended above £250,000? Many constituents have told me that they have been asked for personal guarantees above that threshold by the banks. Quite understandably, many are not willing to provide personal guarantees. Indeed, one asked me, “Bim, would you give a personal guarantee on a £500,000 or £1 million loan?” I said I could not say in all honesty that I would. Will the Minister consider extending that threshold for unsecured lending above £250,000—perhaps to £500,000 or £1 million?
Kevin Hollinrake
That is an interesting point. The position is not clear on the website, and it does need clarification, but I think that loans over £250,000 are ones that businesses could not get security for. This is the Government standing behind businesses that do not have other forms of security. I think that below £250,000 is where people can ask for reasonable security. However, my hon. Friend’s point about a personal guarantee is key, because it will deter many people from applying for these loans.
Bim Afolami
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. More broadly, the key question for the Minister is whether the Treasury is willing to adapt the scheme over the coming days and weeks as we hear more about the distinct problems and difficulties that there may be with it. That is not to quibble with the fundamentals of the scheme; it is a good scheme, and we need to recognise—indeed, I want to put on record—the fact that it was put together in record time. That is an incredibly difficult thing to do, and we need to give officials and Ministers credit for what they have managed to achieve, but let us try to improve the scheme so that it can be useful to more people, and addressing the issue I have raised is one way of doing so.
The final point I want to make is about tech start-ups—early-stage businesses. These are not necessarily all over the country; they tend to be concentrated in certain parts of the country. Indeed, I have several people who work for them in my constituency. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) cannot be here today, but I have been speaking with her, and there are many of these companies in her constituency. The nature of the support package that has been outlined is not particularly helpful for this type of company, because typically an early stage tech start-up deliberately incurs up-front losses as a result of heavy investment in research and product development. Such companies tend to rely on equity rather than debt funding, so the package that has been put in place is less helpful to them. The investors that back them usually back several dozen such companies and do not have enough cash to put into all their portfolios or their portfolio businesses. There is, therefore, a problem—a specific problem, but an important one, because although the number of the jobs in the sector is about 6,000 to 10,000, these are the companies that drive innovation and will drive the creation of tens if not hundreds of thousands of jobs in the future. Bearing in mind the Government’s ambition for the country, we need to safeguard these businesses as much as we can.
I have been discussing with many in the sector a proposal to join with the British Business Bank to put together a £300 million not-for-profit fund—not a fund that will take management fees or try to make any money—to invest in roughly 600 start-ups, to provide working capital for nine or more months. I ask the Financial Secretary or one of his colleagues to consider meeting me and industry representatives to see whether we can get that sort of thing going. It is a specific sector of the economy, but an extremely important one.
Everyone recognises the enormity of the challenge. Everyone recognises the speed and complexity of what we have to do. The money in this short Bill is critical, but in the coming days—especially if Parliament is to rise by the end of this week—we need to do what we can to improve the schemes as much as possible. Once Parliament is out and does not sit for however long it may be, it will be much harder for Members to do that. I ask the Minister to take those points into account.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
As many have said in the course of several of our debates this week, it is vital that we continue to work across party lines in response to the crisis. I reiterate here and now my party’s support for the Chancellor’s economic package for firms and workers that was announced on Friday.
Our attitude as individual Members to Government and what they should do, or even which Government should do it, determines in large part where we choose to sit in this Chamber, but the debates taking place now are very much subordinate to the task of deciding how to use our collective legitimacy and authority to guide, to direct and to steward the resources we are able to make available to protect the citizens we were elected to this place to represent. These are quite unprecedented times, the likes of which none of us has seen in our lifetime and which we all earnestly hope we will never see again in this or any other lifetime, but these extraordinary times require extraordinary measures. We all know all too well that lives and livelihoods are at stake. Significant policy changes in terms of support for the economy have already been announced, and yesterday this House took further important steps to protect the public by passing the Coronavirus Bill. Having made those changes to governance and policy, it is necessary also to make provision to support those changes in terms of supply through the Contingencies Fund. My party fully supports the steps that we are about to take to do that.
Although economic activity in the country will, of necessity, be curtailed for the duration of our response to the crisis, we need to maintain demand as far as it is possible to do so, and to be able to meet that demand where we can. We also need to make sure that we are laying the foundations of recovery, so that it can take place as soon as the scientific advice is consistent with doing so. To that end, I commend to hon. Members the work the Scottish Government have undertaken, particularly pledges of grants to support business and the offer of various business rates reliefs.
The economic measures we take must give people the security to follow the very clear public health advice that has been given by all the Governments on these islands, and we very much welcome the distance the Chancellor has already travelled in introducing measures to allow that to happen. However, we must recognise that, notwithstanding all that has already been done, not everyone either has or feels that they have the financial security to stop working or, in many cases, the agency to tell an irresponsible employer that they will follow the Government’s clear advice to stay at home.
On the further support we can offer, we need to be doing something and more to support those on zero-hours contracts. We must also provide support for those who have seen their hours reduced and are not involved in the Government’s furlough scheme. The Chancellor and his team have been questioned closely today, including by me, about support for the self-employed. We must take the Chancellor and the Government at their word that they are examining the details of a package and striving to present it to us as quickly as they can.
There are 330,000 self-employed workers in Scotland. Although they may not always feel that they have the ear of Government or that they are as visible as some of the larger corporate entities in the business landscape, they remain the backbone of our economy, and they must not be left behind in the responses to this crisis. We will certainly watch very closely to ensure that they are not.
Despite the Chancellor’s answers earlier, the SNP continues to believe that using the tax and welfare system to put money directly into people’s pockets through a universal basic income would be the simplest and most straightforward way of getting crucial individual financial support exactly where it needs to go.
Bim Afolami
Does the hon. Gentleman regard universal basic income as not desirable for the longer term and advocate doing it only for a set period, or does he want it for the longer term?
Richard Thomson
I happen to believe that it would be the best way to ensure that we deliver money to those who need it over the longer term. I do not view it as a Trojan horse; I believe its merits would speak for themselves. But whether we believe in it ideologically or not, from a pragmatic perspective, it would certainly reduce much of the red tape in getting financial resources where they need to be. I do not think the issue of whether it should exist in the long term needs to divide us; I think we could agree that it is how we can best deliver support over the period ahead of us.
There are other areas of the economy that require our attention. Although support for buy-to-let landlords is welcome—I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I rent out a small flat myself—it would be more welcome if that financial support went directly to tenants, which would allow them security of tenure and keep that cash circulating in the economy. Other potential measures include increasing statutory sick pay to the EU average, strengthening welfare protections, removing the bedroom tax and removing the rape clause.
When it comes to our transport infrastructure, we need to protect capacity. We saw yesterday welcome interventions in the rail industry and the train operating companies. My constituency contains Aberdeen airport, and the companies responsible for the ground operations there have been in touch with me. Support for the airlines is no doubt important, but so too is support for the airports and the people who work on the ground to ensure that the activity can continue. Our airports will be crucial in getting the country moving again once we are through this crisis. We need to prepare for the contingency of repatriations to the UK in the event that commercial airlines are not able to carry out that task. We also need to be prepared to cover those whose insurers will not pay out for coronavirus-related claims, whatever activity they relate to.
Those measures represent just some of what will be necessary, but we need the resources in place to take them.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is right that the Government are bringing forward a whole range of support packages, and my hon. Friend is right to raise the other kinds of support that are needed. Does he agree that there is also a responsibility on employers to engage constructively with this and to look after their staff? It might be understandable that people placed on furlough receive an 80% cut in their salary, but I am hearing reports from some of our colleagues who are not physically present with us today that, for example, Newsquest publishers is preparing to cut the salaries of staff who are not being furloughed by between 15% and 20%. Does he agree that that kind of practice by businesses that are going to benefit from the Government support is a very worrying practice?
Richard Thomson
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. People will be watching very closely to see how companies behave in this crisis and how they react to the support that is there. It is very clear that while some companies have behaved very responsibly, with a real social conscience and with a sense of duty towards their staff, others are not behaving as creditably. I am sure we will hear of more examples of that as time progresses.
All the measures that have been outlined come at a considerable commitment, but the costs—in financial terms, but, more importantly, in human terms—of doing nothing are very much greater to us than the costs of intervening. The response to covid-19 is one that will need all of us to make our own contribution. On behalf of my party, I pay tribute to the public servants, the charities and the many volunteers who will be working around the clock to keep people safe and comfortable over this period. I thank those in the private sector who are working so hard to keep other essential activities in the supply chain under way, and all involved in all spheres and tiers of government—local and national—who will be helping to co-ordinate that activity in the days and weeks ahead.
I will draw my remarks to a close by saying that it was important this week that we gave all those in those spheres and tiers of government the political permission to act as they need to in pursuit of the greater good. This Bill provides the resource to underpin those permissions, and subject to good choices being made with the resource that is now available, it will also give us the ability to support businesses and families through this most trying of times. The Bill has our support.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I am delighted to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), who made some salient points. I endorse his tribute to the NHS and to all our public sector workers. I do not know if anybody has seen the news recently, but a terrible tragedy has happened in Spain, where elderly people in care homes were abandoned and left to die in their care homes by the staff. I cannot believe that would ever happen in the UK, and I think it shows how brave many of the people working in our public sector are when faced with these terrible crises.
I should first draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I always do on these occasions. As well as being a Member of Parliament trying to stand up for the interests of my constituents—many businesses have contacted me over the last few days and weeks—I look at these matters from a business perspective. I have been involved in that business for 30 years, and when we had a board meeting on Friday, the first conversation we had—I guess like many businesses—was not about cuts to the number of people we employ, but about how much we could cut our salaries as board directors by. I think most board directors have an appropriately sensible approach to this. We all know this is going to be a very difficult crisis for many businesses. I pay tribute to the Treasury, the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary for putting together a package of support that is unheralded—not just in its size, but in its comprehensive nature and the speed with which it has been delivered.
The job retention scheme in particular was a massive relief to many business people. Back in 2008, we were faced with taking our workforce down from 200 people to 65 within 12 months, as the bottom fell out of our business and out of the market. The most destructive aspect of that—aside from the terrible human cost of sitting down with people with whom one had worked in some cases for decades and telling them that the business could no longer afford to employ them—was that it cost a huge amount of money to make them redundant. That puts the business in a critical condition, which means that more people have to be made redundant. I do not begrudge anybody the redundancy payments that were due, but for a private business that is a very difficult thing to have to do.
The job retention scheme insulates many businesses from that, because instead of having to lay people off or make them redundant, the business can say to them, “You can stay at home at the moment. You’ll continue to be paid a fair amount to get you through this short-term crisis, then we’ll bring you back into the fold.” That eases the financial pressure on the business in an important way. It is a really excellent scheme. There are of course some missing details, which I know we will get in good time, in particular whether earnings will include things such as commission and whether the Government payment will include things such as national insurance. Many businesses have questions that I am sure will be answered in good time.
The other element of the package is the business rate grant scheme, which many businesses have welcomed. Of course, many self-employed people, including sole traders and freelancers, are outside the scheme—a point that I will touch on in a second.
I want to raise one or two points about the business interruption loan scheme. Obviously we want as many businesses as possible to take advantage of the scheme, but one big concern is about security. The scheme is based on the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, which included personal guarantees. I understand that the new scheme will not include them—I have been told that from the Dispatch Box today on an urgent question—but it would be helpful if the British Business Bank website said clearly that that is the case. It does not say that at the moment, which could deter some people from applying in the first place. All it says is that security can be taken
“At the discretion of the lender”.
I have had personal guarantees for most of my business life, and I think most people would expect a business person to have some skin in the game, but this is a different situation. It is very difficult to quantify the impact of this crisis on a business. The Government have rightly stated that there will be no personal guarantees, which I assume means that people’s family homes should not be put up for security either. That being the case, it would be helpful to clarify that point, because that would increase demand.
The other point is that at the moment the banks eligible for that scheme number about 40, but there are many outside it. Those not eligible for the previous British Business Bank scheme, the EFG, will not qualify for access to the current scheme. Therefore, customers of OakNorth, Aldermore or one of the many alternative providers in the marketplace today cannot access the scheme. The normal process for applying for that scheme is somewhere between six and 18 months, which is clearly far too long. I think that the Treasury has committed to try to accelerate that process—or the British Business Bank has—but it will still take a matter of weeks, and businesses cannot wait weeks for this money. They need it in a matter of days.
It is absolutely essential that we get that support to businesses now, so I politely ask the Minister whether he will look at that and perhaps get the Bank of England to set up a new scheme directly with some of those lenders, many of which are very bona fide lenders. Of course, the right checks and balances have to be in place, but these are authorised, regulated banks, so it would be good to ensure that all lenders can get finance to all customers.
The other thing about how business will view this crisis is how long it is likely to last. Businesses are much more likely to take a loan, from anywhere, if they think they can get through this and quantify the losses or how long their revenue will be affected. I worry about the current situation, because we are telling people that they can go to work as long as they cannot work from home and as long as they socially distance themselves when they get there. I think that was one reason for the confusion and why Filey in my constituency and many other beautiful market towns were packed out with visitors, who felt they could go to those beautiful places and socially distance themselves while they were there, which clearly they cannot if there are too many people there. It is the same in a workplace environment. I can see that, because of the uncertainty about who can actually go to work—we have not restricted it to key workers or essential workers, to my understanding—lots of people are building houses on construction sites and whatever else they are doing. They are going to work because they cannot work from home and they feel they can socially distance.
From a business point of view, I would personally prefer to have a complete lockdown for 30 days. We know that, in China, after a full lockdown for 14 days, cases peaked, and after 30 days, cases stopped, and all the coffee shops, Starbucks, Apple and the car dealerships opened again. That gives us hope that we can tackle and defeat this virus within 30 days, if we do the right thing. If we are equivocal about it and it is confusing, people will continue to go to work and continue to spread the virus.
From my business perspective, a short, sharp shock is much more appealing. I would know that, if I applied for a business loan from the new scheme, I could quantify how much I would need, if I had the confidence that the timescale would be limited in that way.
I have a couple of other points that I think would be useful. Ideally, the Government should not have to step in to support businesses at any point in time. The markets should deliver that themselves, with finance coming from banks or investors through to businesses. Venture capital trusts have limits on how much they can put into businesses—up to £5 million on an annual basis and £12 million as a lifetime limit into a particular business. Because of the unprecedented nature of this crisis, it would be useful to double those limits so that venture capital trusts, which invest in many good businesses, can see those businesses through a tough time. Otherwise they will not be able to get the extra money into those businesses that they need. It could be a temporary change, and it would potentially save many businesses.
On the self-employed, we have understandably heard lots of calls for more help for the sole trader. Many different people in my constituency have contacted me. They desperately need some help, and I do understand that. Within that cohort are some very vulnerable people, including mortgage prisoners. I have corresponded with many mortgage prisoners, as have other hon. Members, and many are self-employed. They are in a particular situation in that their earnings are being very badly damaged now, and they have been paying huge mortgage rates for too long. Many of the mortgage prisoners’ loans have been sold to non-UK lenders—inactive lenders—and the regulatory oversight of those lenders is much reduced compared with UK lenders. In my view, it is an absolute disgrace that we allow UK mortgage customers’ loans to be sold to a foreign entity, over which we do not have the same oversight, so we cannot properly control the activities of those lenders. We need to bring all those lenders within the same regulatory scope. Some of those mortgage prisoners are on very high standard variable rates of around 5%, and even up to 6%. It is simply unfair . A year or two ago, we brought in a standard variable rate cap in the energy sector. I wonder whether the Minister could look to do the same thing in this sector to ensure that those people are treated fairly.
I do a lot of work with the all-party group on fair business banking. Most bankers do the right thing—the vast majority of banks and bankers I meet and have banked with over more than 30 years in business have looked after my business fairly. Clearly, that does not always happen, given the 2008 scandal in small business banking. It is time now for the banks to do the right thing and to work with the Government on the business interruption scheme.
Another issue is that the rates that banks charge on personal loans and overdrafts are not coming down, despite the reduction in base rate—in fact, quite the opposite. The Financial Conduct Authority, in its wisdom, decided that everyone who had an overdraft should pay the same whether it was an authorised overdraft or an unauthorised overdraft. It told the banks that they could not penalise people for unauthorised overdrafts, so everyone has to pay the same. The rate for authorised overdrafts used to be somewhere between 3% and 15%, and unauthorised overdrafts used to have a fixed daily charge and a much higher rate. So the banks made them all the same, and here are the rates being charged today for authorised and unauthorised loans: First Direct, 39.9%; HSBC, 39.9%; Lloyds Banking Group, 39.9%; Nationwide, 39.9%; and NatWest, 39.5%. It is simply disgraceful. Everybody is paying the higher rate. It smacks of a cartel, as well as profiteering and overcharging.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Last Friday, four or five businesses in my constituency came to see me, looking for help because of the coronavirus. The first constituent told me that he had asked for his loans to be reduced, but the bank—I will not say which one it was—said, “No, what we’ll do is charge you £100 for each amount of money that you’ve borrowed, and then we’ll charge you interest at 6% on top of that.” Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in these difficult times, that is totally outrageous? The banks should be there to help, not to take advantage.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution, and indeed for all the work he does on the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking and for the many speeches he has made on the matter. I absolutely agree. The two best things that I have heard the Treasury say over the past two weeks—and there have been many—are, “We will do whatever it takes” and, “We are all in this together.” The banks should take that approach as well. I and many other Members of the House will be watching to make sure that this time the banks do the right thing and restore their reputation.
John McDonnell
The hon. Gentleman has done some sterling work on this, so would he like to comment on the figures that are coming out on 6 April and the interest rates for overdrafts from HSBC, First Direct, M&S Bank and TSB? Nationwide have already gone there, with an increase from 9.99% to 39.9%. What does he think about that?
Kevin Hollinrake
I think it is an absolute disgrace. I do not think that the FCA saw it coming, which is one of the flaws of the regulator. The FCA has been criticised many times in this place, including by the right hon. Gentleman. It told the banks, “Right, you’re not going to charge anybody any more than anyone else is.” But that let them all put their rates up to the highest level. It is exploitative and absolutely outrageous.
The banks need to look at this as a sector and start to treat their customers fairly, which of course is a basic requirement of the principles of banking, so the FCA should step in and look at this. In fact, I think it should be the subject of an inquiry by the Competition and Markets Authority. The fact that the rates are not just high, but all the same, smacks of directors getting together in a room and agreeing a figure. It cannot be a coincidence that all the rates are exactly the same in this supposedly competitive market.
On commercial loans, it is right that the Government have negotiated with the banks to give mortgage holidays, which of course have to be paid back but nevertheless give borrowers vital breathing space. I think the same is true of some commercial loans, but the banks are saying, “We’ll give you a holiday only on the payment of the principal, not the interest.” Those paying for a commercial loan are paying much more on the interest than they are on the principal, which again seems grossly unfair if we are all in this together.
We are going to work together to try to get through this, so I call on the banks to look at this again, to be fair and to rebuild their reputation. The final way they could do that is by suspending legal action, certainly in relation to residential repossessions but also for repossessions against businesses. They should show forbearance and use the business banking resolution service—I am one of the people who have been working on that in recent months—which will be like a super ombudsman for banking disputes. They should defer any issues they have with their customers until that service is properly established, so that those complaints can be resolved fairly—fair to the bank and fair to the customer.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). He made two points with which I wish strongly to agree. First, I agree on the need for clarity on people who can go to work: who are the essential workers? The issue is causing huge concern. If there are too many people on public transport because we are not leaving it for the essential workers, that is bad for the whole public objective of stopping the virus spreading. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on that. The bad news is that people are almost going to be forced to stay at home anyway because business is collapsing. Let us take the construction industry, which the hon. Gentleman talked about. I am getting messages telling me that because mortar supplies are basically collapsing, people will not be able to do any construction. That shows Members how dramatic is the impact of what is happening out there. There should be clarity from the Government on that because leadership is important.
The second thing on which the hon. Gentleman is right—I really want to impress this upon those on the Treasury Bench, and we have heard other colleagues talk about it already—is the genuine accessibility of the loans that have been made available via the Bank of England. The Government trumpeted their announcement and we all welcomed it, but I keep hearing stories of small businesses that find that, if they can get through to the bank—by the way, it is taking quite a long time, although that is not a complaint, because of course a lot of people are contacting the banks and I expect they are extremely busy—they have to give personal guarantees. At a time when it is very difficult for people to know how their business is going to pan out—how can they know that in such an uncertain certain time?—no one their right mind would give those sorts of personal guarantees. It is just not realistic for them to put their house and the whole family’s income and savings on the line. The Government are going to have to think again about the terms of the loan guarantee scheme. These are unusual times and the Government have made money available; rather than just giving a guarantee to the financial institution, they will have to find a way to transfer that guarantee to the business concerned. I know there are huge moral hazards with that—I get that—but if they do not, it is not going to work.
Bim Afolami
On that point, has the right hon. Gentleman come across the same thing as I have? I have found that the people who have been asked to give personal guarantees are often the ones with the lowest debt—indeed, no debt—in their businesses, and the people who have found it easier are those who already have a big debt facility with a bank that can be easily extended. It is almost a double punishment for those who have been prudent in managing their small businesses so far.
Sir Edward Davey
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is that old saying, “If you borrow a lot, you are able to borrow more,” whereas those people who have run things prudently are finding it a problem. This is a really crucial issue and the Government must give it some urgent attention. In the exchanges on the urgent question that I asked earlier on the self-employed, there were some welcome statements about the loans being available to sole traders and the self-employed more widely, but I do not think they will be able to access them, because they will not be able to give those sorts of personal guarantees. Given that cash-flow is going to be king, certainly until the Government come up with a solution for the self-employed, they will have to have access to some money. If that is just a loan on their personal bank account, with the interest we have been talking about, that is not going to work for people. People are going to be in real trouble. I welcome what the Government have done, but they need to look at how it is operating in practice—and look at it fast.
People out there remember what happened in the financial crisis. They remember that this House said, across party lines, that we must bail out the banks—that the banks could not collapse and the financial system had to keep going. They were pretty upset, because a lot of them took cuts in their own income and then saw that although some bankers lost their jobs—we knowledge that—many did not, and the banking system sort of recovered and looked like it was treated with quite a lot of generosity through our taxpayers’ money. When we hear stories now about ordinary people who have put their lives into building their businesses not getting help from the banks because the banks are getting in the way, I have to tell the banks that they have to sort themselves out, because this House will not be able to resist the political pressure. We need the banks in our society, right? No one is suggesting that they do not play a critical role, but if at this stage, after we helped them out 10 years ago, the banks do not come to the rescue of small businesses, sole traders, the self-employed and ordinary people, they will reap a whirlwind. I really worry about that, because I believe in the banking system, but the banks have got to step up to the plate.
Bim Afolami
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Is it not also important to recognise the nature of the schemes—that is, that they were put in place by the Treasury, the banks and the Bank of England all working together? The terms on which the banks are operating were agreed by all of them, so we need to ensure that all those parties—the Treasury, the Bank of England and the banks—collectively realise what needs to happen, rather than us necessarily saying that it is just the banks that are making it difficult; the structures and the terms are actually very important.
Sir Edward Davey
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point, and backs up the thrust of what I am trying to say. The banks have been given access to free money. They are being looked after by the Bank of England through this extension of the Bank of England’s balance sheet, so they are doing okay. So why are they not stepping up to help the rest of the economy? There are some really quite serious questions on this issue. I hope that the Government say in response to this debate that they, the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority are going to look at this situation, because it is just not good enough. I want to work on a cross-party basis on this issue, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) said; this is vital to all of us, and we need to send a message to those who are running the banks that we are expecting them to step up. It is time that they did their duty, right?
I actually want to come to my speech, because that was just a response to the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami). I want to talk about the Bill in front of us—I know that is a bit unusual—as well as the supply process of which it is a part, and then I will give some thoughts on the economy.
On the Bill, will the Minister tell us why the Treasury chose to change the percentage limit of the contingencies fund, which is normally set at 2% of total authorised expenditure in the preceding year, to 50% until the end of 2020-21? In absolute figures, the amount before this Bill would have been £10.7 billion. That has gone up to £266 billion. I hope that the Minister can explain why. It does not seem unreasonable, given the pressures on Departments, but it is quite a big change. I am not against it—let me be clear that I will be supporting the Bill today—but it would be good to put on the record, for the House and for history, why that figure has been chosen. When people look at this situation in the future, they will need to know why that decision was taken.
The Minister said in his opening remarks that this was not an increase in expenditure. Well, I hope that he meant to say that it is an increase in expenditure in that it takes account of commitments that the Chancellor has made both in the Budget and since the Budget. If I have understood correctly, there is a big increase in expenditure because we need one—for the health service, our social care system and other parts of our public services that need the cash now.
I have another question for the Minister. If these contingencies are being given to Departments so that they have the cash they need, is the money also being given to local authorities? I want to underline this point: local authorities are on the frontline now, and they are having to spend money all the time on a whole range of things that are completely unbudgeted for. They are confused about the proposals for business rates, whether they are going to get any income in, what money they have to give out and all the rest of it. Local authorities are slightly unclear about what is happening. I hope that there will be genuine desire and action on behalf of the Treasury to get some money out—on account, if you like—to them so that they have the cash flow to ensure that they can provide the extra services that they are being asked to provide. It is essential that we hear that local authorities are getting the support that the Whitehall Departments seem to be getting.
I said that I also wanted to talk about the supply process. This legislation is part of the almost anachronistic supply process in this House. I am afraid that I am a bit of a geek on this. In 2000, I wrote a pamphlet called “Making MPs Work For Our Money: Reforming Parliament’s Role In Budget Scrutiny”. It is a cure for insomnia, so I do not necessarily suggest people read it, but in it I tried to argue that this House does not really have sovereignty over the Budget. We look at these Bills when they come along and we nod them through, but our processes of examining draft budgets and estimates are shocking. In my pamphlet, I made the comparison with all the OECD countries, and this House has the worst processes for examining draft budgets and measures such as this Bill—that is worrying. I do not wish to resurrect the Brexit debate, but it was supposed to be about parliamentary sovereignty and I used to say, “I wish we had some.” That is because this House rarely, if ever, looks at the estimates properly, analyses them in Select Committees and makes proposals about draft spending decisions. Other Parliaments do those things quite easily—the Swedish and New Zealand Parliaments are good models. Our approach undermines the value for money and undermines what we are here for, and we really need to look at the estimates procedure.
That is why this Bill looks so weird in many ways; it is called the Contingencies Fund Bill and we are not used to doing this sort of thing, because we have given up control over supply—it is just nodded through. The last time MPs voted against a spending request of the Government was in 1919, more than 100 years ago We have given up properly controlling the draft estimates. Although I will be supporting the Bill tonight, because it is really important that we let this one through, I just want to say to the Minister that I hope we can reflect on this. I raised this issue when I was in government and tried to get the then Chancellor to look at it. There was a flurry of excitement and then the dead hand of the Treasury said, “No way, we are not giving up control.” That was the wrong move, because control can be exercised with greater transparency. I hope that that may be one thing that comes from this experience in this emergency situation.
Let me end with some reflections on the economy, where we are at and the lessons we are taking. I talked about the importance of the banks really delivering, given the agreement with the Government and the Bank of England. That is probably the most essential message from me tonight. There are some longer-term things and possibly some relatively short-term things to address, one of which is the way we do the Bank of England’s quantitative easing. That is monetary policy, where we are, in effect, printing money and sending it out. That happened after the 2008 crash and it is happening now. I am not against it, but I just say that the way it works is not some sort of technical, politically neutral, value-neutral system; it has implications for economic equality in this country, because the money tends to go to people in the City—the financial institutions. It does not go to ordinary people and ordinary businesses. So if we are going to get things right this time and have quantitative easing, I urge the Minister to let us have a debate about how those mechanisms actually work, because in crises we do not want economic inequality worse; we want to make it better. These technical things sound as though they are available only for pointy-heads in the Treasury, but quantitative easing is a political issue and we have not debated that. It has massive social and economic consequences, and we need to make sure that there is democratic accountability on them, and that they are properly understood and work in the interests of society.
Kevin Hollinrake
Has that not been solved to some extent with the job-retention scheme, because the Government will issue bonds to fund that scheme, they will be bought by asset managers and the QE will buy those assets off the asset managers? That is the circular nature of that scheme. So this time round, as the Prime Minister said a few days ago, the support would be directed at the people, in terms of keeping them in work and in pay, rather than simply funding the banks. To a certain extent, this time QE does support jobs and real people.
Sir Edward Davey
The hon. Gentleman has a point and he is right to take me up on that. I think that there is an improvement, but I do not think we have debated this in the context of QE and the monetary side of the policy response. I think we need to do that, because we need to unpick some deep issues here and I do not think this House has understood that. Although I am a big fan of the independent Bank of England, and I do not think we should interfere with the setting of interest rates, I do think QE raises some political questions which are not technical and require accountability.
Bim Afolami
On QE and how that would be done, we must make sure that it does not become too inflationary, that being the problem if we have a distribution network straight to the real economy without mediating it through banks.
Sir Edward Davey
I half agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think inflation is going to be the problem; people have not got any money. This form of QE is often called helicopter money and perhaps that is the right move now, and we need to be debating it.
I have a final comment to make and then I will sit down. When we reflect in a few months on this crisis and what has gone on, we will have to look at some of the underlying assumptions of our economic models. I am not saying that we should rip them up—I do not believe that at all—but how the state underpins and works with the market is really important. What I mean by that is that there is an assumption that the market can do it all, that the market is fantastic and that Governments should come out of the way, but markets only exist because of Governments. Regulations and laws make markets and there have always been those.
Sir Edward Davey
The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. Without rules and regulations on competition, on fair play for employees and on consumer protections, markets will not work. Where there is no consumer protection, consumers do not have faith in the products and services being provided, so the markets cannot work. I absolutely think that we need to reflect on that, because I do not think that the model has been working well enough. I will end on that comment, because I hope that we will learn from this and have a proper debate about how our economy will work in future.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I rise to speak on the Contingencies Fund, not least because the Isles of Scilly transport system—I have mentioned this once already today—is desperate for a contingencies fund. I will set out why, and then how, local departments and Government Departments might help with their own contingencies fund.
The Isles of Scilly is 28 miles off Land’s End; 2,200 people live there and depend on the transport system for everything they need. The transport system is entirely run by private operators, with no help from the state—we have been working to try to address that. The community on Scilly rely on this transport for absolutely everything, including, in some cases, non-emergency medical travel.
Much of the transport serves the remote population all year round. There is aviation, freight transport and inter-island transport, which includes the school bus and transport for free bus pass holders and everybody else who needs to move between the five inhabited islands all year round. That is made possible only by the vibrant, successful tourism sector, which ordinarily starts with vigour this week. Many Members tell me, “I have just been on my holidays on the Isles of Scilly”. They will understand how remote but how precious this set of islands are.
As we expected, the demand for tourism has collapsed dramatically, and rightly so, but so far in all the measures that have been announced, very few actually help. For example, the help with wages is based on the figure for the previous month. As we start the tourism industry on Scilly now, there is no record of wages for the previous month. If we lose these people, who have the right kind of skills and tickets to operate on these boats, the boats and vessels cannot continue to work, even when we get past the coronavirus outbreak.
I listened very carefully to the Chancellor’s response to a question I raised earlier, knowing full well that the measures so far do not really help with any of the issues faced by the transport operators on Scilly. He suggested that local authorities are in a position to help, and that is welcome. This is where I get on to the issue of a contingencies fund for Government Departments. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Council of the Isles of Scilly, Cornwall Council and the Department for Transport have a contingencies fund to underwrite the running costs of each of the operators serving Scilly so that they can survive this difficult period and be there to be part of the recovery, once we have beaten coronavirus? The truth is that if any of these operators collapse, the state will have to step in, and it is not for the state to run these essential services, in my understanding. It is far better to enable them to survive these three or four months, or however long it may be.
This is a critical issue for very many families and business owners, and more clarity is needed from a Government who have rightly said—I have supported them from the outset—that they would do whatever is needed, and whatever it takes. Will the Minister please take this to the Treasury and find out what can be done quickly to ensure that these businesses last even beyond the end of this month? The situation is critical.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I want to touch briefly on the situation of charities and their funding in the context of coronavirus. I am aware that charities have already been in conversation with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about funding to allow them to assist in responding to the crisis. So many people face huge need and social isolation. Just some of the factors affecting those people are funding for food banks, which is falling because of the current situation, as are donations; funding for listening services; and funding for care services, which are needed more than they have ever been.
Charities face huge challenges, and they, too, need contingency funding measures if they are to survive and assist our communities as we face this challenge. Many of them are losing income because of the need to close their charity shops and the cancellation of fundraising events. Will the Minister confirm that charities should be eligible for the same business interruption measures as other business organisations? Will he look again at the trading income threshold, which, as I understand it, requires 50% of income to come from trade?
Charities need a stabilisation fund to help them to stay afloat and assist our communities, and I hope that that will be made available to our charities in the context of this contingency funding. Will the Minister confirm that they will be eligible for support to pay their staff, as other employers are? It is vital that we retain the infrastructure of our charities if we are to get through this situation and survive into the future.
There must be emergency funding for frontline charities that are supporting the response to coronavirus to ensure that they can remain afloat and provide that service. I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) has written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about that, and I hope he will respond thoughtfully and positively to the points that she has made.
We face a huge issue as we move, quite rightly, into greater social isolation. Charities such as Age UK Gateshead, which covers my constituency, and Samaritans have a real and positive role to play in countering the mental strain of loneliness and isolation, which many people will undoubtedly face in this situation. I ask the Minister to ensure that charities are given the funding that they need.
While I am on my feet and I have, I hope, the Minister’s ear, I put in a plea for funding for the self-employed, particularly those in what I would call microbusinesses—the dance schools, the musicians, the driving instructors and the pest controllers—who are contacting me, even as I have been sitting here, to say, “I just don’t know what I am going to do.” They not only have no income, but they do not qualify for the various grants and loans. They are left trying to claim universal credit, but the huge backlog of claims means that, with the best will in the world, no payments will be made quickly. So many of them have contacted me in desperation in the last couple of weeks. They have lost not only their main income but their future business, and they will have to rebuild from the start. Can the Minister press the Chancellor to provide funding for that group of people?
Finally, I want to flag funding for transport services. The coronavirus has produced a huge change in the usage of our transport systems, which are vital for the future. I know that many transport authorities are looking at how they can maintain transport services, but it is important that we work sympathetically and flexibly to maintain our public sector transport system.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I want to start by echoing the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friends, and particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). The urgent need for provisions to support the self-employed gets greater by the day, and my concern is that desperation is turning to anger. The “What about us?” sentiment will be driving that anger, understandably, and making the situation a whole lot worse. I urge Ministers to bring that support forward.
We are also promised support for renters in both the social sector and private rented sector. That has not happened yet. Again, as days and weeks go by, the desperation and uncertainty become greater, and I urge Ministers to bring that forward. My right hon. Friend was right about the Government apparently going back on a commitment to bring forward provisions to ban evictions. If someone is evicted, where are they going to go at the moment? There is no reason at all why that provision should not be brought forward. If we are serious that people have to stay at home, let them stay at home by making sure that they are not evicted. It shows either misjudgment in making the promise in the first place, or misjudgment and bad faith in breaking that promise. I urge Ministers to take that back to the Prime Minister and ask him to make a change.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) was absolutely correct in what she said about charities. In Cheshire West and Chester, we have brought together Cheshire West and Chester Council, West Cheshire Voluntary Action and lots of charities and church groups to try to provide a co-ordinated service to all those who need support at the moment. But as my hon. Friend said, the charities are running out of money because their commercial activities are running down, which is affecting their income. That is calling into question their ability to deliver services to the most vulnerable, which they do much of the time and which is often taken for granted. Right now, with everyone expected to stay at home, the ability of charities to deliver those services is perhaps limited anyway, but as this situation hopefully gets better, we will look to charities to get those services up and running straightaway. At the moment, without the support for charities, their ability to do that is diminished.
Kevin Hollinrake
May I take the hon. Gentleman back to his point on rented accommodation? He is right that at the moment, all landlords should show forbearance when people are in difficult financial circumstances, and the Coronavirus Bill will increase the notice period to end an assured shorthold tenancy from two to three months. He is a fair man, so does he agree that we must be fair to both sides? If a tenant is unfairly withholding rent from a landlord, and it takes eight months to get a case to court at the moment, that is not very fair on the landlord. We have to be fair to both sides.
Christian Matheson
I do accept that, but that would be the case in normal circumstances anyway. We are talking about giving people peace of mind during this national crisis and ensuring that people do not even have to live with the worry of being chucked out on the street or into temporary accommodation. That is my concern.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington reflected on his childhood in Liverpool and on his priest considering him to be a lapsed Catholic. That reminded me of my mum and dad, who also grew up in Liverpool, albeit a couple of decades or more before my right hon. Friend. The formative period of their childhood was the second world war, when they were both young children, suffering the bombings in Liverpool and the uncertainty of the war. We all know that the second world war in Europe ended formally on 7 May 1945, but my mum and dad did not know that—they had no idea when the hostilities would end and things might start to get better. Listening to my right hon. Friend, I reflected that that is the situation in which we find ourselves now.
We have no idea how long this crisis is likely to last. That uncertainty drives desperation, anxiety and as the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) and my good friend the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) said, business uncertainty. That is why it is essential that the Government are clear in their statements and oblige other businesses—we have talked about the banks; I want to consider insurance companies—to ensure that they play their part. If we cannot plan ahead, we will not know how to address the problems, and it cannot simply be down to the Government.
I make that point because insurance companies are not living up to their obligations. I know of businesses in Chester that have been told that their business contributions to insurance do not apply because coronavirus was not a notifiable disease at the time of the outbreak or because the Government had only suggested, as was the case last week, that events did not take place rather than saying that they must not take place. As I mentioned at Question Time, for events, conferences and sports that have a long lead-in time to prepare, it would help if the Government were clearer now that those businesses could not get back up and running for four or six months and that insurance companies should ensure that their policies kick in.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Ind)
The hon. Gentleman talked about the future and how we recover and rebuild after the crisis has passed, but does he agree that things have changed utterly and that footing the bill for covid-19 in the years ahead cannot fall to the people, and that the banks certainly should not be rewarded, as the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) suggested, with quantitative easing? It is important that we get this right. When we start to rebuild, it is important that people and organisations that have avoided and evaded tax are called to pay their fair share.
Christian Matheson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The world will change, but only if we lead and make that change ourselves. As regards quantitative easing, which the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) mentioned, I would be happy to give all that money to local authorities and let them spread it out to places that really need it.
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, who is a good friend, and has respect across the House for his work on the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking, is right to talk about the banks, not only now, but in the future, when this is all over. We must ensure that they do not get up to the same games by looking at businesses and saying, “Your income’s declined, so we’ll start foreclosing on some of your assets.” That has happened before. I call on Ministers to give close attention to the way that banks operate, not only now, but afterwards, and ensure that they play their part.
In this crisis, there will be heroes and villains. We will remember the heroes and we will also remember the villains. I call on employers such as banks and insurance companies not to make their staff go to work if they are in a vulnerable group. I am getting complaints from constituents that they are being forced to go to work. Mike Ashley and Mr Wetherspoon should not flout Government advice just because their bottom line might be affected. We will remember the villains. I say, “Don’t be a villain at the end of this” because hopefully, those companies and corporations will receive the short shrift they deserve.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Desperation was the word used a number of times by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and, prior to him, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist). It sums up the feeling of many people for many reasons. I think it also underpins what the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) did. I wish he was two metres from the Minister to demonstrate good social distancing in this place. He was right. This debate is about improving the schemes as far as we are able to do so, as part of our contribution to scrutinising the Bill.
My first point, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), is about construction sites. We have all seen the pictures, and some of us have passed examples today, of construction workers working in big numbers in close proximity. That cannot be right and it is certainly not what was intended by the Prime Minister’s guidance. Perhaps the Minister can take that point on board and consider how that situation might be prevented. It is a very serious matter, not just for those workers but in terms of spreading the virus elsewhere. We must all remember that, even if we are fit and healthy and do not become sick ourselves, it is not about the individual, but who we pass it on to.
On banks and loans, the problem, as has been stated by a number of Members, is that loans mean debt which cannot be repaid without the certainty of an income. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester just made the point about us not knowing the end date. If people do not know the end date, they will not be able to plan to pay the loans back. That is a real problem. If we then add on the uncertainty of having to provide personal guarantees, it becomes extremely problematic for many businesses to take advantage of the loan scheme. The suggestions made by Members for how the loan scheme might operate are really important, and it is really important that the Government go away and look into them.
On the behaviour of banks, in other debates we have heard descriptions of pharmacists and food retailers hiking up prices. The banks are doing exactly the same thing with interest rates. That cannot be allowed to continue. I thought the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) was going to suggest nationalising the banks as a way forward. He was at one stage channelling his inner Marxist for the benefit of some in the Chamber. [Interruption.] There is agreement from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington on the Front Bench. The point is that the taxpayer bailed out the banks. People paid the money back through higher interest rates in the financial crisis. They are now about to repeat that behaviour at a much more dangerous and difficult time in our history. There has to be intervention by the Treasury, in whatever shape or form, to prevent that and to ensure that the banks behave responsibly, provide support and do not put apply onerous terms, whether through personal guarantees or ultra-high extortionate rates of interest.
There is also the trust issue. Businesses do not want to borrow because of their past experiences. During the financial crisis when I was running a business, I had the experience of having my overdraft facility recalled overnight. We were lucky that we were able to cover that out of personal savings, but very many businesses were not able to do so and went to the wall. People suffered grievously—some took their own lives. We have debated that many times in this Chamber, and we do not want a repeat of that over the coming months and years after the immediate crisis has passed. I therefore urge the Government to intervene now to get that right.
As well as taking advantage of the Government’s employee retention scheme, businesses will need to pay additional costs such as rents and insurances. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester made the point that businesses are being told that they do not qualify for business continuity insurance. The same applies to income protection for the self-employed and small business owners, because this disease did not exist when their policies were written. Those issues need attention. The vast sum of money that the Government are making available provides the opportunity to look at some of the other costs for businesses to see whether there can be help beyond that suggested for employees. Grants are certainly a part of that. Given how long this situation might last, the size of the grants will need to be constantly reviewed so that they are sufficient.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about grants. The biggest grant, of course, is the job retention scheme—that is a grant. It is Government funded, and there is no requirement for employers to pay anything towards it unless they want to do so, and they can top it up to that 20%. Therefore, will he concede that the scheme is a very important initiative by the Government and that it will be welcomed by many businesses?
Bill Esterson
Absolutely. It is important, and I certainly welcome it. None the less, there are some challenges with it. The fact that it is not available for the March payroll is a big problem for many businesses. We have already seen a significant number of businesses close and many workers laid off who will not now be eligible to be part of that scheme. The Government, totally understandably, have used examples of furlough schemes elsewhere in the world, but it will be difficult for the scheme to deal with the nature and the scale of this crisis.
John McDonnell
What we were trying to establish in our discussions with the Government last week was equality of sacrifice. Yes, workers and the Treasury have realised that there will have to be some sacrifice, but we were expecting some contribution from employers themselves. An hour ago, 400 workers at Tristar in my constituency were laid off. Those 400 drivers were told that they will get paid 80% of their wages by the Government and they have been laid off for three months. We expected the employers to contribute to that 20%, but, in this case, that will not be paid. The crisis is falling on the shoulders of workers, rather than on businesses. There is no equality of sacrifice in a number of these companies, some of which are being ruthless.
Bill Esterson
My right hon. Friend highlights the fact that some employers do not behave in a way that we should be able to expect them to behave given the nature of the crisis. We have heard other examples of large companies behaving in a way that is irresponsible and, frankly, downright wrong.
In addition to what my right hon. Friend says about employers not paying the 20% element of the wage replacement scheme and taking advantage of it, it is also the case that, for employers who wish staff to go on to short-time or part-time working, or reduced hours of some sort, the scheme does not apply. There is a real challenge for businesses in those categories, too.
That brings me on to the self-employed and this point about desperation. People are desperate now. We have debated that a number of times today and over the past few days as well. I just do not get the sense of urgency in this place. We are in here, and away from the real world. The same applies with Whitehall. I just think that, sometimes, people here do not have a sense of just how desperate things are when two members of the same household are both self-employed and have no money. They cannot put food on the table. When the Chancellor says, as he did this morning, that he is worried about the scheme for self-employed going to wealthy people, I say, as indeed did the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton in his urgent question, let us not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Let us get a scheme in place and let us make it comparable with what the Government have offered to employees.
I want to say just a word or two about food supply and how the fund might apply there. There will be challenges around security of food supply; obviously, given the closing down of international transport links, that will be a challenge. We heard about the pressures on supermarkets. Some of the behaviour in supermarkets has been completely unacceptable, and the same applies to pharmacies. I hope that some of this money will go to ensuring security of deliveries, to protecting retail workers, to making sure that food and medicine get to those who most need it, and to helping pay for deliveries. The same applies to the supply of PPE, which hon. Friends have spoken about.
The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton is right to raise the issue of helicopter money; at some point, that is something that the Treasury should consider. Any scheme, whether on PPE, food or access to funds, is only as good as the information out there, the awareness of the scheme, and the immediacy of access to it. The Government need to do much more to ensure that people know what is available in all those areas. The gov.uk website will carry that information, but lots of people and businesses do not know that it is there.
There is a real imperative on the Government to work much harder on the information that is getting out there, and on access to what is being offered. Television and radio will lose their commercial advertising; there is a great opportunity to replace it. I can give an example of the power of really good advertising: the video put together by the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust respiratory department. It was one of the most powerful pieces of advertising about the need for people to stay at home that I have ever seen. The BBC showed it; I think Sky might have, too; and it had viral attention on social media. The Government need to produce advertising of that quality to demonstrate what is available in a range of areas across society. Some of this money can be used to deliver on that agenda. Information and proper access will ensure the most effective use of this enormous necessary injection of funding.
The debate has been an opportunity to bring together the issues. I hope that the Financial Secretary will take them to all his colleagues across Government, as appropriate. It is interesting that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton said that 1919 was the last time there was this sort of scrutiny; that was the year of the Spanish flu pandemic. We will not vote against the measure this time, but let us hope that, this time, it is effective, and that the money gets through as quickly as possible.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
This has been a very wide-ranging debate on a Bill that, though very short, is of course critically important, so it is important that we talk about its different elements. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) set out, the official Opposition support the Bill, but it elicits substantial questions. The first is about the different aspects of the expenditure; the second is about the process for delivering it; the third is about the process for overseeing it; and the fourth is about the Bill’s role in relation to the rest of the financial decision making cycle. I will try to touch on those aspects briefly.
First, we have had a wide-ranging debate on the measures. I will be very brief, so I will not be able to pick up on every issue that was covered. There has been discussion of NHS and social care spending. We still require more transparency about the additions to that spending, particularly around the targeting of PPE and testing. As the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) said, there are still many issues on social security. For example, we have no clarity about exactly what the hardship funds provided by local authorities will be spent on. Will it be just council tax relief, or will it be more? We really feel the lack of the social fund here.
Of course, the problems for renters continue, as was rightly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson). As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) said, many issues faced by charities are not dealt with by the sources of support that have been announced recently. I hope that the Minister listened to her recommendations and will take them up.
We have had a lot of debate about self-employment. We need those measures put in place as soon as possible. There was discussion about the scope of the measures, and the idea of not funding those self-employed people who already have resources. We seem to have one approach for the goose and another for the gander. For example, the system of loans is not conditional, whereas in some other countries it has been conditional on certain activities undertaken by the firms. We need to be fair.
On salary support, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) said, it is essential that we keep as many people in work as possible. My party strongly agrees with him and has pushed for this measure. It is terrible for people if they lose their job, and terrible for the company because of all the associated costs and disruption. We need responsible behaviour from companies. We do not want to be talking about the villains after they have committed their villainy; we need the Government to call them out and to act. The Health Secretary did so eventually in relation to Sports Direct, but we need action much more quickly.
We need more clarity about vulnerable workers. We still have pregnant women and people with severe asthma being told they have to go to work, they do not have any choice. Clear guidance is needed on that and on insurance.
We need clarity on support for specific industries, as the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) said, talking about transport and the travel industry in the Scilly Isles. He is right that that is a critical problem. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) said, talking about the construction industry, we need more pressure from Government on the critical issue of safety at work. What we are seeing all around us is immensely disturbing.
Again, we need more clarity on the business interruption loan scheme. Are personal guarantees required or not? If they are, when are they required? We have to ensure that a clear message comes through on that and on the British Business Bank and how quickly new banks are being brought into a relationship with it. Before, I heard days, not weeks. Which is it? We need this to be sorted out as quickly as possible. The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) asked a number of pertinent questions about the banking system that we need to look at here.
There are big questions not just about elements of the spending but about its delivery. As my hon. Friends have said, many organisations that were already fragile are having to spend resources without knowing exactly how those resources will be backfilled. Such organisations include local authorities, NHS trusts, schools or groups of schools, multi-academy trusts, transport providers and charities. I am very concerned that we have seen organisations stepping into the breach to deal with areas where there is not appropriate central Government support—or was not initially—and not being appropriately recompensed. For example, district councils have stepped into the breach and tried to co-ordinate volunteering, support food banks and so on. Will they receive the support they need to backfill those costs? It is not clear, and it should be.
Regarding the process for this Bill, I want to make it clear that the official Opposition will continue to offer to work with Government on these measures, but it vital that we have continued accountability. The hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) talked about the pause in accountability that could occur after Parliament rises. I believe we need to ensure that accountability is continuous. We have some good cross-party working and cross-party discussions; issues have been placed on the agenda not just across parties, but by different Members within the Conservative party. It is important that continues, so I hope that there will be mechanisms to ensure that.
We will need further revisions to the package, at the very least by July. There will be lasting costs as a result of the crisis that are not provided for in the Bill, such as the costs of all the medical procedures that are postponed, the reduced tax revenue for local authorities, and of course the human cost, which is enormous. What will be the impact on children’s education? We must take an earlier look at those matters than necessarily what would occur during the normal financial cycle. These medium-term costs have to be dealt with.
Above all, in future Budgets we need to focus on building resilience. Currently our response to the crisis is more expensive because of the lack of resilience in our society and our economy. Take all the debate about people who are self-employed: a big part of that arises because our social security system is so unfit for purpose that it simply cannot support people’s incomes, not just in terms of its parameters, some of which to do with housing costs have been changed while many have not, but because of the infrastructure—the enormous waits for universal credit and the fact that so many families and individuals in our country, after a long period of income stagnation, simply do not have the resilience to cover any last-minute costs. The salary support system is taking so long to deliver at least in part because of HMRC’s lack of capacity. We really need to get a grip on many of the developments in the labour market over recent years that are making the response more difficult—not least the growth in bogus self-employment.
Many people are sacrificing an enormous amount to try to deal with this crisis and ensure that its impact is lessened as much as possible. It has been an unequal sacrifice. We need to ensure that we are never in this situation again, and that means a longer-term approach to our public finances than we have had over recent years.
Jesse Norman
With the leave of the House, I will speak again. I am grateful to all Members who contributed to what, as the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) said, was a very wide-ranging debate. In fact, it was so wide-ranging that it barely focused on the measure before the House. However, I commend those who discussed the Bill. It is a very important piece of legislation, and—let me say this very straightforwardly—I am very grateful for the expressions of cross-party support from the Opposition parties. That has been crucial to the way the Government have thought about and framed our response to this crisis.
The Bill is another key element in shoring up the very wide package of measures to fight the covid-19 outbreak and, as the House has recognised, it represents a proportionate legislative response to recent events. Of course, it is proportionate in part because it will last only for one year; it is not designed to run longer than that.
I will start with the comments by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey), because he addressed the topic of the Bill; I am grateful to him for that. He made a series of important points. On whether the banks are really stepping up, as the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) said, we will know by the end of the process who have been villains and who have been heroes. I do not think the public will be shy in reaching conclusions of their own, and I am sure there will be plenty of quantitative bases for that when the moment comes.
The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton asked why the number we will vote through today has been raised to 50% from 2%. That is a very important question. The reason is an anticipated escalation in the need for cash under—this point was made widely by colleagues across the House—conditions of radical uncertainty. It is also fair to say that it is not clear beyond any peradventure when the House will reconvene, and we have to accommodate the possibility of a delayed restart. As one might imagine, no assumption is made, but that possibility has to be contemplated.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether this constitutes an increase in spending. This is not a spending matter; it is a cash matter, and he needs to be aware of that. To reassure him on the question of local authorities, this does include spending that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will make as part of the usual estimates process.
The right hon. Gentleman described his work examining processes for reviewing and considering Budgets, but this is not a Budget, so it does not fall under that. However, it is worth saying that we have an evolved system. It is a system that involves a lot of scrutiny— repeated days of looking at main estimates and supplementary estimates—but of course it is also a system that gives considerable authority to the majority party at any given time, and that is what constrains the ultimate outcome.
Sir Edward Davey
I hope the Minister is right on the banks, but my main point is about the estimates. Actually, we have only three days to debate the estimates. I have attended estimates debates in this House over the last 20 years; when we have estimates days, we never debate the estimates. That is my point.
Jesse Norman
That is a different point. My point is that Parliament has plenty of opportunity to scrutinise spending. If it does not do that, that is a choice that it makes.
The right hon. Gentleman’s final point was about whether this Government believe, or any Conservative Government have ever believed, that markets can do it all. Let me assure him that no Conservative Government have ever believed that, and this one certainly do not believe that. At the risk of invoking one of my great heroes, Adam Smith, the position is that commercial society is a dynamic evolution in which forms of property are supported and recognised in law and then used to become the basis of profitable market development. That is how our system has evolved over many decades, and the state is integral to that process for all the reasons the right hon. Gentleman has described, so this is a way of agreeing with him.
May I turn to the comments made by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)? Again, I thank him for his support for the Bill, and I think that constructive attitude is important. He is right to call this the gravest crisis we have known, certainly for this generation. A strong theme in his speech and those of others was the need for more communications; it was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). Of course, we understand that on the Government Benches. During the debate, the House will be pleased to know, I got a text from gov.uk referring me to the coronavirus website. That is a direct intervention of a kind I am not sure I would approve of outside the context of a national crisis, but one that is very welcome in that context. It shows evidence of and bears testimony to the belief we have in this very important response and in the need for communications.
Bill Esterson
I am very grateful to the Financial Secretary for highlighting the issue that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I raised about communication. The point about the gov.uk website is that not everybody knows about it, and a further point is that not everybody has access to the internet, particularly some of those most at need—older and more disadvantaged people—and that is where some of the other routes for getting information out there are so important.
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Member for that point, and he is absolutely right. One role that every Member of this House can have is to spread the word among constituents to make sure that this is widely understood.
The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington talked about the importance of consulting the trade unions. He will know that there have been consultations with Frances O’Grady and other trade union leaders, as well as with the Mayor of London, to try to build public understanding and a shared view of these issues.
A final point I would make about what the right hon. Gentleman described is that we have had statements on the Government’s response, two urgent questions, an Opposition day—we have one tomorrow—and two pieces of legislation in the last two days alone, so there has been every opportunity for parties across the House to question and interrogate us. As colleagues have been kind enough to point out, the Government have been working at tremendous pace, with every hour of the day being exploited for the purposes of trying to get the right outcome, and where we have imperfection, as it were, we will try to make this as good as we can over the next days and weeks.
Let me, if I may, move on to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami). He asked what extra the Treasury will be borrowing as a result of this, and the answer is that this is a cash item, as he will recall. The debt management remit will follow, and we will set out the Government’s borrowing plans. He raised an interesting question about whether money spent in response to this crisis could be itemised differently in the national accounts. That is an interesting idea, and I thank him for it. He highlighted the impact of tech start-ups, and he is absolutely right.
I thank the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) for supporting the Bill. I think he is absolutely right to talk about the need for business recovery. We do not share his excitement about a universal basic income, in part because it does not actually hug the need across the population as well as a well-functioning benefit system, and that is what we have tried to do. It is a live argument on both sides. Of course, there are parts of the spectrum, notably those on the state pension, where we have something close to a universal income already in place, although not necessarily at the level that people would have expected.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) persuasively and interestingly illustrated the choices faced by Government and businesses through his own business, and I thank him for that. My understanding of the personal guarantee issue touched on by many is that the circumstances for the business loans are to be agreed between the lender and the individual. There might be some element of personal guarantee, but not as relates to the primary residence. The desire is to build the flexibility and potential availability that comes with that, but without compromising people’s ultimate wellbeing.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) for his comments. Through his speech today and in his remarks in Treasury questions, he has registered his intense concern on this issue, and I thank him very much for that.
Let me wind up by saying that this is a proportionate legislative response to the crisis and that it seeks to close an important gap in cash flow in the estimates process. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).
Further proceedings on the Bill stood postponed (Order, this day).
Contingencies Fund Bill (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Contingencies Fund Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums to be issued out of, or paid into, the Consolidated Fund which is attributable to increasing, in relation to any time before 1 April 2021, the percentage specified in section 1(1) of the Contingencies Fund Act 1974 to a percentage not exceeding 50%.—(Eddie Hughes.)
Question agreed to.
Contingencies Fund Bill
Tuesday 24th March 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 24 March 2020 - (24 Mar 2020)
Windrush Compensation Scheme (Expenditure) Bill
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I wish to restate to the Committee that I will call Divisions only when they are really essential. As always, the Chair will listen to the debate and form a judgment on whether to exercise that discretion. I am reminding the Committee now, as we reminded the Committee that sat yesterday, that today the bar is a high one and that arguments in favour of going through the Division Lobbies will need to be very persuasive.
Clause 1
Expenditure on the Windrush Compensation Scheme
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 2, at the beginning, insert “Subject to subsection (3),”
This is a paving amendment for Amendment 2 which requires modifications to the Windrush Compensation Scheme.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 4, page 1, line 7, after “persons” insert
“from not only Caribbean but also from other Commonwealth countries who arrived in the United Kingdom before 1 January 1973 and persons who have a right of abode or settled status (or who are now British citizens) and who arrived to live in the UK before 31 December 1988,”
This amendment clarifies that the Windrush Compensation Scheme is not literally limited to men and women who originally came to the UK from the Caribbean Commonwealth.
Amendment 2, page 1, line 9, at end, insert—
“(3) Subject to subsection (4), modifications that must be made to the scheme before subsection (1) comes into force are set out in sections [Responsibility for the operation of the Compensation Scheme], [Consultation on simplifying the application process], [Time limit], [Public consultation on limits, tariffs and caps], [Legal assistance], [Restrictions] and [Standard of proof], and [Appeal to the First Tier Tribunal].
(4) Subsection (3) does not prevent payment of interim awards under the Windrush Compensation Scheme.”
This a paving amendment which requires modifications to the Windrush Compensation Scheme before final payments can be funded by money provided by Parliament.
Amendment 5, page 1, line 9, at end insert
“, taking into account the impact of those difficulties on the family life of those persons”.
This amendment would require the scheme to take account of the impact on the family life of people who encountered difficulties in demonstrating their lawful immigration status.
Clause stand part.
Clause 2 stand part.
New clause 1—Responsibility for the operation of the Windrush Compensation Scheme—
“Within two months of the date on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must arrange for operation of the Windrush Compensation Scheme to be the responsibility of an institution other than the Home Office.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to move the operation of the Windrush Compensation Scheme to an institution other than the Home Office.
New clause 2—Consultation on simplifying the application process—
“The Secretary of State must launch a public consultation on the applicants’ experience of the application process under the Windrush Compensation Scheme.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to launch a public consultation on the applicants’ experience of the application process.
New clause 3—Time Limit—
“No time limit applies to when applications for compensation under the Windrush Compensation Scheme must be received.”
This new clause would ensure that no time limit can be imposed on when applications should be received.
New clause 4—Public consultation on limits, tariffs and caps—
“The Secretary of State must launch a public consultation on the limits, tariffs and caps in the Windrush Compensation Scheme.”
This new clause would require a public consultation on the limits, tariffs and caps in the scheme.
New clause 5—Legal assistance—
“The Windrush Compensation Scheme must make provision for the reimbursement to applicants under the scheme of their reasonable costs of legal assistance in making applications for compensation under the Scheme.”
This new clause would allow applicants to recover their legal costs in applying to the scheme.
New clause 6—Restrictions—
“(1) Compensation under the Windrush Compensation Scheme may not be denied to any individual on the basis that they have a criminal record.
(2) Awards of compensation under the Windrush Compensation Scheme may not be reduced on grounds that the individual failed to contact the Home Office at an earlier stage.”
This new clause would modify the restrictions on the payment of compensation under the scheme.
New clause 7—Standard of proof—
“No requirement may be made of applicants for a level of proof beyond the balance of probabilities for claims under the Windrush Compensation Scheme, including any claims relating to—
(a) loss of earnings
(b) reimbursement of private medical fees,
(c) reimbursement of international student fees, and
(d) loss of access to banking.”
This new clause would apply a civil standard of proof to claims for compensation under the scheme.
New clause 8—Appeal to the First Tier Tribunal—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make provision by way of regulations for claimants to have a right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal against any determination issued under the Windrush Compensation Scheme.
(2) An appeal under subsection (1) must be brought on the grounds that the determination was not in accordance with the Windrush Compensation Scheme.”
This new clause would allow claimants to appeal to the First Tier Tribunal against determinations made under the scheme.
Stuart C. McDonald
We need the Bill to pass this evening so that compensation can continue to be paid to the victims of the Windrush outrage. I dearly want that to happen, and I encourage all who may qualify for compensation to seek advice and to make claims. Ultimately, ensuring that compensation can continue to be paid is all that really matters this evening.
However, this Committee stage gives us a short opportunity to probe the Government on various aspects of the scheme where we think improvements can and should be made. Some of those suggestions will be all the more important given the findings of the lessons learned review that was published last week. The report represents an utterly damning indictment of Home Office policy over many years and should represent an absolutely pivotal moment—a turning point—in how Governments, and indeed Parliament, develop and debate immigration policy, as well as in the role that considerations of race must play in policy development. As the review points out:
“The department didn’t consider risks to ethnic minorities appropriately as it developed the policy. And it carried on with implementing the scheme after others pointed out the risks, and after evidence had arisen that those risks had materialised.”
This was not just a simple mistake, in the way we usually use that word; it was really an act of pretty outrageous recklessness.
This debate is understandably overshadowed by the coronavirus crisis and takes place in an understandably sparsely attended Chamber. All of that is completely understandable, but it means that this is not the appropriate moment for Parliament to have its final say on the lessons learned review. Therefore, probably the most important ask I would make of the Government today is that they make a commitment to find a suitable future date in Government time, on a Tuesday or a Wednesday afternoon, so that we can have a full day’s debate, with full and proper scrutiny of the Wendy Williams review and its implications. The period of profound reflection called for by her review should happen here in Parliament, as well as in the Home Office.
Against that background, I now turn briefly to the specific amendments and new clauses we have tabled, which are largely self-explanatory, so I can go through them in fairly quick order. Amendments 1 and 2 are simply paving amendments, and allow us to make the key points we want to make through new clauses 1 to 8.
New clause 1 makes a simple but fundamental point. As I argued on Second Reading, it is surely not only pretty crass but counterproductive for the Home Office to be responsible for operating the compensation scheme. If an institution ruins someone’s life, their faith in the compensation scheme is surely not enhanced if the very same institution then sets the rules and makes the judgments on compensation applications. That is even more the case if someone still has concerns that the same institution could do further damage to them or their life. That is exactly how it is with the Windrush compensation scheme.
I repeat that I want people to come forward and to apply. I say to the Minister that making the scheme independent of the Home Office will undoubtedly increase uptake and interest in it. Ultimately, given what these people have been through, how can any of us in this House criticise them for having concerns about providing information to the Home Office? Making the scheme independent is what the Windrush victims and campaigners have been asking for, so even at this late stage I urge the Government to think again about the institutional framework.
New clause 8 provides an alternative opportunity to introduce an independent safeguard through a proper, independent appeal to a tribunal system. Applying for compensation in this way is a full-blown and complicated legal process. The overall sums for the taxpayer, although not insignificant, are not huge either, particularly given the sums we have been talking about in recent days. However, they could and should be pivotal and life-changing for those who are obtaining compensation. This is also about the significance of the scheme and the importance of getting it right. All of that justifies proper, independent judicial scrutiny of controversial and contested decisions.
New clauses 2 and 4 are designed to encourage the Home Office to continue to consult and make improvements to the scheme as we proceed. The Minister has engaged previously, and he has made changes, and we encourage him to continue to take that practical approach.
More significantly, new clause 4 seeks further consultation on the various restrictions, tariffs and caps that are part of the scheme. Clearly, there was extensive consultation prior to the scheme being launched and I do not criticise any of that for one moment. That was valuable work, but I submit that everything now has to be reviewed in the light of last Thursday’s report. That report puts this scandal in a very different light from others where compensation has been awarded and from where practice may have been copied. Such was the flagrant disregard for the impact of Home Office policies, it surely is right that we revisit all the limits and restrictions on the losses that can be recouped. Quite simply, we must look again in the light of last week’s report.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
We are debating this important Bill in the shadow of the terrible existential crisis of coronavirus. However, it would be wrong to let the debate go past without sharing the perspectives of large numbers of the Windrush cohort on the arrangements for compensation. As was said in the Windrush lessons learned review:
“Members of the Windrush generation and their children have been poorly served by this country. They had every right to be here and should never have been caught in the immigration net.”
When we talk about compensation for the Windrush cohort, it is important to note that we are not talking about an act of charity; we are talking about people who were always entitled to be here and are owed an apology, as Wendy Williams said, as well as compensation.
I begin by making the point that it is important in going forward with Windrush compensation that we look beyond the Caribbean. In the lessons learned review, Wendy Williams pointed out that the Department’s historical cases review focused solely on people from the Caribbean and excluded anybody with a criminal conviction and a sentence of more than 12 months. We have seen that the legislative changes that apply to the Windrush generation also apply to other nationalities from the new Commonwealth. While the Windrush scheme is open to all Commonwealth nationalities, the narrow focus of the historical cases review means that the taskforce did not proactively contact non-Caribbean nationals in the same way that it did Caribbean nationals. I will return to the question of the Windrush compensation scheme and its outreach in a few minutes.
The Windrush compensation scheme is to be applauded in principle, but its record in practice, I am afraid, is lamentable. The scheme was unveiled in April 2019. By most estimates there is £200 million in the scheme and no upper limit on claims. That is to be welcomed, but since it was unveiled in 2019, only 1,108 claims have been made and only 36 people have received money. I could probably find 36 members of the Windrush cohort in my own borough of Hackney, let alone the country as a whole. Only £62,198 has been paid out. Those are shameful figures, and in their response to the new clauses, I want to hear from Ministers what they intend to do about the shamefully low pay-out.
As was said earlier, it is not surprising that people are reluctant to come forward, because their experience of the Home Office has been a punitive one. Some of them may be frightened that they could end up in a detention centre or worse. We in the Opposition believe that the Windrush compensation scheme needs a proper national campaign to encourage engagement among possible Commonwealth claimants. After all, I think £4 billion was spent on the EU settlement scheme. We need to spend comparable sums on outreach for the Windrush compensation, because this is a cohort of persons who came to this country quite a few years ago, and unless we do the outreach—positively, and with more resources behind it—and encourage them to claim, the danger is that they may never get the compensation to which they are entitled. Although of course their heirs and estates may get some of it, that is not the same as people getting an apology in their lifetimes, but also compensation.
I have said to the Minister and officials that I am happy to help with that outreach work—not as an apologist for the Government, but as someone who is very anxious that people should get what they are entitled to. The reason I think it is so important that people get what they are entitled to is not the money. As I have said before in the House, in the end, the cruellest thing for the Windrush cohort was not the problems, the difficulties, the possibility of deportation and all those practical things. The cruellest thing for the Windrush generation was the humiliation of being told by the British state that somehow they were not British or were trying to mislead the state in that matter.
This is a generation—I know something of it as my own parents were part of it—who came here with their UK and Colonies passports and believed that they were British. I will argue that it is the humiliation that cut to the quick. I have had various meetings in this House with members of the Windrush cohort, and that is the thing I come up against time and time again: how humiliated and hurt they felt to be, as it were, rejected by what they had always regarded as the mother country—a country they came to after the war to help to rebuild.
It is important to stress how poor the take-up has been and to say that Ministers must do more to encourage better take-up. We think that Ministers should consider putting the compensation scheme on a statutory basis. We also think it is important to stress that it applies not just to persons from the Caribbean but to people who came from other Commonwealth countries before January ’73 and people who had a right of abode or settled status and arrived to live in the UK before 31 December 1988.
We also think it is important that, in moving forward on the compensation scheme, which is so important to the people who have suffered, we look at all the important aspects of family life that were severed by the Windrush scandal, whether that was people being deported, people’s children not being able to establish their right to be here or the misery of people seeing their parents thousands of miles away, having been consigned to deportation by what seemed to them a very cruel state. I remember visiting Yarl’s Wood detention centre last year. There were women there who were married to British men and had British children but who, because they were caught up in the Windrush scandal, found themselves quite unfairly, having committed no crime, in a detention centre, and there were very many such cases.
We will be supporting the compensation scheme, because we think it is important that the money gets to the victims as soon as possible. The Opposition are happy to help in any way with outreach to encourage people to claim. Clearly, with the current public health situation, we cannot have meetings about it and so on, but there are other means—provided, possibly, by new media—by which more could be done on outreach.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I thank the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for their constructive speeches and thoughts. As the shadow Home Secretary just reflected, we are talking about people—particularly those who came here before 1973—who are British. They are British, they viewed themselves as British, and then they had a reminder of some of the prejudices they experienced when they first arrived. The scheme is not about granting people citizenship but confirming the status they always had. When we debate this issue, we always need to make the point that we are not granting them citizenship; they had it and have done for nearly 50 years.
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the amendments and new clauses, which I will go through in turn. I hope to give clear assurances to the Members who tabled them on some of the issues raised and how they formed part of our thinking during the development of the compensation scheme. I will start with those tabled by the Scottish National party before turning to the official Opposition. Amendment 1 would pave the way for the new clauses that would modify the Windrush compensation scheme before final payments are made. I also recognise that amendment 2 intends not to prevent any interim payments from being made. It has always been our priority to ensure that payments are made as quickly as possible rather than only at the final resolution of a case.
New clause 1 would move the operation of the Windrush compensation scheme out of the Home Office. I understand hon. Members’ well articulated concerns about the Department that caused the issues facing these individuals deciding on their eligibility to receive compensation. The Home Office is determined to learn the lessons and right the wrongs experienced by the Windrush generation. I reassure the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East that the compensation team is working hard to ensure that people get the compensation they deserve. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said to the House last week, we will continue to do everything possible to ensure that the Home Office protects, supports and listens to every single part of the community it serves.
I also noted the request for a substantive debate on the lessons learned review. If I recall correctly, when the Home Secretary was at the Dispatch Box last week, she indicated that we would almost certainly look to do that at future moment when we are not constrained by the circumstances around this debate.
Kevin Foster
No, I want to see more getting the compensation they are entitled to. That is why we are bringing the Bill forward and why we would have looked to have done more engagement events to reach out to those affected, as she touched on in her remarks. That has been inevitably curtailed by the situation we face. We have extended the scheme for another two years—it was to end in April next year, but it has been extended to April 2023—because we want more people to come forward and apply to it.
I will come in a moment to some of the ways in which we are looking to engage and get to more people. Hopefully, the next set of statistics produced will show that, for example, some more significant compensation awards have been made since the first statistics were produced. We are careful not to put out statistics that could identify an individual and what they may have received, because that is not an appropriate way to go about things as a Government.
Let me return to new clause 1. Moving the operation of the compensation scheme from the Home Office would risk significantly delaying payments to claimants. That is because the first stage in deciding a claim for compensation is to confirm an individual’s identity and eligibility, which is linked to an individual’s immigration status. It would be difficult to decouple this process from the Home Office, which is the Department that confirms this status. We have, though, established an independent review process for those dissatisfied with their compensation offer. The independent review is conducted by the Adjudicator’s Office—a non-departmental public body that is completely independent of the Home Office. The adjudicator can look at, among other things, whether the Department has followed its policies and the use of discretion by the Windrush compensation scheme.
New clauses 2 and 4 seek to require the Department to launch public consultations on applicants’ experiences of the application process, and on the scheme’s limits, tariffs and caps. I reassure Members that our approach to designing the scheme was informed by 650 responses to a call for evidence and nearly 1,500 responses to a public consultation. We also held several public events, and the previous Home Secretary appointed Martin Forde QC—an experienced barrister on all aspects of health law—to advise on the design of the compensation scheme. There are 13 categories under which people can claim compensation. The scheme awards compensation according to actual losses, as well as tariff-based awards. Although some categories of award have an upper limit, there is no overall cap on the amount that an individual can receive in compensation under the scheme, nor a set budget limit on payments to be made.
New clause 3 would see the scheme left open indefinitely. Let me reassure the House that this Government are committed to ensuring that all those who wish to make a claim are able to do so. This is why we announced last week that we were extending the duration of the scheme until 2 April 2023. It is also why we announced the launch of a national communications campaign and a £500,000 fund for grassroots organisations to promote the Windrush taskforce and Windrush compensation scheme. However, as I said on Second Reading, there is a balance to be struck between setting a date far enough in the future to enable people to feel confident that they have time to make their claim, but soon enough to encourage people to put in their claim and get the compensation that they are due. The Government believe that the two-year extension provides this, but there remains the option to extend the duration if that is required. I say in response to the point fairly made by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East that we would not close off consideration. However, we think it is right to have a timeframe in order to encourage people to come forward and make their claims.
New clause 5 intends to allow applicants to recover their legal costs in applying to the scheme. The team have worked proactively to ensure that the design of the claim forms is simple and easy to understand, and they were tested with users to ensure that legal assistance is not required. The introduction of this clause might serve to encourage organisations to take advantage of potentially vulnerable individuals and to charge them for unnecessary support to complete a claim. Should claimants need support, the Home Office already has provision for a contract with Citizens Advice to provide free independent advice. We will soon be launching a procurement tendering process to select an organisation to provide free independent advice and support to claimants for the duration of the scheme up until April 2023, and the £500,000 fund for grassroots organisations announced last week to promote the compensation scheme includes provision for advice services.
Stuart C. McDonald
I take the Minister’s point about the work that has been done to try to make the scheme simple, and to have a tendering process for services that will provide advice. But this is not just about the form; it is about the process of putting together sometimes complicated evidence, particularly for the bigger awards. Surely there is a possibility that the Government could consider making available even a small panel of certain firms with expertise in this area—for particularly difficult or high-value claims. That is just something to think about.
Kevin Foster
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point. That was one of the areas covered when I met the independent adviser, and his advice is clear: he believes that the system is set up in a way that means people do not need specialist legal support to make a claim. The compensation team will work with the claimant to look at things such as HMRC data on past employment and to access Government records—for example, on immigration fees that may have been paid in the past when someone should not have needed to pay them. At the moment, we are satisfied that this gives people the opportunity to engage, and we are keen that this is about working with the person to find out how they were affected, rather than getting into the type of adversarial legal process that could have been the alternative to the approach that we are adopting.
New clause 6 seeks to prevent the Home Office from reducing compensation awards due to criminality or the timeliness of actions to resolve status. In response to direct feedback from claimants and stakeholders, the Home Office has already made changes to the scheme’s mitigation policy. Individuals are no longer expected to show that they took immediate steps to resolve their status, and that was clarified in new guidance published on 5 March.
While it is reasonable to expect individuals who encountered difficulty in evidencing their lawful right to be in the UK to have taken some steps to try to resolve that, the Home Office will now consider any evidence of steps that someone took to resolve their situation, even if those steps were not taken as soon as reasonably practical when an individual lost their job or took place before an individual encountered difficulties. For example, that could include writing to a Member of Parliament rather than approaching the Home Office directly. That change means that some people may qualify for higher awards, particularly where it relates to loss of employment.
With regard to criminality, those with criminal convictions are not precluded per se from making a claim for compensation. However, being mindful of the Government’s obligations towards taxpayers’ money, we may reduce or decline an award if a claimant has a record of serious criminality. I was asked to explain why we would do that. There may be a claim for loss of employment due to a person not being able to show their migration status. If that claimant then had a serious criminal conviction shortly afterwards or during that period, it would not inherently flow that their employment would have carried on but for the migration status issue, because that serious offence would almost certainly have cost them their employment. But as I say, that does not preclude, and it is not a bar. We are always open with this process, as we work with stakeholders and the independent adviser in particular, but that explains why that would be done—because it seems unfair to compensate with taxpayers’ money when that employment may well have been lost anyway following a particular type of conviction.
New clause 7 seeks that no requirement be made of claimants to demonstrate a level of proof beyond the balance of probabilities for claims for actual losses under the scheme. The scheme awards compensation according to both actual losses and tariff-based awards. Evidential requirements have been designed to be straightforward and not too onerous. However, we do ask claimants to provide as much evidence as they can, so that the best assessment can be made. Caseworkers will work with applicants and contact other Government Departments, such as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, on their behalf where there may be evidential gaps. Where awards are tariff-based, caseworkers will make decisions on the balance of probabilities. Where awards are for actual losses, it is right that we seek to obtain an appropriate level of assurance that those losses were incurred, in order to fulfil our duty to properly manage money.
Stuart C. McDonald
I ask the Minister to look at that again. I get the point that caseworkers have to be very careful and seek as much evidence as possible when it comes to certain types of losses, including loss of earnings, but to phrase it as “beyond reasonable doubt” seems pretty controversial. All I am asking is that he goes away and thinks about that and perhaps consults Home Office solicitors, because it seems very unusual to demand that standard of proof. I understand the need for evidence, but “beyond reasonable doubt” seems very strange.
Kevin Foster
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and the constructive way in which it was put. I will give him an undertaking to raise that point with the independent adviser and ask for a response to it.
New clause 8 seeks to allow claimants to appeal to the first-tier tribunal against determinations made under the scheme. As I have outlined, we have already established an independent review process for those dissatisfied with their compensation offer. The first stage is an internal Home Office review by someone who has not been involved previously in the individual’s case, but if the claimant remains dissatisfied, they can request a review by the Adjudicator’s Office, which is a non-departmental public body that is completely independent from the Home Office.
Moving on to the two amendments tabled by the official Opposition, amendment 4 seeks to formally define the Windrush compensation scheme as open to individuals from beyond the Caribbean Commonwealth. I appreciate the thought behind the amendment, but it is not necessary. The criteria for the scheme do not just apply to individuals from the countries of the Caribbean Commonwealth. I accept that there may a need to promote that point a bit more, but, to be clear, that restriction is not there.
Kevin Foster
I very much understand the shadow Home Secretary’s point. Windrush is the name we have for the generation. It is the name that has been in the press. It is the name that the media know, and the name that many of the public would identify with—even though it is a ship that the vast majority of people in the Windrush generation would never have seen, yet alone sailed upon. It has become common parlance. I agree that we need to get the message out there that, although it is called the Windrush compensation scheme, it is not just about those who came from the Caribbean; it is wider. It is for Commonwealth citizens who settled or had the right of abode in the UK before 1 January 1973, plus any person of any nationality who arrived in the UK before 31 December 1988 and is lawfully in the UK or is now a British citizen, and estates of the deceased and others. We intend to continue to promote the scheme and to make sure that more people come forward.
I move on to amendment 5, which seeks to ensure that the impact on family life of people who have difficulties in demonstrating their lawful status is taken into account. There is the ability to award compensation for impact on life, which is awarded on a series of levels, with payments ranging from £250 up to £10,000, where the effect on the claimant was profound and likely to be irreversible.
I hope I have been able to reassure the hon. and right hon. Members who have tabled some well-intended and well-thought-through amendments. I hope they will understand why it would be appropriate to withdraw the amendments.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for addressing some of the points raised. Through our interventions, I think the shadow Home Secretary and I have made it clear that we accept what the Minister has said, and we have asked him to go away with one or two points and ask further questions. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Ms Abbott
I just want to confirm that it is not our intention to vote against the Bill, and it is our intention to not press our amendments.
Just before the debate comes to a close, I would like to express, on his behalf, the regret of my colleague and right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for not being here. He is in self-isolation due to the current public health problems.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Third reading
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—(Kevin Foster.)
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is very important, even in the context of the crisis we face, that the Government have made time to progress this piece of legislation. My constituency of Dulwich and West Norwood has a strong and direct connection to Windrush, since about 200 of the passengers on the original Empire Windrush came first to Clapham Common to find temporary accommodation in the Clapham deep shelter before finding their way to Coldharbour Lane in Brixton to find work.
From there, many of them found work locally at King’s College Hospital, where they helped to establish our NHS. It is particularly poignant to be debating the Bill at this time as many members of the Windrush generation, and indeed their descendants, still work still in that hospital, desperately seeking to save lives that are at risk from covid-19.
My constituency is home to many members of the Windrush generation and their families. It is also now home to the Black Cultural Archives, which sits proudly on Windrush Square. Later in my speech, I will return to the role that the Black Cultural Archives have played in the context of the Windrush scandal and compensation.
The impact of the Windrush scandal has been profound and devastating. In my team, we knew there was a scandal years before it was a story in the news. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was absolutely right to clarify, the scandal affects people from across the Commonwealth and not only from the Caribbean.
Indeed, our first Windrush case was a constituent who had arrived in the UK from Sierra Leone, decades ago. She was asked to provide proof of her status in the UK when she applied for her state pension, but she had arrived at the age of 14 with somebody who may or may not have been a relative. She did not have any papers. Despite her whole life being in the UK, having worked all her adult life, raised five children and having no remaining connections at all in Sierra Leone, the UK Government threatened deportation. Her case was a scandal; we just did not know at the time that it was the Windrush scandal.
We saw many more cases and, eventually, the bigger picture was revealed. I pay tribute to the work of Amelia Gentleman in exposing, in such a forensic way, the extent and depth of the scandal up and down the country.
The consequences have been profound—not simply the grave injustice and material detriment suffered by thousands of people. It is a moment that gives rise to the need for deep reflection on our national identity and sense of community. That a group of people who have contributed so much could be treated so appallingly shows that something had gone badly wrong in our understanding of who we are as a country and, notwithstanding the compensation scheme, there is more work to do on that, particularly on reform of the history curriculum and what we teach our children about migration and colonialism. I hope the Government will give serious consideration to that.
My constituents’ experience of the compensation scheme to date has been very poor. The scandal itself was a fundamental breach of trust, and many people have not felt confident to come forward. Despite the Minister’s remarks in Committee, the form is complicated, and it is very easy to omit key details.
I sat down with one of my constituents to fill out the form on behalf of her mother, and it was only when we had worked through all 18 pages of it that I asked: “Is there anything else that you think your mother suffered as a consequence of being a victim of the Windrush scandal?” She then said, very quietly, “She lost her home. She was renting privately and, because she was not allowed to return to the UK, her home was repossessed by the landlord and she lost all her possessions, because there was nobody who could manage that and reclaim any of her belongings for her.”
That would not have been captured on the form had it not been for my prompting question at the end. Almost every one of my constituents who I have spoken has found it difficult to capture all the information on the form. Because of their experience with the Home Office, they fear the level of proof and the extent of evidence that will be required, and this is not an easy process for them.
The support that has been provided through the CAB has not been accessible or sufficiently expert, so it has been left to the voluntary sector, to pro bono lawyers and to organisations such as the Black Cultural Archives, which has done a heroic job but struggled to cope with the need. I welcome the proposals for a fund for grass-roots support that the Home Secretary recently announced, and I would welcome assurances from the Minister that some of that funding will be allocated to the BCA, which has done an extraordinary job—not only local but national in its reach—because it is trusted by the community.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington was right to highlight the need for a publicity campaign for the compensation scheme. I hope the Government will give serious consideration to the content of such a publicity scheme and to who fronts it. The first community meeting to launch the compensation scheme was organised in my constituency at a day’s notice. I was not informed as the local MP, many members of my community had no idea that the meeting was going ahead, and those who did were fearful of it being a meeting with the Home Office because of the breach of trust that I described earlier.
Finally, I wish to make a plea that has been made already in the public domain by Patrick Vernon, to whom I pay tribute as somebody who has campaigned relentlessly on behalf of Windrush citizens. Will the Government hand the administration of the scheme to another Government Department? The Home Office may have accepted the lessons learned review, and that is welcome, but it has not yet implemented the scale and depth of culture change that the review demands. As recently as last month, the Home Office was having to remove people from a charter deportation flight after a court decided that the Department had not followed due processes. The assurance that the Minister has tried to provide indicates a lack of understanding of exactly the extent of the breach of trust that has been caused by the Windrush scandal and the wider hostile environment. People are simply fearful of the Home Office and its capacity to ruin lives.
This has been an utterly shameful period in our history. The compensation scheme is welcome and important, but I hope the Government realise the breadth and depth of the work that they still need to do to change culture and rebuild trust. There is still a long way to go.
Stuart C. McDonald
I think I said all that I needed to say in Committee. The most important thing to happen this evening will be that we pass the Bill so that compensation continues to be paid. We have made some suggestions about how the compensation scheme can be improved, but we welcome the intent behind it and hope that it reaches as many people as it needs to reach.
Another important thing to happen this evening was the undertaking that there would be a proper and full debate about the lessons learned review that was published last Thursday. It was a hugely significant moment in modern British political history. There are so many aspects of the Windrush scandal that still have to be properly explored in this place, as well as within Government, and we look forward very much to playing our full part in that.
Ms Abbott
As I said in Committee, the Opposition support the Bill in principle, but it is unfortunate that we have had to discuss it before we have had a proper debate about the lessons learned review. One thing that that review said was that this was not a mistake: there were problems in the whole culture and leadership of the Home Office. I understand why, given the public health tragedy in which we are engulfed, it has not proved possible at this point to have a serious debate on the lessons learned review, but until we have done that and absorbed some of the lessons that Wendy Williams was at such pains to set out in her review, we cannot have complete confidence that the compensation scheme will, even with all the best intentions of Ministers, go ahead at pace and that people will get what they are entitled to.
Finally, I want to talk about the people in the community who campaigned long and hard on this issue, notably Patrick Vernon, a Hackney resident who is well known to me. All sorts of people in the community understood there was a scandal, even before Amelia Gentleman’s articles, and they continue to campaign. The compensation Bill means nothing unless there is delivery as well as intent.
Kevin Foster
With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will briefly respond. I appreciate the support that has been given to the Bill, and I wish to thank Martin Forde, QC, the independent adviser. As I said in Committee, we are still open to hearing suggestions as things move on, and we will certainly look to continue to engage with stakeholders to ensure that people get the compensation they deserve. The ability to bid for the funding will be available; it would not be right for me to pledge funding to particular organisations on the Floor of the House. The Black Cultural Archives will have the opportunity to bid into the process, but I hope the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) will understand why it would not be appropriate for me to give lists of groups that may do so, rather than going through the process that is in place. I hope that those who were affected by the Windrush scandal will see the type of debate we have had and see that even in the current circumstances there was a determination to get this Bill through. I accept the shadow Home Secretary’s point that this is not the ideal opportunity to have the longer debate that we will need to have on the Floor of the House at some point about the lessons learned review. I very much appreciate the support that has been given to this Bill by all Members today. Finally, let me wish the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) a speedy recovery, as I imagine it would have been hard for him to miss this debate, given his passion about this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
I beg to move,
That Damian Hinds, Sir Robert Syms, Tommy Sheppard and Mark Tami be appointed as Parliamentary members, and that Brigid Janssen, Elizabeth Peace (chair), Marta Phillips, Dr Simon Thurley and Simon Wright be appointed as external members, of the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body under Part 1, Schedule 1 to the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019.
Last year, the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 received Royal Assent—indeed, uniquely, it did so twice. The Act established a sponsor body, which will have overall responsibility for the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster, and act as a single client on behalf of both Houses. Since July 2018, the sponsor body has been established in shadow form, and has been getting on with the preparatory and due diligence work, so that it can take on the restoration and renewal programme. From 8 April 2020, the sponsor body will become substantive and formally responsible for the restoration and renewal programme.
As required under the Act, the motion before the House today confirms the appointment of Members from this House to the board of the sponsor body. I wish to take a moment to pay tribute to Sir Patrick McLoughlin and the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), who have worked tirelessly as members of the shadow sponsor body and to improve the Act during its passage through the House. In addition, this motion confirms the roll-over of external members from the shadow to the substantive sponsor body. That will provide continuity for the board as it becomes established, while allowing for the opportunity for the sponsor board to evaluate the needs for its membership in the future.
Taken together, these appointments ought to strike the right balance between ensuring cross-party support for the works and the appropriate external professionalism and expertise. I wish the appointees every success. The restoration and renewal of this historic Palace will be a significant task, and ensuring that these works represent value for money for the taxpayer, which is perhaps the key thing, will remain absolutely at the forefront of their minds. One of the main aims of this project will be to keep costs down, and Her Majesty’s Government are willing to work collaboratively with the sponsor body in this important mission.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for tabling the motion, which the Opposition support. I concur with every word he said. If we look at the list of the names in the motion, we see that one is that of the former Education Secretary, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), so keen is he to get on with the work. We know that all the members listed in the motion have the necessary expertise, particularly the external members, who cover heritage as well as accountancy. As far as the right hon. and hon. Members are concerned, we know they will provide plenty of expertise and important input into this very important project. I, too, wish them every success.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I welcome this motion. I served, under Dame Caroline Spelman, on the Joint Committee that recommended that we proceed in this way. I have done a considerable amount of work on the subject over the years because, as the Leader of the House said, our primary concern should be the saving of public money.
I would like to have served on the sponsor body, but it was not to be. I wish those who have been appointed every success, because they have a very important task. Given the crisis that we are facing, we have to think again, and I am sure that when those on the sponsor body address the subject, their No. 1 concern will be to save public money, ensure the safety of Members and preserve this historic building.
Even before the public health crisis that we are facing, there were difficult decisions to be made about public spending, increases in taxation and trying to divert resources from London to the north of England in particular. Even before this crisis, which will probably necessitate the largest expansion of the state since the second world war, I think that people would have started to look askance at our spending billions of pounds on ourselves when there might well be a cheaper alternative. When the sponsor body has its first meeting, it might consider that this is the moment to review the whole project and look at whether we can do it significantly more cheaply than the present option.
When the House voted, quite narrowly, for a full decant, we were in a very different world. Of course, the original Select Committee on which my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) served accepted a full decant on the basis that it would be possible to create a temporary Chamber in the courtyard of Richmond House. The Committee was actually given the wrong measurements; the incompetence of this is beyond belief. It was then announced that because it was no longer possible to create such a Chamber, which the authorities claimed would have to be exactly the same size as the existing one, with the same size Division Lobbies—the whole works—it was now proposed to demolish all of Richmond House, at a cost of many hundreds of millions of pounds.
I have been working with SAVE, the architectural heritage body. We have come up with well-costed proposals, designed by architects, to create much more cheaply, if it was deemed necessary to have one, a temporary Chamber in the courtyard of Richmond House that was exactly the same size—[Interruption.] It would be exactly the same size as this Chamber. There is absolutely no need to demolish Richmond House, which is an award-winning listed building.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s passion about this subject, but this is a very narrow motion about the membership of the Committee, not about the exact dimensions of any proposed future Chamber. I must hold the right hon. Gentleman to the particular matter before us. He can address the general issue, but talking about exact dimensions is going a bit far.
Sir Edward Leigh
I will certainly not dwell on the exact dimensions. I was making the simple, general point that there might cheaper options than the proposal to demolish Richmond House and build a permanent replica Chamber.
The other point that the new sponsor body has to consider is what will happen when the House of Lords is moved to QEII. It would be possible to place the Lords quite cheaply and simply in that building at a relatively small cost. There is already a large conference chamber there, which holds up to 700 people—big enough even for the House of Lords. Their lordships may have to forgo their planned rooftop terrace dining room, which would cost £200 million, but, given the present crisis facing the nation, I am sure that they will be prepared to do that.
Even more cheaply—speaking in very general terms, Madam Deputy Speaker, to comply with your ruling—it may not even be necessary to have a temporary Chamber erected in the courtyard of Richmond House. Having commissioned architects to work on this subject, I can say that it would be perfectly possible for this Chamber to move temporarily to the House of Lords Chamber, as we did in the second world war, with a line of route through Westminster Hall and Saint Stephen’s Chapel.
To sum up, there are many cheaper alternatives that must and should be explored by the sponsor body, as our primary concern is to save public money, carry out these works as expeditiously as possible and not waste time, perhaps until 2027, waiting for a replica Chamber to be built. We should get on with the work now and preserve this historic building.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
If the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) wants to sit in the House of Lords, I am sure that will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench. We know that one day, that ambition of his will be fulfilled—[Interruption.] Exactly—if he wanted to be on the sponsor body, he could have moved an amendment on that this evening. He could have divided the House, and who knows? With the attendance here, it might have even gone through on the voices to let him serve.
I join the Leader of the House in paying tribute to the Members who are leaving the shadow sponsor body—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray)—and I welcome those who are coming on to it. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), who cannot be here, is thrilled at the prospect of being part of this project and will, as the Scottish National party has always done, keep an incredibly sharp eye on the use of public funds and the opportunity that this must present to modernise and reform the practices and procedures of the House of Commons, however it meets.
Patrick Grady
I am afraid so. It may disappoint the right hon. Member, but I notice that even their lordships up the back have new Division Lobbies in the Royal Gallery, because their current Division Lobbies would be completely unsuitable in the time of social distancing in which we live. We would be the same, so this will provide an opportunity, if these institutions are going to remain relevant into the 21st century, to make sure that they do, taking advantage of all the opportunities that R and R presents.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
On that note, ought we not to properly have had scrutiny hearings for these hon. Members who are going to sit on the commission, so that we could ensure that they will not follow the lead that the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) has just given? It is for the whole House to determine what its procedures are and ought to be, and not for some subset to design them into some new pleasure dome, or whatever they plan to construct as a consequence of spending all this money.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
There is a serious point to this. The whole reason that we have to sit this distance apart from one another is that, if one thing has been taught about the context of this House and coronavirus, it is that this place does not work in terms of public health. It does not work in terms of being a functioning Parliament, so while there was a degree of bombast there, which I am sure is only engineered on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, an element of pragmatism is required on the part of hon. Members, is it not?
Sir Desmond Swayne
This Chamber has survived many health emergencies, and I do not believe that we should design into the future the prospect of continuing viruses. Let us conquer the virus, rather than change procedures that have endured almost forever. I assure him that change is always for the worst.
Mr Rees-Mogg
This has, as always, been a high-quality, if brief, debate, with people maintaining very safe distances. I think the right hon. and hon. Members whose names I have put forward are ones in whom the House can have complete confidence. I am particularly pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) is here to listen to the debate; having known him since we were at university together, I have a special degree of confidence in him.
Question put and agreed to.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Madam Deputy Speaker
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 8 to 10 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Terms and Conditions of Employment
That the draft Parental Bereavement Leave and Pay (Consequential Amendments to Subordinate Legislation) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 10 March, be approved.
Pensions
That the draft Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 3 March, be approved.
Fees and Charges
That the draft Private Security Industry (Licence Fees) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 3 February, be approved.—(James Morris.)
Question agreed to.
Select Committees (Participation and Reporting) (Temporary Order)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 9(6)),
(1) That for the period specified in paragraph (4) of this Order, the following measures shall have effect in relation to the proceedings of any select committee which has the power to report from time to time.
(2) Members of any select committee to which this Order applies may participate in select committee proceedings through such electronic means of communication as have been approved by the Speaker.
(3) The Chair of any select committee to which this Order applies may report to the House an order, resolution or Report as an order, resolution or Report of the Committee which has not been agreed at a meeting of the Committee, if satisfied that all members of the Committee have been consulted about the terms of the order, resolution or Report and that it represents a decision of the majority of the Committee.
(4) This Order shall have effect from the date that it is made until 30 June 2020, save that the Speaker may extend its effect by notifying the House that in his opinion it is expedient that these arrangements continue in force until a specified later date; more than one such notification may be given, but each such notification shall be given no less than a week before the expiry of this Order or any subsequent extension to it.—(James Morris.)
Question agreed to.
Adjournment
Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn.—(James Morris.)
Written Statements
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Departmental Contingency Liability: Coronavirus Interruption Loan Scheme
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
I am tabling this statement for the benefit of hon. and right hon. Members to bring to their attention the details of the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 11 March 2020.
The coronavirus business interruption loan scheme will be facilitated by the Government-owned British Business Bank and delivered through its delivery partners. Lenders will offer loans of up to £5 million to support small and medium-sized businesses with a turnover up to £45 million that are affected by the coronavirus outbreak. There will be no limit on the number and aggregate value of loans that can be made under the scheme.
The scheme is based on the British Business Bank’s existing Enterprise Finance Guarantee scheme, is available on a temporary basis and can be extended as required. The key parameters of the scheme are as follows:
The percentage of the remaining balance of each loan that is guaranteed by the Government will be increased to 80% (currently 75% of each EFG loan is guaranteed);
A cap on gross Government liability at the level of the lender’s whole CBILS portfolio of 75% of losses (currently the Government’s gross liability is capped at 20% of losses across the lender’s whole EFG portfolio);
A Government grant (the business interruption payment) will be provided for the benefit of businesses, equal to the fees and interest incurred on the facility for the first 12 months. The maximum grant payable is capped at a level that will allow a significant majority of businesses to be compensated in full. A lower cap applies to businesses in some sectors;
The lender must establish that the SME has a viable business proposition assessed according to its normal commercial lending criteria. However, where there are some concerns over the short-term business performance due to covid-19 impacts, provided the lender reasonably believes that the finance will help the business to ‘trade out’ of any short-term cashflow difficulty, then the business is considered eligible for the scheme; and
Subject to the lender’s policy, businesses can access CBILS loans up to a value of £250,000 without the lender undertaking an assessment of their security position (currently, only businesses that have been assessed by the lender as having insufficient security can access EFG loans).
The new scheme was launched on 23 March, will run for an initial period of six months, and will be extended as required. The Government will be subject to a greater contingent liability than is the case for the Enterprise Finance Guarantee, and I will be laying a departmental minute today containing a description of the liability undertaken.
For more information on this and other support for business, please go to: https://www.businesssupport.gov.uk/.
[HCWS177]
UK Parliamentary Boundaries
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
In the written statement of 19 March, “Postponement of electoral events” (HCWS174 and HLWS169), the Government outlined their proposals for urgent electoral legislation to postpone forthcoming elections as part of the wider steps to tackle the spread of the coronavirus.
Working to ensure the health and safety of the British public is the Government’s top priority. We still however have a responsibility to govern, plan for the future and ensure that where possible, essential parliamentary business continues and legal obligations are met.
The House of Commons may debate the Government’s policy stance on UK parliamentary boundaries on Friday 27 March, in light of the Private Members’ Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Peter Bone).
I believe clearly setting out the Government’s emerging policy position would provide clarity for Parliament, the public and electoral administrators. Given this policy area is of direct relevance to the Commons, it is important that the first Chamber is properly informed.
This is also pertinent because at present, the Government are legally required to give effect to the recommendations from the Boundary Commissions as set out in their 2018 reports—including reducing the number of constituencies to 600. In this statement I lay out the Government’s thinking on this matter.
Need for equal and updated boundaries
The Conservative Government committed, in our 2019 manifesto, to delivering updated and equal UK parliamentary boundaries with the essential aim of making sure that every vote counts the same—a cornerstone of democracy.
The last boundary review to be implemented in England was based on data from 2000; the last to be implemented in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland used data from 2001-2003. In effect, our current constituencies reflect how the UK population was at the beginning of the century. Today’s youngest voters have been born since then: this disregards significant changes in demographics, house building and geographical migration.
The Government have also taken into account representations from colleagues on all sides of the House, and from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
When parliamentary time allows, the Government are minded to bring forward primary legislation to set the framework for future boundary reviews, including the next review due to begin in early 2021. Such provisions would cover the number of constituencies, the frequency of reviews, the boundary review process, and the process by which those recommendations are brought into legal effect.
Maintaining 650 seats
Legislation currently provides that, on implementation of the 2018 boundary review recommendations, the number of constituencies in the UK shall be 600. The Government are minded to instead make provision for the number of parliamentary constituencies to remain at 650. In doing so, we would also remove the statutory obligation to implement the 2018 boundary review recommendations and the statutory obligation on the Government to make arrangements to review the reduction in constituencies to 600 by 30 November 2020.
Under current legislation the Boundary Commissions are required to report on their next review by October 2023. In order to meet this deadline they would have to begin that review in early 2021. Without changes to primary legislation, there would be a legal obligation for the Boundary Commissions to undertake that review on the basis of 600 constituencies.
This is a change in policy from the position previously legislated for under the coalition Government. Since that policy was established in the coalition agreement, the United Kingdom has now left the European Union. The UK Parliament will have a greater workload now we are taking back control and regaining our political and economic independence. It is therefore sensible for the number of parliamentary constituencies to remain at 650.
Electoral quota tolerance
The Boundary Commissions are generally required to propose constituencies whose electorates vary in size by no more than +/- 5% from the average (“The electoral quota”). The Government are not minded to amend this tolerance level which achieves equal and fair boundaries while allowing the Boundary Commissions the flexibility to take account of other factors, such as physical geographical features and local ties, subject to the overriding principle of equality in constituency size.
Equal representation
Updated and equal boundaries will ensure that every constituent nation in the United Kingdom has equal representation in the UK Parliament, and deliver parity of representation across the United Kingdom’s constituencies.
Under the existing legislation, passed in 2011, there are four protected constituencies where the electoral quota tolerance does not apply on account of their unique geography: Orkney and Shetland, Na h-Eileanan an lar, and two seats for the Isle of Wight. The Government are not minded to make changes to these protected constituencies, or to propose any more protected constituencies given the need to ensure equal representation.
Boundary review cycle
Under the current legislation, boundary reviews must take place every five years. As the Government also intend to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, future boundary reviews will inevitably be decoupled from the cycle of general elections. We need to strike a balance between regularly updated parliamentary constituencies and the disruption caused to local communities and their MPs by boundaries changing at every general election.
The Government are minded to consider that conducting boundary reviews every eight years strikes the right balance. An eight-year review cycle would generally allow for updated constituencies to be in place for two general elections before being reviewed in time for a third general election.
Implementing the recommendations of the independent Boundary Commissions
Currently, at the end of a boundary review, the Government lay the reports of the independent and impartial Boundary Commissions before Parliament. The recommendations contained in the reports are then brought into effect by way of an Order in Council that must be approved by Parliament by the affirmative procedure before it can be made.
The Government are minded to continue to provide that the reports are still laid before Parliament (by the Speaker who is Chair of the Boundary Commissions) but would change the means of bringing the Boundary Commissions’ recommendations into effect. The new recommended constituency boundaries will be brought into effect automatically by the Order in Council.
This change would provide certainty that the recommendations of the independent Boundary Commissions—developed through a robust and impartial process that is open to extensive consultation—would then be implemented without interference. Parliament, of course, would remain sovereign and can amend primary legislation as it sees fit.
Engagement with political parties
The Government are keen to establish the broad support of Parliament for such changes and will engage with the political parties represented in the UK Parliament on such proposals.
This will include engagement with the Parliamentary Parties Panel on the technical measures planned. These include provisions relating to the length of time the Boundary Commissions have to conduct their reviews within the boundary review cycle and the process involved in the reviews, such as public hearings and consultation. I hope there is scope for broad cross-party agreement on such improvements.
In due course, the Government hope that such reforms will strengthen democratic accountability of Parliament to the British people.
I hope this provides clarity on the Government’s policy intent over this Parliament. Of course, as stated above, the Government’s immediate legislative priority will be taking the necessary steps to protect the health and safety of the British public.
[HCWS183]
Notification of Contingent Liability
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
The Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) of the Bank of England decided at its meeting ending on 19 March to ask for an expansion in the maximum limit of purchases that may be undertaken by the asset purchase facility (APF). This will encompass up to £200 billion of further purchases of gilts and corporate bonds to support the economy through the disruption caused by covid-19.
In light of the evidence on the impact of covid-19 on the global and domestic economy, and conditions in the UK and international government bond markets, the MPC judged further asset purchases financed by the issuance of central bank reserves should be undertaken to enable the MPC to meet its statutory objectives. The MPC expects that purchases of corporate bonds will improve the availability of credit to UK companies and that further purchases of gilts will reduce borrowing costs, raise asset prices, affect expectations and confidence, and thereby support the economy. I have therefore authorised an increase in the total size of the APF of £200 billion. This will bring the maximum total size of the APF from £445 to £645 billion.
In line with the requirements in the MPC remit, the amendments to the APF that could affect the allocation of credit and pose risks to the Exchequer have been discussed with Treasury officials. The risk control framework previously agreed with the Treasury will remain in place, and HM Treasury will keep monitoring risks to public funds from the facility through regular risk oversight meetings and enhanced information sharing with the Bank.
There will continue to be an opportunity for the Treasury to provide views to the MPC on the design of the schemes within the APF, as they affect the Government’s broader economic objectives and may pose risks to the Exchequer.
The Government will continue to indemnify the Bank and the APF from any losses arising out of, or in connection with, the facility. If the liability is called, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal supply procedure.
A full departmental Minute has been laid in the House of Commons providing more detail on this contingent liability.
[HCWS184]
RAF Battle Honours: Operation TELIC (Post-war)
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
My noble Friend the Minister in the House of Lords (the right hon. Baroness Goldie DL) has made the following written ministerial statement. A battle honour is awarded to: No.78 Squadron RAF
On 10 October 2017, the Minister in the House of Lords made a written ministerial statement announcing the award of battle honours to squadrons of Her Majesty’s Royal Air Force, for their participation in Operation TELIC post-war consolidation and reconstruction phase during the period 1 May 2003-22 May 2011.
I am today announcing that Her Majesty the Queen has been graciously pleased to approve the award of a battle honour to one further squadron of Her Majesty’s Royal Air Force for their participation in Operation TELIC post-war consolidation and reconstruction phase during the period 1 May 2003-22 May 2011.
Battle honours may be “awarded to commemorate any notable battle, action or engagement in which aircrew or Royal Air Force regiment personnel played a memorable part”. There are two levels of battle honour within the Royal Air Force. The first is the award of a battle honour which recognises that a squadron played a notable and significant role in the campaign. The second, higher level confers the right to emblazon the battle honour on the standard itself. This ultimate accolade is reserved for those squadrons which are involved in direct confrontation with an enemy and demonstrate gallantry and spirit under fire.
In addition to the 27 battle honours and eight battle honours with the right to emblazon previously approved for squadron’s participation on Operation TELIC, one further operational flying squadron has been approved for the award of a battle honour.
[HCWS181]
RAF Battle Honours: Operations Vulcan and Barras
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
My noble Friend the Minister in the House of Lords (the right hon. Baroness Goldie DL) has made the following written ministerial statement. A battle honour with the right to emblazon “Bosnia 1995” on their squadron standard is awarded to: No. IV (Army Co-operation) Squadron RAF No. 6 Squadron RAF A battle honour with the right to emblazon “Sierra Leone 2000” ontheir squadron standard is awarded to: No. 7 Squadron RAF
I am today announcing that Her Majesty the Queen has been graciously pleased to approve the award of battle honours to squadrons of Her Majesty’s Royal Air Force, for their participation in Operation Vulcan (Bosnia) during the period August to September 1995 and Operation Barras (Sierra Leone) during the period August to September 2000.
Battle honours may be “awarded to commemorate any notable battle, action or engagement in which aircrew or Royal Air Force regiment personnel played a memorable part”. There are two levels of battle honour within the Royal Air Force. The first is the award of a battle honour which recognises that a squadron played a notable and significant role in the campaign. The second, higher level confers the right to emblazon the battle honour on the standard itself. This ultimate accolade of battle honours with emblazonment is reserved for those squadrons which are involved in direct confrontation with an enemy and demonstrate gallantry and spirit under fire.
The highest honour of battle honour with the right to emblazon has been awarded to two squadrons for their participation on Operation Vulcan.
The highest honour of battle honour with the right to emblazon has been awarded to one squadron for their participation on Operation Barras.
[HCWS180]
RAF Battle Honours for Operations in Afghanistan
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
My noble Friend the Minister in the House of Lords (the right hon. Baroness Goldie DL) has made the following written ministerial statement. A Battle Honour with the right to emblazon “AFGHANISTAN 2001-2014” on their Squadron Standard is awarded to: No. 7 Squadron RAF No. 3 Squadron RAF Regiment No. 18 (Bomber) Squadron RAF No. 15 Squadron RAF Regiment No. 27 Squadron RAF No. Squadron RAF Regiment No. 28 (Army Co-operation) Squadron RAF No. 34 Squadron RAF Regiment No. 47 Squadron RAF No. 51 Squadron RAF Regiment No. 78 Squadron RAF No. 58 Squadron RAF Regiment No. 1 Squadron RAF Regiment No. 63 Squadron RAF Regiment No. II Squadron RAF Regiment A Battle Honour is awarded to: No. 1 (Fighter) Squadron RAF No. 30 Squadron RAF No. II (Army Co-operation) Squadron RAF No. 31 Squadron RAF No. 3 (Fighter) Squadron RAF No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron RAF No. IV (Army Co-operation) Squadron RAF No. 39 Squadron RAF No. V (Army Co-operation) Squadron RAF No. 51 Squadron RAF No. 8 Squadron RAF No. LXX Squadron RAF No. IX (Bomber) Squadron RAF No. 99 Squadron RAF No. 10 Squadron RAF No. 101 Squadron RAF No. 12 (Bomber) Squadron RAF No. 120 Squadron RAF No. XIII Squadron RAF No. 201 Squadron RAF No. 14 Squadron RAF No. 206 Squadron RAF No. 23 Squadron RAF No. 216 Squadron RAF No. XXIV Squadron RAF No. 617 Squadron RAF
I am today announcing that Her Majesty The Queen has been graciously pleased to approve the award of battle honours to squadrons of Her Majesty’s Royal Air Force for their participation in operations in Afghanistan during the period 7 October 2001 to 31 December 2014.
Battle honours may be “awarded to commemorate any notable battle, action or engagement in which aircrew or Royal Air Force regiment personnel played a memorable part”. There are two levels of battle honour within the Royal Air Force. The first is the award of a battle honour which recognises that a squadron played a notable and significant role in the campaign. The second, higher level confers the right to emblazon the battle honour on the Standard itself. Battle honours with emblazonment are reserved for those squadrons which are involved in direct confrontation with an enemy and demonstrate gallantry and spirit under fire.
Six operational flying squadrons and nine Royal Air Force regiment squadrons were awarded the highest honour of a battle honour with the right to emblazon. Battle honours were approved for 26 operational flying squadrons for their participation in operations in Afghanistan.
[HCWS179]
Reserve Forces’ and Cadet Forces’ Associations: Annual Report
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
I am today publishing the report of the review of the reserve forces and cadets associations 2019.
The review’s purpose was to assess and challenge the continuing requirement, efficiency and good governance of the 13 RFCAs and, their joint committee, the council of RFCAs. The review was undertaken by the MOD, and an independent challenge panel was appointed to assure its robustness and impartiality. The review was conducted with the full participation of the RFCA community, and gathered evidence from a wide range of stakeholders across Government, Defence and the RFCAs’ customers at the national and regional levels. I would like to thank all those who contributed to the review.
The review concluded that the functions of the RFCAs remain valued and necessary and the RFCAs should continue in their role of key partner to Defence—a point made clear by the wide range of beneficiaries of the RFCAs’ work. The review makes a number of recommendations to strengthen the relationship between Defence and the RFCAs, ensuring the RFCAs are on a stable, sustainable footing to continue to deliver advocacy and support for reserves and cadets across the UK.
Defence is currently working with other Government Departments and the RFCAs to understand how best to implement the recommendations. This will be announced in due course.
The report will be placed in the Library of the House.
[HCWS178]
Media Matters
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
On 22 January 2020, DCMS informed the House that my predecessor had issued a public interest intervention notice (PIIN) in respect of the acquisition by Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT) of JPI Media Publications Ltd, and thus the i newspaper.
The PIIN triggered the requirement for the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to report to me on jurisdictional and competition matters, and for Ofcom to report on the following media public interest consideration:
The need for, to the extent that it is reasonable and practicable, a sufficient plurality of views in newspapers in each market for newspapers in the United Kingdom or a part of the United Kingdom.
I received the CMA and Ofcom reports on by the deadline of 13 March and have today published these on the www.gov.uk website.
I accept the CMA’s findings that while it is, or may be, the case that a relevant merger situation has been created, the merger does not give rise to a realistic prospect of a substantial lessening of competition in any market.
I have also agreed with Ofcom that the merger does not raise concerns in relation to plurality of views in newspapers.
In light of this, and having considered representations submitted by interested parties in response to the PIIN, DCMS has written to the parties today confirming my decision not to refer the merger for a Phase 2 investigation.
The role of the Secretary of State in this process is quasi-judicial and procedures are in place to ensure that I act independently and have followed a process which is fair and impartial.
[HCWS182]
UK’s National Preventive Mechanism: Annual Report
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
The United Nations optional protocol to the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (OPCAT), which the UK ratified in December 2003, requires states parties to establish a “national preventive mechanism” (NPM) to carry out visits to places of detention to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The Government established the UK NPM in March 2009 (Hansard 31 March 2009, Vol. 490, Part No. 57, Column 56WS). The UK NPM is currently composed of 21 scrutiny bodies covering the whole of the UK.
Following previous practice, I have presented to Parliament the 10th NPM’s annual report (Command Paper CP 228). This report covers the period from 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019. I commend the important work that the NPM has carried out over this period and the NPM’s independent role in safeguarding the human rights of detainees across the UK. I also note the NPM’s observations around prisons, children in detention, police custody, immigration detention and court custody. The Government are committed to making prisons places of safety and reform. We are investing an additional £2.75 billion to transform jails, with tough new security measures including x-ray body scanners, and creating 10,000 modern prison places to rehabilitate offenders. Our long-term ambition is to replace secure training centres and young offender institutions with secure schools, putting education, healthcare and purposeful activity at the heart of young offender rehabilitation.
[HCWS185]
House of Lords
Coronavirus Bill
Tuesday 24th March 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Coronavirus Act 2020 View all Coronavirus Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-I Marshalled list for Committee - (24 Mar 2020)
Coronavirus Bill
Tuesday 24th March 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Coronavirus Act 2020 View all Coronavirus Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-I Marshalled list for Committee - (24 Mar 2020)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I bring this Bill to the House with a huge sense of regret about the challenge we are facing and foreboding about the cost to the country of this terrible virus.
The Bill contains key administrative measures that are absolutely essential in helping us to fight the pandemic. It is not everything that we are doing, but it is essential for what we are doing. I am deeply conscious that many Peers are not present for the debate, because they are, quite rightly, following the official medical advice on social distancing and isolation. We have sought to give this Bill a proper level of scrutiny during our extensive engagement. In my remarks, I intend to reflect on some of the concerns that absent noble Lords have raised with me in recent days.
Before getting into the detail of the Bill, let me start by taking a step back and saying a word about its purpose. Fundamentally, this Bill is about buying time. You might not think it from looking at those alarming graphs charting the growth of the disease, but time can help us. With each day that passes, the science gets better. Each day, the models are refined and improved as more data becomes available. Each day brings us closer to faster, more accurate testing capabilities and, ultimately, a vaccine. The infection rate is exponential, but so too is our scientific understanding.
Many commentators have been drawing comparisons between the current pandemic and the grave situation facing our country in 1940. There is value in that, but the historical parallel I would draw is that of the Great War. In 1914, the military planners relied on tactics and technology that would have been familiar to Napoleon. By 1918, the tactics developed would have been recognisable to a veteran of the Gulf War. The learning curve was exponential. I believe it will be the same with this pandemic.
Think how little we knew about coronavirus back in December. The genome had not been sequenced, there was no serology test to tell you if you had already been infected, and we did not even know whether there was human-to-human transmission. Imagine what we will know in six months’ time, once the world’s most advanced economies, including our own, have applied their best minds to solving this problem.
I am an optimist. I am hopeful about our ingenuity and the progress we can make in fighting this virus. That is why time matters. Each day that we can slow the rate of transmission is a small victory that will lead to the ultimate defeat of the virus. We need to buy time for the NHS, flattening the infection curve and raising the capacity line, moving the peak away from the most dangerous winter months. We need to buy time for our society too, saving as many lives as possible and keeping essential public services running as we weather the storm. That is our plan and that is what this Bill contributes to.
There are five main parts to the Bill, and I will take each in turn. The first part is about increasing the available health and social care workforce, shoring up the system as far as possible as it comes under pressure. It allows for the temporary registration of NHS staff and social care workers, for instance those who may have recently retired. It allows recently retired staff to return to the NHS and social care without a negative impact on their pensions. It provides additional indemnity cover, if necessary, to key workers who are called upon to undertake additional duties as part of the response, and it protects the income and employment rights of our dedicated army of NHS volunteers. I know that everyone wishes to thank each and every one of those NHS and social care workers, who are going above and beyond on behalf of the country. We can thank them with deeds as well as words: not buying more than we need, not taking public transport if it is not essential, staying at home to protect the NHS.
The second part of the Bill concerns measures to keep essential services running while easing the burden on front-line staff. This includes introducing flexibility into education legislation, such as temporarily allowing for larger class sizes once schools reopen. It includes expanding the circumstances in which audio and video can be used in the court system. It allows the Home Secretary to suspend airport and port operations if the level of Border Force staff falls below a safe level. To ensure that the Treasury can transact its business at all times, it allows a single Minister or commissioner to sign or act on behalf of the others.
The Bill also ensures that our national security investigatory powers regime remains fully operational during the course of the epidemic, allowing for the temporary appointment of additional judicial commissioners who can sign off vital investigation warrants for our police and security services. Such appointments will be made only at the request of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. It also allows the Home Secretary to extend the lifespan of a warrant from five to 12 days. Again, this power would be activated only at the request of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.
Because of the unprecedented pressure on front-line staff, there are some areas where we will have to temporarily relax strict legal requirements for the duration of the emergency. We do not take these measures lightly; they will be triggered only in order to keep people safe and on the basis of expert clinical advice, and they will be relinquished as soon as the danger period has passed. The Bill will allow mental health professionals to secure the advice of one doctor, instead of the usual two, when applying to detain a person with a mental health disorder for the protection of themselves or others. These clauses also allow for flexibilities in the time limits governing the short-term detention of mental health patients. These emergency powers would be activated only in circumstances where there were so few mental health staff available that having to wait for a second doctor would endanger patient safety. Even when enacted, the powers would be used only at the discretion of local mental health trusts, and they would be switched off by government as soon as reasonably possible.
NHS England and NHS Improvement are currently preparing detailed guidance setting out the exact circumstances in which such powers would be used. During the peak period, we also need to ensure that patients are rapidly discharged from hospital when they are medically fit to be. The Bill supports this by allowing the NHS and local authorities to delay continuing healthcare assessments, which can take weeks, until after the pandemic. People who need this support will still receive NHS funding in the interim, but it will mean that local authorities might not meet all the individual’s assessed care needs in full. Instead, under powers in this Bill, local authorities will be required to prioritise people’s most urgent and serious needs and keeping people safe.
Local authorities will still be expected to do as much as they can to meet everybody’s needs during this period, and this will be underpinned by a duty for them to meet needs where not doing so would breach an individual’s human rights. Again, these powers would be triggered only in circumstances in which staff shortages meant not prioritising was putting vulnerable people in danger and they can be switched off while still in the emergency period if circumstances allow. In any event, they would last only for the duration of the emergency.
The third part of the Bill contains measures for delaying transmission of the virus. It gives us the power to restrict or prohibit events and public gatherings and, where necessary, to shut down premises. I know that this will not be easy, particularly for our world-leading creative industries. Yet I have no doubt that the months and years after the pandemic will be a time of extraordinary cultural flourishing for our nation. Consider that William Shakespeare wrote “King Lear”, “Macbeth” and “Antony and Cleopatra” while London theatres were shut down because of plague in 1606. This part of the Bill also allows us to close down educational settings or childcare providers and gives us the power to postpone elections due to take place this year in England until May 2021.
To ensure enforcement of the public health advice, this part of the Bill strengthens the isolation powers of the police and immigration officials, allowing them to detain those at risk of spreading the virus for screening or assessment and to isolate people if necessary. The police or immigration officials would use these powers only in cases in which they had reasonable grounds for thinking that an individual was at risk of spreading the virus, such as due to their travel history or symptoms. It goes without saying that the powers will last only for the duration of the public health emergency. I sincerely hope that they will not have to be widely used because everybody will follow the public health advice, if not to protect themselves, to protect others and the NHS.
The fourth part of the Bill is about managing the deceased. These are not pleasant matters to think about but, as the Health Secretary has said throughout this crisis, we must plan for the worst and work for the best. It expands the list of people who can register a death to include funeral directors. It means that coroners have to be notified only when there is no medical professional available to sign a death certificate. It allows death certificates to be emailed instead of physically presented and removes the need for a second confirmatory medical certificate in order for a cremation to take place.
All of this is designed to ensure that the deceased can be treated with dignity and respect at a time when bereaved families may be self-isolating and many of the professionals who would normally be involved in the process may be unwell. In extreme circumstances, if the level of mortality were to overwhelm the capacity of local funeral services, the Bill contains powers that would allow local authorities to take control of parts of the process. This could include operating crematoria for longer than usual or drafting in parts of the wider public sector to assist. It would be triggered only if there were a risk to public health from not acting.
The fifth part of the Bill contains measures to support people to get through this crisis. It will ensure that statutory sick pay is paid from day one, applying retrospectively from 13 March. It enables small businesses with fewer than 250 employees to get a full refund for sick pay relating to coronavirus during the course of the emergency. It requires industry to provide information about food supplies should it fail to do so voluntarily.
Lastly, the Bill contains clauses that will make it easier to make changes to national insurance contributions, giving us the freedom and the tools to respond to a changing situation if necessary.
This is a Bill for the whole country, jointly agreed by all four Governments of the UK. We understand that it significantly increases government power in some areas, while temporarily scaling back some areas of government responsibility. This is why the Bill has been constructed in a way which means that the different measures can be switched on and off as the clinical situation requires. We have tabled an amendment to give this House an opportunity every six months to confirm that these powers are still required. This gives us the flexibility to respond to the course of the disease. The Bill also requires Ministers to update Parliament regularly on how these powers have been used across the UK. Finally, the Bill will expire after two years unless Parliament decides to extend it.
This is an extraordinary Bill for an extraordinary moment in the history of our country. It gives us the legislative and regulatory toolkit that we need to respond to a constantly evolving situation. It balances public safety with democratic accountability. In a situation where time is the most precious commodity, it gives us more time. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear description of the Bill and the openness with which he has treated our team engaged in it; personal trust is very important in these matters. I declare an interest: my youngest son is a doctor in an NHS hospital in London, which is now almost exclusively devoted to treating those with Covid-19.
Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition support this Bill. In normal times, it would be utterly unacceptable, but these are not normal times. As long as the emergency lasts and these powers are necessary, they should be available to the Government. We also support the instructions, to be backed subsequently by legal enforcement powers, that the Prime Minister announced last night. Inevitably, more detail is needed about the measures announced by the Prime Minister, but there is no doubt that there needs to be immediate compliance by the public with the “stay at home” message. Legitimate issues about the limits do not detract from the Government’s message to the country: stay at home unless you have a very good reason for leaving. Can the Minister provide details of the legal powers that will be introduced to back up the Prime Minister’s message last night? When will they be introduced and what is the basis for them?
Again, we in the Opposition will assist as necessary in ensuring that effect can be given to the Prime Minister’s statement. The Bill before us today can be improved to make it more effective in fighting the virus, to give more support to those on the front line in the struggle and to provide better economic security for the public. We recognise that full scrutiny cannot be given to the Bill—the needs are too urgent and the time too short. We will focus on the key issues and table only a small number of amendments in Committee tomorrow. In these circumstances, the right course for the Opposition is to assist in getting the Bill on to the statute book with focused amendments on the key issues, but also to ensure that each power lasts only as long as is necessary to fight the virus and that there are regular time-restricted limits on its continuation. If it needs to continue beyond the sunset clause, the time before sunset should be taken to improve it, as, inevitably, time will reveal it can be improved.
Parliament has a critical role in the weeks and months to come in legislating, scrutinising the Government and providing national leadership. It cannot function as normal: we cannot meet like this, debate like this and do our job like this as the crisis develops. We need urgently to work out remote and different ways of doing our job—but our job is to hold the Government to account, to provide national leadership and to legislate when the country needs it. The country will need more scrutiny, more leadership and more legislation than it has at the moment. In this national effort, we need to ensure that the Government are moving fast enough and clearly enough, and that they are giving the right leadership. We will press hard to achieve that. There need to be clear messages to be public and they need to be well publicised. The Government need to recognise that doing their best to alleviate the most acute economic anxieties for the employed, the self-employed and those in the gig economy alike is vital to deliver compliance with those messages. We will press hard to ensure that proper security is given and that the Government move as fast as they should.
We are very conscious that part of what the Government must do is to ensure that the public comply with their instructions to stop the virus spreading. We in opposition must take especial care not to undermine the chances of those instructions being acted upon. We are under no illusions that an epic struggle is currently being waged on all our behalf by the NHS. Hospitals up and down the country have been reconfigured incredibly fast to fight the Covid-19 virus. Large teaching hospitals have devoted whole floors to the disease. Smaller district hospitals have effectively reduced their non-Covid-19 workload as much as possible to accommodate the cases and become largely Covid-19 hospitals. Medical staff have had in many cases to reskill from their normal specialties. They are seeing a frightening influx of patients with the disease that is growing every day. The risk to medical staff is significant. If the patients are hospitalised, they will have a serious illness with Covid-19, and those patients deteriorate often very rapidly and are then required to be moved to ITU and ventilation. The demands on the NHS staff are immense; the pressure is huge.
To ensure that staff have access to all the personal protective equipment they need, make sure that they are all trained in the use of PPE, and to start to test all NHS staff to see whether they have or have had the virus when the antibody testing becomes available are critical measures. It has taken too long to sort out the PPE issues, and the testing of NHS staff has not started. Can the Minister give us an update on the testing capacity and how it is to be rolled out?
The debt of gratitude we owe as a country to the NHS staff engaged in this struggle is incalculable. When the history of this appalling period comes to be written, they will be the true heroes. The rest of us— parliamentarians, Ministers and members of the public—must not let them down. The risk by now is very well known that the NHS will be overwhelmed by the number of cases. There will not be the staff, critical care beds or ventilators to deal with the pandemic. We must do everything to ensure that that does not happen.
I also recognise and pay tribute to the work being done in central government to craft our response to this crisis. The pressure on them is immense. We have an excellent Civil Service, which has worked on as the illness has reduced its number. This is a collective battle; we fight as one nation. The co-operation with the devolved Administrations has been close and effective. I pay tribute to them for the incredibly impressive work they have done.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, told us yesterday that there are currently 3,700 critical care beds and that the total usage was currently 2,428, of which 237 are Covid-19 related. He told us that the Government’s ambition is
“to increase this dramatically to perhaps 30,000 in time for the crisis arriving in full.”—[Official Report, 23/3/20; col. 1634.]
Will he update the House as to the number of critical care beds currently available, what the total usage is, how many are being used for Covid-19—that is, the increase from yesterday—and the dates on which the increase of 25,000-plus are expected to come on stream?
On the detail of the Bill, my noble friend Lady Thornton will deal in her speech with issues relating to the health and social care workforce, the reduction of administrative burdens, and financial support. There are education issues, which my noble friend Lord Watson will deal with. I will deal with the other issues.
First, on the sunset clause, there is understandably huge pressure to get the Bill into law so that the Government have the necessary powers to tackle the coronavirus pandemic. Given these circumstances, a sunset clause is necessary and vital, and a prudent mechanism. The position is that there is now a two-year sunset clause, but a power in the Commons to stop the continuation of the Bill after six months, 12 months, 18 months and two years.
Moreover, there is provision for a debate in both Houses and the power to stop after 12 months. That power, the six-month power, is an all-or-nothing one. It is inevitable that some of these provisions will work while others will not. Can the Minister indicate why there is no power to stop some of these powers at six months, 12 months and 18 months as we learn more about how they are working? Will the Government consider whether they would introduce such a power?
I move from the sunset clause to the provisions for containing and delaying the spread of the virus—social distancing. The Bill sets out provisions to restrict potentially infectious people from being in contact with each other as well as a power to restrict or prevent them from moving around, or to detain them. It also contains powers to prevent events and gatherings, to close premises and to restrict port activities. It does not contain powers to stop people going to work or to stay in their homes, which were the key measures announced yesterday. We would be willing to assist in incorporating those powers. Can the Government tell us what their intentions are?
On immigration, can the Minister indicate what the Government are doing to maintain the health and safety of people currently detained in immigration detention centres? Can he also confirm that people will not be held in detention centres if they cannot be removed due to airport closures and travel restrictions related to the coronavirus?
I turn to the courts. We broadly agree with the provisions related to increasing the circumstances in which video links can be used. Can the Minister give an assurance that they will be used only in the interests of vulnerable defendants and those who are digitally excluded? Will those who are unable to get legal advice be properly protected?
I would be grateful if the Minister would touch on the issue of prisons. What is happening there gives rise to especial difficulties. Can he indicate what is being done in relation to the prison population? Can he further confirm what powers the Government have to deal with this position and what are their intentions in relation to the exercise of those powers?
The Bill contains measures related to the management of death. We understand that there may be reduced capacity to register and manage deaths as a result of the pandemic and that it may be necessary to relax the rules around the registration of deaths and cremations to ease the burden on the NHS and to deal with the issue. Again, we agree to these, but only for as long as the emergency lasts. The House will be aware that concerns have been raised about how cremations could conflict with some religious teachings. Cremation is forbidden in Islam and Judaism, and therefore the possibility of forcing a cremation on a loved one from those communities would add further anguish and trauma to bereaved families who may themselves be in self-isolation. We understand that these provisions are designed to deal with a potential surge in deaths and a lack of grave space capacity. What steps will the Government take on this? In particular, are there plans to consult the deceased person’s family and local faith representatives to find suitable alternative arrangements?
I turn to supporting the homeless. The coronavirus outbreak presents specific risks to the homeless because they are a high-risk group. Rough sleepers and those living and sleeping in shared spaces such as hostels, night shelters and day centres are at particular risk as they are unable to self-isolate. Further, these services cannot close down because the people they support are then forced back on to the streets where they are at even greater risk. Can the Minister indicate what steps the Government are taking as regards the homeless in light of the announcement last Friday that the Welsh Government will make £10 million available to Welsh councils in order to block purchase rooms in hotels, bed and breakfasts and student accommodation to act as additions to the existing provisions for the homeless? Are the Government doing the same in relation to England?
The Bill contains provisions related to the giving of information about food supplies. The public are understandably worried about perceived shortages of essential products, empty shelves and securing online delivery slots. The supermarkets are doing all the right things, including redeploying their existing staff and hiring new team members to ensure swift restocking where supplies exist, as well as establishing schemes to assist the elderly and key workers.
Supply chains are stepping up their efforts to ensure that sufficient quantities of essential products are available for sale. These efforts are appreciated and will continue to be vital in the weeks ahead.
The Bill includes powers to compel food supply chain operators to provide information on, and assessments of, any disruption to food supplies. We understand that such information is currently being provided voluntarily, meaning that it is intended as a reserve power. We agree with this approach but note that it does not, in itself, do anything to guarantee the availability of food and other items. What discussions are the Government having with supermarkets and supply chains to maintain public confidence?
We will explore all these issues in Committee. We will play our part in supporting the fight against this virus. Sometimes, that will involve telling the Government that they are wrong; always, it will involve giving the country confidence that we in the Opposition—and we in Parliament—are working together as best we can to provide security and safety for the country, which rightly expects the best from us. We are determined to give it.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, we meet today in truly extraordinary and worrying times. The pace at which the pandemic has spread and the range of measures which are now widely accepted as necessary to fight it are unprecedented. As a result, we are not just faced with this Bill but must consider how we as a Parliament operate in the weeks and months ahead. If we are to work effectively, we have to reconsider all our ways of doing things.
We on these Benches of course support the Bill but, as we do so, we need to be clear what we see as the role of Parliament in the period ahead. It seems to us crucial that we maintain our role of scrutinising legislation and holding the Government to account. This is partly because the Government are being asked to exercise, on a daily basis, the judgment of Solomon. We fear that they lack a Solomon, so we think it vital that Ministers remain answerable to Parliament for their decisions. But Parliament also has a major part to play in improving public policy development, by feeding into the process and drawing to the Government’s attention what is really happening on the ground across the country, and by probing their responses.
While we on these Benches are fully supportive of the House adjourning early for the Easter Recess, we do not support an extension of that Recess beyond our planned resumption date of 21 April. If by then the situation in respect of self-isolation and social distancing remains broadly as it is today, which seems highly likely, we will need to look at how we conduct our business to ensure that the House can operate effectively.
Many service-sector companies have closed their offices altogether yet are carrying on their business by use of the phone, internet and conference calling. I believe that your Lordships’ House should do the same to the maximum extent possible, particularly as almost half our number will—or should—be unable to attend by virtue of their age, while others have underlying health conditions which makes their attendance impossible or, at the very least, imprudent. We will need to change our ways.
In my view there is, for example, no reason why committees should not sit via videoconferencing straightaway. I believe that we should also look at ways in which the business in the Chamber could be done differently. If a radio station can do it, I do not see why Members should not be able to phone or email in their Questions for Oral Answer, for example, or why some speeches could not be submitted in writing in advance, for inclusion on the record. On our return, to allow us to ask Questions in a timely manner while minimising the demands on ministerial time, we should also have half an hour of Covid-19 questions at a convenient point after the Prime Minister has done his daily press conference. If the frequency or timing of these press conferences changes, we could obviously adapt to reflect this.
The alternative is an unsatisfactory preponderance of coronavirus Questions on the Order Paper and a daily series of requests to the Lord Speaker for Private Notice Questions. We have raised these suggestions via the House of Lords Commission and the usual channels, and are having very constructive engagement with them. I believe the same process is now taking place in the House of Commons.
I realise that for some Members all these suggestions will produce the kind of shocked response associated with a Bateman cartoon but, unless we move in this direction, proper scrutiny will simply be impossible. Scrutiny will be particularly important because of the wide-reaching measures which the Government are adopting. They are measures which we support in principle. As a result of today’s Bill, the Government will gain large new powers exercisable by statutory instrument, which should be debated, and further new powers will need to be taken to implement yesterday evening’s announcement. We have only to look at the extraordinary, irresponsible action of Sports Direct today to see that exhortation of not just individuals but of companies will be inadequate. I too would like to know what legal basis the Government will use to introduce these necessary powers.
Other legislation is already being introduced giving the Government new powers by statutory instrument. For example, on Saturday a regulation was made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to close all restaurants, cafés, bars, cinemas, theatres and virtually every other premises where people meet. They came into force the same day, have a lifespan of six months and, in theory, need parliamentary approval, but such approval obviously requires Parliament to be in session. The same will apply to all the other SIs which are required, and the Government may well find that they need more primary legislation to be introduced at short notice before this crisis is over, so we need to find ways to do this with the country in lockdown and we need to do so quickly.
We accept the need for today’s Bill and the need to pass it speedily. We do not propose to divide the House but this is a very long and complex Bill and, as is always the case, it raises very many specific questions to which no answers have yet been provided. In saying that, I am not criticising the Government. I have huge sympathy for the challenge the Minister faces in explaining an unprecedented raft of business, and I would not want him to think that in making that point I am being critical, but the country wants to know and needs clarity on many issues, and Parliament is the best way of doing that.
However, our proceedings today and tomorrow do not in reality allow us to subject this Bill to the normal scrutiny that we would expect so, like the Opposition, we on these Benches will limit our amendments to a relative handful on which we wish to probe the Government. There are a lot more issues that we would in ordinary circumstances raise, but in the course of a day—tomorrow—it is simply impossible to do so.
The issues that we will raise are as follows. On social care, we want to ensure that the Government provide local authorities with the resources necessary to provide appropriate levels of care for those discharged from hospital, particularly those with complex needs. On social security, we want to suspend the sanctions regime, which we believe could bear down unfairly on those who are ill. We want to give local authorities the power of direction they will need if they are to implement government policy effectively. We want to scrutinise the civil liberties implications of the increased detention powers. We want to examine the scope for providing much better levels of support for the self-employed, and we want to ensure that your Lordships’ House plays its full part in considering the extension of the emergency powers beyond the initial six months. My colleagues will explain our detailed concerns on these points during the course of today’s debate.
This is an unprecedented Bill to deal with an unprecedented crisis. Over the coming months, every aspect of the way that we do things in Britain will come under strain. As in wartime, we will have to change the way that we do things, and when it is all over things will not revert to business as usual. Some things will have changed for ever, and the way that we do business here will assuredly fall into that category. I am sure that everyone in your Lordships’ House wishes the Government well as they grapple with coronavirus. But democracies never give the Executive a blank cheque. As a Parliament, we must retain our critical faculties and, if we do so, it will help the Government and the country to get through this crisis together.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my registered interests. I am trustee of the British Institute of Human Rights and a vice-president of the LGA, among others.
We are in challenging times, with a significant number of noble Lords not in their usual place. With a Bill of this magnitude, the Chamber would normally be full. I strongly support the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that this has proved more than anything that we need to find more modern ways of working, especially when we have had no time to discuss the Bill outside the Chamber. Even more so, the review point for this Bill is incredibly important.
I sincerely thank the House staff who are here today and the NHS and front-line staff for what they are doing. For me, it was a big, personal decision to be here today, especially with the release of the clinical frailty scale. Many would see me, as a wheelchair user, as being no higher than number 7 on that scale. I am delighted that NICE yesterday confirmed that the clinical frailty scale would not be used for certain groups, including those with learning disabilities and cerebral palsy, but many disabled people are still very worried by the Bill. Decisions will be taken by someone else about our usefulness in the next few months that we will have no control over. I am starting to worry that disabled people might be seen as expendable during this pandemic. There is a real fear that this will graduate towards a move to register disabled people and that that will be used to decide future provision.
There is a need for part of this emergency Bill; however, the draconian measures outlined made it a personal necessity for me to be here today. This is a health and social care obliteration Bill by a different name. Alan Benson captured many views when he said that we have been fighting for rights for 30 years and now it is about survival. Inclusion London has said that, “buried deep” in the Bill is
“the complete removal of social care responsibilities, for at least two years.”
I apologise because I will ask the Minister a series of questions. I will email them to his department because there are many. I will also cover presentations and questions that have been sent to me by other noble friends.
What will happen to those stuck in the PIP decision appeal process while we are going through these difficult times?
What will be done to look after or support victims of domestic violence, who we know will be at greater risk?
What specific measures will be put in place for the emergency registration of healthcare professionals for those over 65, some of whom may be considered vulnerable?
What about unpaid carers and child carers? What about the self-employed? There will be additional pressure on them at this time that will be impossible to step back from.
When the Prime Minister and Her Majesty’s Government make announcements on TV, will they commit to having a British Sign Language interpreter so that everybody can understand what is going on?
The Bill is a temporary suspension of most of the duties contained in the Care Act 2014. Is this any more than just a cost-saving exercise? If local authorities are no longer required to meet care needs under the Care Act, will the Minister explain why local authorities would carry out any assessments at all if they did not have to? How will they prioritise?
In yesterday’s debate in another place, a human rights safeguard was raised numerous times. The Government stated that they considered the Bill to be compatible with human rights. However, the analysis was released late on Friday 20 March, after the Bill was laid before Parliament on 19 March, and while some of the analysis is welcome, some of the most worrying clauses have simply not been dealt with. Will the Minister explain what analysis has been done about the unintended consequences on the NHS at this difficult time of removing social care or prioritising health over social care?
Will the Minister advise how social care is guaranteed, because, as I understand it, there is no human right to social care or a positive obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights to meet care needs? Are people to be protected from inhumane or degrading treatment within the provisions of Article 3 or perhaps Articles 8 or 14? I would like to understand that. How will the Secretary of State ensure that social care is protected and what support will be given to decision-makers such as social workers to ensure that they identify and avoid breaches? Given that human rights training is not mandatory, is that something that could be considered?
What happens when a disabled child turns 18 and their adult social care package is unavailable? Does provision just stop?
My noble friend Lady Hollins, who is unable to be in her place, asked me to raise the following questions, which are really important for disabled individuals. If we look to home care for disabled people, what provision are Her Majesty’s Government putting in place for European care workers who have not been able to return to the UK? What personal protective equipment will be made available for carers? Can Her Majesty’s Government look at parking charges, so that carers who do not want to use public transport are able to drive? Will there be extra funding for disabled employers or home care agencies to enable them to pay an additional income premium or quarantine payment? What about carers who have to self-isolate in their employer’s home to ensure they do not put their disabled employer at risk? How will care agencies or disabled employers fund these periods of advisory self-isolation? Will the Government require local authorities to keep a record of those who have had their support reduced or cut, so that their support packages can be reinstated when this emergency is over?
What about people with dementia? Can the Government assure us that they will not be discharged to inappropriate care homes without staff who have had dementia training? Can the Government give a financial guarantee to families living with dementia—that they will not be retrospectively charged for inappropriate care home placements once the pandemic is over?
The St John Ambulance contacted me this morning. It said that it is ready and wants to help and would very much welcome a call with the Minister. What about paid leave and access to emergency volunteering certificates for it?
The changes to the Mental Health Act are just as concerning. Does the Minister consider it proportionate for individuals to be sectioned by only one medical professional, who is no longer required to be acquainted with the individual? I hope no amendments will be tabled that amend other major pieces of legislation. This is a time for unity, not for introducing other far-reaching changes on highly contested issues.
At different times, in-patients in mental health care facilities may face increased restraint and seclusion. The powers in this Bill could lead to a deterioration in an individual’s conditions where carers or families cannot manage, leading to individuals being admitted to an in-patient unit in crisis. No one should be admitted because of a failure of social care. Can the Minister assure the House that, should the powers in this Bill be activated and as a consequence should people be admitted to in-patient settings because of a failure of care, an independent care and treatment review will be carried out as soon as this emergency has ended, and not just for people detained in long-term segregation? The Bill’s provision to relax the measures around NHS continuing healthcare assessments could see some of these people discharged from hospital without the right support, putting them at additional risk of readmission. Delays to NHS continuing healthcare assessments will undermine this programme of work.
Like many others, I have huge sympathy for what the Government are trying to do right now, but a Bill of this magnitude will be life-changing for disabled people. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester
My Lords, in these days I have been reflecting on the words of the Hebrew psalmist who, at the time of his people’s exile, articulated the question:
“How can we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land?”
In many ways we are entering into a strange land, and indeed in some ways a land of exile: a land in which we are exiled from many of our normal patterns of living, in which people of faith are not able to attend their places of worship and in which many people find themselves having to live life in entirely new ways.
This is a small thing, but I am grateful for the inclusion in the other place of Clause 84, which solved a little conundrum about the legality of the General Synod of the Church of England under these circumstances. Rather more importantly, and in relation particularly to what the Prime Minister said last night, we in the faith communities absolutely accept that our places of worship are now closed. Such things as weddings are suspended and postponed until a later time. But though the buildings are closed, I hope the communities and people are not closed. Particularly in relation to our caring and charitable activities, I hope that people of faith, alongside others, will continue to engage.
Reference has already been made to the care of the homeless and the importance of shelters, food banks and those kinds of things. I am grateful for the discussions happening around those. I think I am right in saying that work is under way in London to transfer residents of shelters to budget hotels.
The care of the vulnerable has just been spoken of powerfully by the noble Baroness, and I have other categories in mind, including trafficked people and victims of domestic abuse—of course, the Bill to support such people has now been delayed again—those who are isolated and perhaps especially those who are or sadly will be bereaved in the coming days.
That brings me to Schedule 28 which deals with funerals and is very far-reaching in its effects, potentially, but it is important and I accept the need for it. However, I hope that alongside all this we can maintain our sense of dignity, which is really important, around issues of death, bereavement and the way we treat the dying, the dead and the bereaved. The point has been made about the need for sensitivity to the funerary practices of different faith communities and I know that conversations have been going on with Downing Street about that. We trust that local authorities and others will act in appropriate ways. I think I can speak for all the churches, faith communities and indeed civil celebrants when I say that for as long as we possibly can, we will wish to provide people to officiate at funeral services, even if those services are attended only by the deceased person in their coffin and the officiant—that is part of treating these situations with dignity. I confidently express our commitment on these Benches to do that for as long as we possibly can and to enter into discussions that are needed in order to do it.
On the theme of treating people with dignity, reference has already been made to prisons and other places of detention—immigration removal centres and suchlike. We know that they will be under huge pressure at this time, not least if staff numbers are restricted due to infection. For as long as possible I know that, in prisons and other such places, our multifaith chaplaincy teams will continue to work as they are today. That underlines the importance of giving prisoners, particularly if they are not able to gather for their worship, access to faith provision of some kind at this time, when they are cut off, very often, from other forms of contact.
That brings me to two particular questions in relation to prisons. One is about communication with the outside world now that prison visits have understandably been curtailed. Is there any intention to increase the availability of such things as Skype, whereby families, and perhaps particularly the children of those who are in prison, can maintain relationships and contact with them? The other question concerns those who might be released. There has been some talk about this and I would value an update from the Minister as to the thinking. I am thinking, for example, of low-risk, elderly prisoners, who are in any case difficult to care for in prison and may become more difficult to care for. Another group might be those pregnant women who are currently in prison. Can special provision be made for early release for those groups and, no doubt, others as well?
A few minutes ago, I referred to the Hebrew psalmist. The lesson from that time is that the cry
“How shall we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land?”
was answered some decades later by the fact that people did actually learn to do it. During that period of exile, they learned to express their worship and their solidarity with one another in new and different ways that set patterns for many centuries to come. I have a quiet confidence, actually, that with all the difficulties and challenges, we will, as a society, learn to sing our songs in new ways. Maybe, as has been indicated, the workings of this House will be one of those songs that we sing in a new way. Above all, we must learn to sing the songs of human dignity and maintain them, and perhaps also those songs that celebrate human ingenuity, compassion and relatedness, which will be incredibly important virtues in these coming days.
Lord Robathan (Con)
Noble Lords will be familiar with the profound words of John Donne written in 1624. That was a time of recurrent outbreaks of bubonic plague, so he knew about death and the plague:
“No man is an island entire of itself … any man’s death diminishes me … And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”
Each death from Covid-19 is a tragedy for the individual, obviously, and for every bereaved family, and we should mourn every death because anyone’s death diminishes us.
I attended two very informative briefings by the Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty, earlier this month. He was calm, balanced and logical. He inspired confidence. I understood—I think—the concept of herd immunity. I understood why it would be counterproductive to close schools and why it was unnecessary to ban large gatherings. I understood the concept of flattening the curve to prevent the NHS being swamped. All that seemed pragmatic and sensible.
The weekend before last, everything changed after an Imperial College study and modelling exercise estimated that there would be 250,000 deaths unless we changed tack and policy. A quarter of a million deaths is a very large number. I also understand the international situation, where other countries are taking more extreme measures that, to a certain extent, put the Government under pressure. These deaths are largely among the elderly, the frail and the sickly—people with what I have learned to call “underlying health conditions”. Each one is an individual to be valued. I also understand that it is likely that 80% of us sitting here today will contract the virus, and I have a mere 16 months before I reach my allotted span, according to the psalmist in Psalm 90, of “threescore years and ten”—memento mori.
However, it is not callous or uncaring to point out that last year 623,000 people died in the UK. On average, every day 1,700 people die. As of this morning, there have been 335 deaths from the coronavirus outbreak. Therefore, this is not the Black Death, the great plague of 1665, the Spanish flu nor war. It is a very real health crisis which should be taken very seriously indeed, but I suggest that it should also be kept in proportion. Referring to war, which people have been doing, the Blitz spirit was best summed up by the slogan “We never closed”.
The Chief Medical Officer thinks that there are many thousands more cases than the 6,650 confirmed today. My right honourable friend Jeremy Hunt, former Health Secretary and chairman of the Health Select Committee in the Commons, yesterday suggested that there were 300,000-odd cases in the UK. My untutored and entirely anecdotal guess is that there are very many more. For instance, my son at Sandhurst has had it; my daughter, 50 miles away in Oxford, has it, as has my niece in Gloucestershire; three out of 12 jurors in the trial of the alleged murderers of PC Harper have self-isolated; and there are lots more cases besides, of which we all know. They have not been tested but it seems likely that the number of additional cases is huge. Therefore, what are the implications for herd immunity and what is the likely percentage of deaths?
Now we have in this Bill draconian and oppressive restrictions. I understand the impossible position of the Government, but how long will this lockdown be imposed? The Imperial College study, which so worried the Government, says that
“this type of intensive intervention package … will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more)—given that we predict that transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed.”
It goes on to say that
“experience in China and now South Korea show that suppression is possible in the short term”,
but
“it remains to be seen whether it is possible long-term”.
I am not an epidemiologist, nor a doctor, but I have questions on government policy. Do the Government have any real idea of the numbers infected and, now, possibly developing immunity? I understand that a test for antibodies is being developed. How long will the restrictions be in force? Three weeks was mentioned yesterday. Will it be 18 months or more? Will a lockdown be effective? Will it work? And will the numbers rebound if the lockdown is lifted? Therefore, will it really achieve its stated aim of preventing transmission and saving lives in the long term?
Will these measures lead to a recession or, much worse, to another global depression? We should remember the lives destroyed in the desolation of the 1930s and, indeed, the rise of extremist parties. Will younger generations—our children, with their future in front of them and not already behind them, as in my case—think that the impact on the long-term good and prosperity of the country, on their education and on their standard of living and quality of life is worth it, especially if these oppressive restrictions do not beat the virus and people continue to die? These are rhetorical questions, because nobody knows. Only time will tell—perhaps six months, a year, or many years.
Perhaps this will be seen as a contrary view. I wish my noble friend the Minister and the Government well in this hugely difficult crisis but certainly do not like this legislation. The restrictions and closing down of our country are disproportionate. I will not oppose this, but giving these powers to the state is unprecedented outside wartime; they are draconian in so many aspects and based on a premise that may turn out to be incorrect. In my 68 years, I have learned that it is very rarely the case that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to those on the front line: those in intensive care and social care, but also those serving in food shops and those in local government keeping services going. I also pay tribute to those in the Civil Service and in this House who are ensuring that our democracy can continue. Our democracy, as has just been said, is vital in being able to challenge, ask questions and perhaps sometimes put a different point of view—not merely via a question online or a telephone call, but in debate, which is what democratic parliaments are all about.
I have tried to approach this issue from a lifetime of experience, having been Home Secretary at the time of the attack on the World Trade Center and much afterwards. I realise, as the Minister has said, that this is on a different scale. We are talking about the experience and challenge of the Great War. In my view, the Minister has handled his brief incredibly well since taking it over and I pay tribute to him for doing so.
Over the last few weeks I have asked myself what I would do if I were in Cabinet today. Would I try to maintain that proportionality and balance which we debated at great length nearly 20 years ago? Yes, I would. Would I be absolutely clear that democracy demanded that Parliament continue to work? Yes, I would. Would I take incremental steps that took people with us? Yes, I would, because the balance between the philosophy of John Stuart Mill and Rousseau’s social contract has underpinned everything we have done in this country and should do in future. The nature of the state will be debated now and in the future; though perhaps in a different way, it will still be about the balance between the actions we need to take as a Government and a state and the responsibility we carry as individuals.
I am here today because I have lifelong experience, some areas of which are more relevant to this debate than others. I do not mind saying that, while others will rightly take a decision to isolate and protect themselves, as demanded of all of us, some have to be there on the line, saying things and debating matters from the perspective of their age and experience. I make an appeal for social responsibility and care to print, broadcast and responsible social media, because it is vital at this time that people continue to be there to ensure that the papers are printed and that broadcasters can still broadcast—it is not all down to social media. The most dangerous things we face, other than the virus itself, are anxiety and fear—people’s confidence in their own mental and physical well-being being undermined. I make a plea to the media: inform, interrogate, sometimes entertain, but never fear, because that anxiety can be incredibly dangerous at this moment in time. That is why enforcing the measures in this Act must be done with great care.
I say to my colleagues, including my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby: be very careful about the demanding of yet more power and enforcement, the media demanding every day that more people be more fearful. Yes, there will be particular areas of our country where intensive care services and all around them will be under pressure, as they are at the moment in London and the south-east, but listening to interviews from Queen’s in north-east London on Sunday’s edition of “The World This Weekend”, I realised that what we needed was the calming voice of those who had been through experiences of this kind.
My wife Margaret has been a doctor for 35 years and has just retired. I do not speak for her, but I learn from her about the dangerous and difficult decisions that she has taken over a lifetime: of whether people should die at home or be transferred into hospital. That is why we should listen to the noble Lord, Lord Robathan. Proportionality requires us to take a deep breath. Yes, we respect the scientists, but we need more of them, from a wider sphere, to come forward and to be heard. I respect those who came forward quickly with their modelling, but we need wider modelling to ensure that we get this right. We need more testing more quickly. If we had more testing, we would know much more quickly who had had the virus and who was reasonably immune, and we would be able to distinguish those who had not had the virus but thought they had. We could then continue in a more reasonable fashion—yes, of course, working from home, but without that anxiety and fear.
I have talked a lot about anxiety because my daughter-in-law, who is a teacher, spent the whole of last Friday talking to the students in her secondary school not about exams but about their anxiety about their parents and grandparents and what was going to happen to them. Recovery plans as Theresa May has described will therefore be really important. Behind the scenes, I hope that that work is taking place.
It is important to use the letter that has been sent out by the Communities and Local Government Secretary to reassure people in local government that they will be supported. Local government has lost more in the austerity measures than any other part of our public services. The capacity does not exist. What the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said needs to be underlined and understood.
I shall finish, as did the right reverend Prelate, by quoting from my favourite hymn. “Dear Lord and Father of Mankind” ends with:
“O still, small voice of calm.”
That still, small voice of calm is needed now as it has never been needed before.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, what extraordinary times we live in. Those who have followed Sheffield politics will know that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and I tend to disagree quite a lot on things, but on this occasion, I agree with quite a lot of what he had to say.
This Bill has jaw-dropping and eye-popping powers, which, if we were to have them explained to us in the normal run of the mill, would lead us to think that a military dictatorship had just come in and was trying to get control. However, we are not in normal circumstances when it comes to some of the powers needed to deal with this public health crisis—that is what we need to call it; let us stop using the words of war and talk about the battle to keep people alive and safe. We are in a public health crisis and some of the powers will be needed.
The role of this Parliament and this House over the next two days will be to try to improve the Bill wherever we can and, I hope, to persuade the Government to accept some of the suggestions that will come from around this Chamber. Our role is also to make sure that the powers that the Government and individual Ministers wish to take are reasonable and proportionate to the public health crisis that we face. Some of them will be tough measures, and we understand why, but we will also have to make sure that the Bill’s powers are for the minimum length of time possible and are to deal only with the coronavirus.
A number of provisions in the Bill, particularly those to do with local elections and their suspension, do not refer to coronavirus—in the clauses or the schedules. I understand that the Bill may have been written in haste, but we need to be clear. Every clause and every schedule needs to refer to coronavirus. The power in the Bill for Ministers to extend, for two years, also had no reference to extending purely because of coronavirus.
I would like to explore this issue with the Minister: why six months? If the powers are so broad, why does Parliament and this House not get a say every three months, not just to debate the issue but to get a vote on some of the issues? The powers are so wide and have such effects on individual lives that such a vote is needed.
The social care provisions will mean that the lives of some of the most vulnerable people will become intolerable. If the pressure on local authorities means that they cannot make such provision, which they have to legally, individual lives and families could be shattered. These powers are so wide, with their effects on individuals and families, that three months is long enough. What, in dealing with this public health crisis, would prevent a review at three months?
I declare my interests in the register as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and, like the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, a former leader of Sheffield City Council. Those of us who have been council leaders will know that many issues arise in a local community in the normal run of things, and local government does not always have the power to deal with them, even though communities look to local government to do so. In fact, local government is probably best placed to make clever, local interventions to deal with the problems that people face. Local government will have to deal with many issues that are not in the Bill. What if the vast majority of refuse collectors get the virus? How will the refuse be collected? If it is not, it will lead to another public health issue, for environmental health officers.
It would be wise to give local authorities a general power of direction on burials and on death so that, if they give an instruction, bodies in their jurisdiction have to act. It will go much wider than death; there will be many things that great planners and people who work in Whitehall have not thought of because the consequences are probably unintended or have not been thought through, but it will be down to somebody in each local area to make significant decisions about what is needed. If we are to help local communities to survive as best they can and deal with the issues that no one has thought of, we will have to give somebody—I suggest that it should be a local authority—a general power of direction. I urge the Minister to look at that carefully.
Finally, I thank the many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of individuals up and down this country who are volunteering and supporting their local community in trying to get through this, especially the great people on the front line of our NHS and the people who are keeping our shelves stocked. Those local efforts and individual interventions will help communities to get through this.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I will raise two unconnected points in connection with the Bill. First, I admit to being very surprised to see no mention in it of prisons, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, have already mentioned, or of probation. Both are state-run activities and require state employees to have face-to-face contact with offenders who have been sentenced by the courts, which are mentioned, as are the police, who are responsible for the investigation of criminal acts.
I remember that, when the Prison Officers Association went on strike in 1989 and I was commanding the United Kingdom field Army, the Army was required to set up, and externally guard, two temporary prisons in existing army accommodation. When there was a suggestion that soldiers were to be required to censor prisoners’ letters, I appealed to the then Home Secretary, Lord Hurd of Westwell, that soldiers should not be put in such close contact with prisoners, to which he immediately agreed. I was therefore interested to see a report in yesterday’s Times that the Royal Navy would be called on to cover any drastic shortfalls in the number of prison officers, after the police had made it clear that they were unable to, including being responsible for delivering ready meals to prisoners in their cells.
I know that these are extraordinary times, and that extraordinary measures need to be taken, but service personnel do not have the same training as policemen or prison staff, and I appeal to the Government not to deploy Armed Forces personnel to anywhere where they will come into such close contact with convicted criminals. When I was Chief Inspector of Prisons, my deputy, who governed HMP Holloway, was faced with a strike of prison officers, and ran the prison using teachers and other volunteers already working in the prison.
No thought appears to have been given to the supervision of offenders in the community. No plans have been announced to suspend sentences or arrange other supervisors if probation staff should fall victim to the virus. All probation sentences begin with an assessment, made following a face-to-face interview, and require personal contact throughout their completion. Will work on A Draft Target Operating Model for the Future of Probation Services in England and Wales, published earlier this month, be suspended until the future is clearer? This matter will be discussed in detail in both Houses in the context of the promised royal commission on improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the criminal justice system. Unless this is carefully thought through, I am afraid that any extraordinary measures made necessary by the impact of coronavirus can only deepen the existing crisis in the delivery of probation services following the rushed and ill-thought-through transforming rehabilitation exercise.
Before making my second point, I declare an interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Speech and Language Difficulties. I realise that, compared with the other demands on NHS staff, speech and language therapists may come lower in the list. However, how do the Government plan to ensure that information about the virus and the provisions of the Bill are made accessible to those with speech, language and communication needs? Therapists, who are essential in this process, should be issued with protective equipment and added to the list of key workers.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest as chair of NHS Improvement. At my pre-appointment hearing two and a half years ago, I said I would be very cautious about speaking on health matters while in this role, but I hope noble Lords will forgive me for doing so as I feel in these extraordinary times it would be wrong not to speak.
First, I express my deepest sympathy for those who have already lost loved ones because of Covid-19 and I send my very best wishes to those currently in hospital or with relatives in hospital or at home fighting the disease. I shall speak today about why this Bill matters so much, why it matters to our NHS people and why it matters to all of us. I shall start by reading a statement from my noble friend and sort of job-share partner at NHS England and NHS Improvement, my noble friend Lord Prior, who is not in his place today as he and I are endeavouring not to be in the same room at all and are working shifts. My noble friend says: “In its extraordinary history of over 70 years, the NHS has never faced such a momentous challenge. Our country has never depended so heavily on its most loved and respected institution. I”—in fact, we—“know that the remarkable people who work for and with the NHS will more than do their duty; they will do their absolute best. It is a privilege and an honour for me”—us—“to work with them.”
As my noble friend says, our NHS people will do everything in their power to look after us and care for us: our consultants, paramedics, healthcare assistants, junior doctors, nurses, midwives, porters, cleaners, scientists, physios, engineers technologists and procurement teams. There are so many professions, I cannot list them all, as I mean everyone working in our health and care system. There are those directly employed in the NHS, but those working in social care, volunteers, the voluntary sector and, yes, even the independent healthcare sector They are all our National Health Service right now, and my goodness they are working hard and fast to face up to this challenge. They need us to help them. They need us all in this country to play our part, as the Prime Minister said last night. They need us to play our part personally in abiding by the rules the Government have set out, and they need us to play our part practically in sourcing personal protective equipment, making ventilators, expanding testing capacity and coming to work with them, if we have the skills. They need us to care for them, to make sure that they can eat at the end of a long and challenging shift, that they can get to and from work and that their loved ones are okay while they are at work, and they need us to support and cherish them when things go wrong.
They need all of this, and they also need us in this House to play our part constitutionally by passing this Bill to give the Government the powers they need to guide us through this immensely challenging time and to provide our NHS people with the support they need so they can save lives. There are powers in this Bill that many noble Lords have said that in normal times all of us in this House would wish to question, challenge and test, but this is not a normal time. Our NHS people need us to act now. Time is not on our side, and they need all of us to join in this fight with them because right now, this is the ultimate national effort from our NHS, that most cherished British institution. Right now, we, all of us, are the National Health Service in one united effort from everyone in the country, with healthcare professionals in the front line backed up and supported by the whole country, as a genuine united National Health Service.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, like many others in this debate, I pay tribute to the many thousands of people who are working immensely hard to counter the effects of the coronavirus.
This huge Bill gives unprecedented power to the Government. Whether all these powers will be needed is uncertain. There are still questions about the severity of the disease and its future trajectory. The CMO has assessed a death rate of 1%. New research from the University of Oxford suggests 0.7%. In Germany, where far more testing has been done, it is 0.3%. We know that in the UK the average age of death from the virus is 78.5 years, and it is a fair assumption that, very regrettably, of those who succumb, quite large numbers would have died anyway. The measures in the Bill and those already taken, exacerbated by last night’s announcement, are leading to massive fear and anxiety in much of the population. More must be done to explain the demographics, reduce unnecessary fear and protect mental health. We in this House might need to worry about our survival but, fortunately, most of the population does not.
The other general point I want to make concerns the economy. A global recession will lead to the death of many children in poor countries, and it is undisputed that the supply of goods and services will be greatly reduced: first, by closing down production with large lay-offs; and, secondly, by restrictions imposed to keep a large part of the workforce at home. At the same time, in the UK, huge amounts of money are being pumped into the economy for understandable reasons. Are the Government assessing the serious implications for high inflation in the medium term? Will they be considering price controls at a later date?
I turn now to my main focus: how we sustain our education system and protect our children and young people from long-term damage as a result of school closures and the cancellation of public exams. History will judge whether or not the wider measures that have been taken to combat the coronavirus were proportionate. My view is that the decision to cancel GCSEs and A-levels was disproportionate and made without sufficient preparation and the requisite advice on what would be put in place instead. While recognising, as I really do, how difficult it is for the Government in these circumstances, answers are desperately sought by teachers, parents and pupils. Many pupils have said that they feel “gutted”; having spent the past two years working hard to reach their potential and get good grades, they feel cheated that they have been denied the opportunity to do so.
The Government have said that alternative assessments will be just and fair. Teachers will have to draw on many sources, including predicted grades, class work and mock exams results. I am sure that they will do their best. Nevertheless, there are bound to be large variations in the judgments they make. Some will be generous, and others tougher, so it will not always be just and fair. Moreover, universities will face difficult decisions about who to admit; at least a collapse in international student numbers could allow them to admit more home students and veer towards a generous admissions policy. But, given that all secondary schools will be open to allow the children of key workers to be looked after, I think it is a pity that 16 to 19 year-olds cannot work at home until the exams begin, and then come to school to take them. I believe that that is what should have happened.
The other concern about many children being forced to remain at home is the likely outcome of increased social inequality. Schools do not just educate children; they also provide them with a safe haven, a structure to their day and a chance to be creative and to learn about sharing. Schools are a leveller, in that they provide a similar environment for all their pupils, in contrast to the huge inequality in their homes. I am not sure how head teachers will define vulnerable children—presumably it will include those with disabilities, those who have been abused and those who are in children’s homes—but it is doubtful that they will be able to embrace the 4 million children who live in poverty and the many children who live in appalling accommodation, with overcrowding and limited resources.
When the schools reopen, will the Government provide extra resources to schools with many disadvantaged pupils, to allow them to give additional help, particularly to those who have suffered most from possibly many months of being unable to go to school? Will PGCE students be able to complete their courses this summer, to ensure an adequate supply of new teachers?
To conclude, ways must be found to ensure that the drastic decision to close our schools indefinitely does not have life-changing consequences for children and young people, such as increasing their vulnerability to gang violence and crime, as well as to mental illness and anxiety, while trashing our hopes for more social mobility.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the only bright spot in this crisis is that experts are being listened to; long may that continue.
Obviously, the overarching concern is that the powers in the Bill should last no longer than is strictly necessary, should not overreach and should not set unwelcome precedents—one thinks, for example, of the reduction to one doctor for the exercise of Mental Health Act powers and the problems around care assessments. Moreover, the powers should not impact unfairly on disadvantaged minorities or marginalised groups, and should not go further than can be truly justified. It is not entirely clear why the Civil Contingencies Act or the Public Health Acts were insufficient in various areas.
In Schedule 21, there is a test of necessity and proportionality which is strangely absent from Schedule 20—the one that affects directions to people. From these Benches, we will therefore table an amendment to require that all the powers in the Bill should be exercised in accordance with the principle of necessity, proportionality and non-discrimination, respecting the European Convention on Human Rights and other human rights instruments. We also want the Government to keep the powers under frequent review and to publish reasons and explanations for any measures introduced under the Bill.
Although the right to life—Article 2 of the ECHR—underpins the response to this pandemic, human rights issues under several articles of the convention are engaged: Article 5 on the right to liberty; Article 8 on the right to family life, as relating to isolation, quarantining and restriction of family visits; Article 11 on freedom of assembly and association, relating to the prohibition of public meetings and gatherings. These are just some of the examples. I am glad that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, chaired by the right honourable Harriet Harman—I declare an interest as a member—is conducting an inquiry into the human rights implications of the response to Covid-19.
There have been shocking cases of victimisation and blaming of certain people due to their perceived ethnic or national origin, particularly those of Chinese and other east Asian appearance. The power for local authorities not to meet some assessed care needs and to avoid the duty to conduct a care needs assessment will impact on the vulnerable. The Government should, at a minimum, notify the Council of Europe and the United Nations, as stewards of the ECHR and international human rights instruments respectively, that the UK is enduring a national emergency, and of the measures being taken. Do they in fact need to formally derogate? Perhaps the Minister could tell us.
People need to be able to assess, scrutinise and, if necessary, question and challenge the Government. It is not helpful to have a Minister on Twitter call someone by a rather vulgar term because they had the temerity to raise questions about the Government’s approach, as happened yesterday. Apparently, there have been no advertisements on social media. I am on only Twitter so I do not see Facebook, Instagram or any of the others but, considering that a lot of money was spent on Brexit no-deal ads on social media, this omission seems anomalous.
Assessing Schedules 20 and 21 is a bit difficult, as we do not yet know how the Government will give effect to the measures heralded in the Prime Minister’s announcement last night. I imagine that is still being worked through. Schedule 20 does raise a lot of concerns. Where are people to be directed or detained? Is a police station envisaged or just home? What screening is to take place, especially given the lack of current testing capacity? Will there be any judicial authorisation of detention or any provision for appeals? What about people who, for one reason or another, do not have a home to go to—the street homeless, sofa surfers, victims of domestic abuse, some immigrants and refugees, who get little or no support? Surely imposing isolation and quarantining restrictions on people living in abusive or dangerous environments would place them in an impossible situation. As concerns Schedule 21, are the closure of premises regulations issued just last Saturday under the public health Act—they were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Newby—to be revoked in the same way as the February regulations on direction and detention of persons are repealed by this Act in Schedule 20?
I want briefly to mention one or two other things. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Falconer, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, who raised issues about funerals and religious beliefs as concerns the need for burial and not cremation. As someone who organised my late husband’s funeral just five months ago, and a memorial service four months ago, this is very important to me. I will perhaps have more chance tomorrow to raise concerns about immigration powers as they affect people in immigration detention as well as in prison. Also, the fear of data sharing with the Home Office could deter people from seeking health treatment. Will the Home Office undertake to suspend that data sharing?
There are also some concerns about video hearings in court. Much as one accepts that they are necessary in the circumstances, various safeguards would be required. There are also concerns about changes to the Investigatory Powers Act and the extension to 12 days for a warrant. From experience, we know that there is a ratchet effect of expansion of state powers, as terrorism legislation has shown. We will need to be vigilant to prevent spillover.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a freelance television producer.
I very much appreciate the extraordinary work that the Government and especially the Chancellor have already carried out to mitigate the effects of the present crisis on the economy and the nation’s workers. However, as other noble Lords have said, we are in an unprecedented situation, with bankruptcy and unemployment sweeping through our nation. I want to concentrate my comments on Clauses 39 to 44, which extend statutory sick pay.
Quite rightly, the Government’s efforts so far have concentrated on the job retention scheme, supporting businesses and employees to ensure that there is an economy to build on when these terrible times are over. However, my concern is for the 5 million self-employed and freelance workers, many of whom have had their contracts cancelled with only a week’s notice—if that. They have been sent home to worry about paying ongoing bills without any prospect of returning to work in the foreseeable future.
This group of freelancers and self-employed people is far-ranging. It includes 37% of people in the creative industries, who are highly skilled and highly paid and work in what is one of the fastest-growing areas of the economy. It also includes sole traders, such as plumbers, electricians and agricultural workers, as well as an increasing number of supply teachers and agency social care workers. I am also concerned about zero-hours workers who are independent contractors and are often semi-detached from companies. Many claim that they should be defined as employees and entitled to the same rights as employees, including having access to the job retention compensation scheme.
I have been told about a number of cases involving these workers. One is a cycle instructor teaching Bikeability classes in London schools. He is defined as a self-employed worker on a zero-hours contract; in reality, he does public sector work without any of the protections of a public sector employee. Normally, March to July is his busiest time, earning him up to £2,000 a month. With the schools closing, all his work has dried up. A 24-hour cancellation policy has left him with no work and no prospect of work. At the moment, he is not part of the job retention scheme and faces a very uncertain future.
I understand that supporting these people is very complicated. When I asked a question on this subject on Thursday, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, explained that the Government were looking for a comprehensive package which was co-ordinated and coherent and would take time to roll out. Of course, I very much welcome the Chancellor going some way to help the self-employed by rolling out universal credit, allowing self-assessed tax payments to be postponed until January 2021, and encouraging interruption loans.
However, universal credit pays only £94 a week and even less if people have been prudent enough to save a nest egg. As has often been said in this House, UC takes five weeks to roll out. The tax holiday and interruption loans are also helpful but, in the end, they simply kick the problem down the road and the debt still has to be paid. We have no idea how long this crisis period will continue and, in the meantime, these hard-working people from across the country and across society face mounting debts and a very frightening future.
I know that the Government are looking at what is happening abroad and talking to stakeholders about how to support the self-employed through the crisis. Norway is paying self-employed workers grants equivalent to 80% of their average income over the past three years. Belgium’s self-employed workers will have access to an income replacement scheme.
I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to an idea supported by many across the self-employed sector, which, at the very least, would go some way to compensating for lost wages. I would like to see the Government extend their job retention scheme and pay 80% of expected earnings up to the cap of the median wage. Rolling this out will be difficult but the Government could use the person’s last three years’ tax returns to decide how much support they should be paid within this limit. It is estimated that four-fifths of the self-employed and freelancers earn less than the median wage and so would benefit hugely. Maybe the resulting grants could be made through the payment on account scheme, as is used at present for tax rebates. I quite understand that new software would need to be rolled out at HMRC to administer this system. That is often expensive and not entirely successful. Perhaps the DWP and other departments could help out.
At this time of unprecedented worry for every single person in this nation, we must think about the millions of workers who are the backbone of this country, who have lost their livelihoods—workers who are now sitting at home worrying about how they are going to get through the coming months without incurring huge debts, which could take years to pay back. Action is needed now to ensure that they do not sink into destitution and despair.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Bethell for the way he has stepped in to a difficult brief at a difficult time. He is stepping up to the challenge. The way that he is keeping us informed is very much appreciated by us all. I also appreciated the opening remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, particularly his statement that this is a collective battle, which we fight together as one nation.
As someone with a little experience of legislation, I also think it is appropriate that, as legislators, we should pay tribute to those who prepared the legislation before us—321 pages, 87 clauses and 27 schedules. I have known such legislation to take more than a year, and certainly many months, but it has actually been produced for us within a few weeks. I thank the civil servants, the parliamentary draftsmen and the clerks who have been party to that effort.
In any crisis, no matter how bleak, there are opportunities for us to reflect on who we are, how we work, what values we cherish and how we can improve ourselves, so that once we emerge from the crisis—as we shall—we do so in better shape than we entered it. Looking for those opportunities and making changes empowers us at a time when we can feel powerless, and it gives us hope when things can seem hopeless.
I will focus on just one area—volunteering—referred to in Schedule 6 to the Bill. As a nation, we often seem at our best when we are giving, be it of our time or our money, in pursuit of some great cause. Your Lordships can see this in events such as the Great North Run and the Children in Need telethon, or the efforts at times of crisis of the British Red Cross, St John’s Ambulance and the Salvation Army. Who can forget the 70,000 Games makers who made the spirit of 2012 something which raised our national morale? The British people are indeed a generous people, in both time and money. This is relevant because if we are going to get through this crisis together and emerge stronger, it will require a herculean collective effort—everyone pulling together and lending a hand.
It is estimated that each year some 20 million people volunteer their time in Britain. It is part of our national social capital. We are already seeing this beginning to happen organically, with thousands of local groups of volunteers forming up and down the country, wishing to help their neighbours with shopping, collecting prescriptions or post, or just a friendly telephone call. I declare an interest as a member of my local Covid-19 mutual aid team. I know that many of the volunteers in my local group would be very grateful for guidance as to how the new restrictions announced by the Prime Minister last night will impact on their volunteering activities.
I know also that the DCMS is doing incredible work with major charity organisations like the British Red Cross, the NCVO and others, supported by General Sir Nick Parker. But my concern is that what we are now witnessing is a mass grass-roots surge of altruism not through the traditional channels but across social media platforms such as Facebook and WhatsApp, and apps like Nextdoor. This surge of good will needs to be harnessed, informed and trained; it does not need to be frustrated or discouraged by an overly bureaucratic process. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures, and that applies to those wanting to help too. The mass outpouring of altruism towards each other that we are witnessing in our country can help not only to get us through this crisis but to bind some of the wounds of our recent past, so that we can emerge stronger and more resilient as a society than we entered it. This precious resource flow must not be wasted, but it must be directed.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bates. We all owe a massive debt to the brave and skilled workers who are battling this crisis, including a close relative of mine on the NHS front line who is trying to keep her patients, as well as her husband and three small children, safe. Care workers who are without proper personal protective equipment are looking after another close relative who is in her 90s and in a care home under lockdown.
I thank my noble friend Lady Thornton for her diligent leadership, expertise and hard work, because key questions affecting this Bill remain. First, everyone in government has known for years about the probability of a pandemic at some point. Although I was never a Health Minister, as a Cabinet Minister 17 years ago I recall being alerted during the SARS outbreak. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer might remember that too. Given that, why was it only last week that the Health Secretary appealed for companies to help produce many more ventilators? Why was this not done much earlier, especially after Chinese scientists gave deadly warnings about the pandemic? Why were plans not put in place for proper testing, especially for front-line NHS staff and care workers? Why were no preparations made to ensure the supply of sufficient personal protection equipment for doctors, nurses and carers?
Secondly, there have been mixed messages. For instance, the Prime Minister suggested that he would be seeing his mother on Mother’s Day, but that was later hastily corrected by No. 10. The contrast with the sober authority of Wales’s First Minister, Mark Drakeford, Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon and the Mayor for London, Sadiq Khan, has been striking.
Thirdly, although I congratulate the Chancellor on acting quickly, providing hundreds of billions of pounds in extra and vital funding to protect employees and businesses—although the self-employed still remain to be protected—and surely with even more to come, the Government must promptly make much more funding available to local councils and voluntary groups because they too are on the front line. However, they have suffered budget cuts of around a third over the past 10 years.
In his novel, The Corridors of Power, C.P. Snow wrote that,
“political memory lasts about a fortnight.”
A fortnight since the Budget, its contents have been eclipsed by the Chancellor’s subsequent coronavirus announcements. He is rightly injecting hundreds of billions of pounds of Keynesian stimulus into an economy that is facing certain recession and perhaps even depression. The scale bears comparison with our Labour Government’s response to the 2008 global banking crisis—a response lambasted by Conservatives ever since. The Chancellor has rightly abandoned all the Tory borrowing rules and spending ceilings because the urgent action needed to stave off disaster requires intervention on a scale that only government can provide. The Chancellor was right to turn away from 10 years of Tory austerity and to throw the power of the state at the most acute crisis we have faced since World War Two.
However, that previous Tory insistence on non-intervention and shrinking the public sector has left us battling the coronavirus with an NHS in England that is short of 10,000 doctors, 40,000 nurses and 110,000 adult social care workers. It did not have to be like this. The Government have been able to borrow at record low interest rates for years and there was no need to wait until catastrophe stared us in the face before discarding the financial straitjacket. Why start spending and investing only in a terrible crisis like this? Despite gargantuan levels of national debt and borrowing to defeat Hitler, Keynesian policies after World War Two—led by both Conservative and Labour Governments—rebuilt this country through huge public investment and spending, generating healthy growth and a buoyant private sector. When the coronavirus outbreak is over, let us not repeat the mistake made after the financial crisis in 2010 of reverting in knee-jerk style to austerity and starving public services of support in a futile attempt to balance the budget, with only feeble growth accompanying it.
After the 1956 Suez debacle, Tory Minister Anthony Nutting wrote: “It has taught us no end of a lesson. It will do us no end of good.” The Conservative Party did not thank him for saying so. Today, after 10 years of avoidable austerity, this coronavirus crisis has reminded everyone what Keynes taught us about the vital role for an active, investing state in a modern enterprising economy.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, I direct the House to my medical and research interests noted in the register. The Minister, in his excellent introduction to the debate, referred to the lessons from the 1914-18 war. I understand that reference and have some sympathy for it. However, my friend the anthropologist Scott Atran has pointed out that there are certain dangers in using the terminology of war, because it tends to turn people towards various “isms”: racism, chauvinism, ethnocentrism and xenophobic nationalism—exactly the opposite of the things that we want to find in our global community at the moment.
In truth, a more accurate reflection would be to address the lessons of the 1918-20 flu pandemic, which crossed the world and led to the deaths of tens of millions of people. However, two things about that experience are different from our own. One is that people experienced it immediately after the war, when tens of millions of people had died. To some extent, they were emotionally almost numbed by the whole business of massive death. Secondly, unlike us, who are used to antibiotics, vaccination and an expectation that people will not die of infections, people at that time were very much aware that people died of infections, sometimes in large numbers.
These facts contribute to what another colleague of mine, Dr Kerry Sulkowicz, the president-elect of the American Psychoanalytic Association, has referred to as the second pandemic of the moment, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and other noble Lords: a pandemic of anxiety. It is not that he suggests that this is an inappropriate or pathological anxiety. On the contrary, it is a very realistic anxiety, because what is ahead of us is profoundly dangerous and challenging. We do not even know how dangerous and challenging, so anxiety is not an unreasonable response; it is a natural, human response. However, it produces problems in reaction. It leads some people to be so overwhelmed that they deny the reality. Even coming through London today in my car, not by public transport for safety reasons, I still noted groups of people out on the street in much more than twos and threes, not taking seriously the very sensible advice that they have been given publicly by the Prime Minister, Ministers and other experts.
Sometimes it leads to people being paralysed by the anxiety so that they do not know how to deal with things, but it also often causes illness—not just psychiatric and emotional illnesses of various kinds, but physical illnesses. Many people will be falling ill, physically and mentally, as a result not of the coronavirus directly, but of the psychological sequelae of it. There are many sequelae, not just anxiety. Reflect, for example, on what it will mean for many people, particularly older people on their own, to face three months or more without ever having touched a person or been touched by them. As human beings, the physical dimension of life is of enormous importance. They will be losing that and undoubtedly reacting in ways we do not know, because it has never happened in this wise before.
Many years ago, I was called to do work at a hospice where the staff were finding difficulty in continuing their work. It became apparent that this was because of the repeated, incessant, unremitting experience of the deaths of those they were working with. Reflect for a second on what it will mean for health service staff, who have been relatively well used to getting people better, to find that hundreds and hundreds of their patients will die. How will they manage, psychologically as well as physically? Can the Minister say how much thought has been given to addressing these problems?
There are many other things that I could mention but I will say two. One is that there are, in the voluntary, private and community sectors, employee assistance programmes that have been relieving the health service of having to deal with many of these problems. They are not going to be able to survive financially if there is no assistance for them. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, who is not in her place, has asked that we also remember the problems, as have been mentioned, for those who are vulnerable because of learning disability. Finally, because there will be more people admitted on formal orders, can we monitor how many more patients come in than would normally be the case on such orders, so that we have a sense of the increased burden on the psychiatric services?
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by drawing attention to my interests in the register. I have a series of questions for the Minister, most of which he will probably not be able to answer. However, I hope that he can write to us as appropriate.
I congratulate the Government and the TUC on the way they have worked together on this problem. They have shown that when it is needed, both sides are able to stand aside and work in the national interest. The TUC, as the Minister will know, has mentioned a wage subsidy for the self-employed. It has made the sensible suggestion that the subsidy should be based on the previous three years of tax returns, because of course we all believe that every self-employed person declares every penny that they have earned. This is an excellent suggestion from the TUC, and I hope that the Minister will be able to proceed with talks with it, not necessarily to agree it exactly as put forward but for some sort of help. We tend to think of the self-employed as people with big businesses but I am thinking of people such as musicians, actors and authors: people who work singly and are represented by Equity, BECTU and other unions. They are often sole workers, and very often earning not that much.
The second point, which I made recently in a debate, is the need to clarify what happens when companies goes into liquidation. They often do so with wages owing immediately to the staff, but, under the rules as presented at the moment, they have to be paid out by the administrator in bankruptcy. It would be very useful if some way could be found of according them the emergency relief afforded to other workers.
I turn briefly to the airline industry, not unsurprisingly. I place on record my thanks to the DfT Ministers, who I know have worked ceaselessly with the industry. They have had numerous telephone calls with BALPA, the union of which I am president, and other unions within the industry, as well as with the employers, of course. All airlines need some level of support. It is not for me to measure it out, but it is needed sooner rather than later. I suggest, as a guiding principle, that the support must end up not with the shareholders and directors but with the companies to strengthen them.
I never thought I would say that there was a positive gain from leaving the European Union, but one that does present itself is the ability for the Government in directing the rescue package for the airlines to make public service routes available and to subsidise them, which of course would not be permitted under EU rules but could now be. They could look at the many regional airlines that have been impacted by recent events.
Another aspect that can come out of this is promoting good employment practices, for instance better maternity leave. That is a demand on a number of airlines, which, because they have been male dominated for most of their history, have some of the worst maternity arrangements in the industry.
Perhaps I might mention just two or three points arising out of the brief from UNISON, which represents many health service workers. It is concerned, as I am sure the Minister is, that the use of healthcare students and returning workers has to remain on a voluntary principle; they cannot be directed back. If they do go back, the final-year students must be able to return to their learning without any penalties for leaving or interrupting the course. I am sure the Government have this on board, but I would just like to read it into the record.
There is a small technical point in the briefing I have been given. Apparently, staff who retired under the 1995 NHS Pension Scheme can work for a maximum of only 16 hours per week for the first four weeks and continue to receive their pension. I hope the Minister will be able to look into suspending this rule. I am sure he will be happy to assure the House that he will continue to talk to UNISON about the many problems it wishes to help the Government solve. There is no doubt about that.
My final point is on behalf of charities. The way in which wages are being subsidised is very good for business, but charities have very different income streams. I hope the Minister will consult with both the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Charity Commission to ensure that the rescue packages that have been put forward for business and are at least notionally available to the charitable sector are tailored in such a way that the charitable sector can make use of them.
With that string of questions, can I say how much I admire the Minister’s tenacity and hard work in doing the job he is doing? Please carry on.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my list of interests in the register; in particular, that I am a registered nurse. We are here today at a time of public health challenge unknown to date on our globe. I will be brief and start with my support for the Bill, which is widely echoed by many Members who cannot be here today as a result of the social distancing advice to reduce the spread of Covid-19. However, they are following the Bill online and have aided my contribution. They include my noble friends Lord Patel, Lady Hollins, Lady Boycott, Lady Bull, Lady Hunt of Bethnal Green and Lord Bird. In addition, our Convenor has been in contact with our Members throughout the week. His message has been that while on first reading some of the measures in this Bill appear draconian, under the circumstances they are necessary. Knowing his concerns about the use of Henry VIII powers, this opinion should carry considerable weight in our deliberations.
The Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association have provided detailed briefings, as have many other parties, including the Royal College of Psychiatrists. In principle, they support the measures outlined in the Bill to protect the public and essential workers. However, they want reassurance that the measures will have regular parliamentary review, preferably at least every two to three weeks, to ensure the effectiveness and relevance over time. Can the Minister outline the plans for review once the Bill is enacted?
Nurses and other healthcare staff who have recently retired and those about to qualify have been encouraged to return to work or commence employment earlier than planned. We are assured that they will have the same employment rights as other workers. Sadly, we know from the management of previous infectious diseases that some healthcare workers will catch Covid-19 while carrying out their duties. Will these staff be entitled to proper sick pay in line with NHS employment rules? In the exceptional circumstances of such an individual dying, will death-in-service benefits be generous? These benefits often relate to length of service, so it may be necessary to change the current terms. Does the Minister agree?
Other noble Lords have spoken of the challenges in social care and the potential for some people to have, in effect, the current level of service reduced as demand rises. A range of groups associated with long-term disability ask: will any reductions be re-instigated after the emergency period? Can the Minister reassure the House on this issue, the details of which were brought up extremely effectively in the powerful speech of my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson?
The changes to the Mental Health Act are supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and will be necessary to protect people with serious mental health problems and to ensure rapid access to treatment. However, some human rights organisations are concerned that that will result in higher numbers of detentions than normally, particularly among disadvantaged groups. As a former acute ward psychiatric sister, I remind the House that once a patient is admitted, other professionals assess that patient quickly, and that treatment orders can be rescinded rapidly if appropriate. Will the Minister consider echoing this point to reassure those who are so worried?
NICE has given guidelines to prioritise patients for effective treatment and critical care, and these of course need to guide clinicians and be enacted by them in their work. However, there are some concerns that the guidelines from NICE on this issue refer to frailty. Can the Minister further assure the House that frailty with regard to physical and learning disability and severe and enduring mental illness will not disproportionately disadvantage these groups? My noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson raised this issue in detail, and I will not cover it further. I thank her again for her powerful speech on a range of social care challenges and the rights of people with a range of long-term conditions. I await the Minister’s reply to her questions.
Finally, will the Minister ask the Government to consider debt relief for the fees of healthcare students who are entering the workplace this year and who will work in our healthcare settings, probably for several years in the future? It is extraordinary that we are asking them back. They have paid their fees this year; they are willing to come back—we need some intergenerational fairness on this issue.
Covid-19: Charities
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dannatt
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to provide additional support to charities working with people who are self-isolating as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Dannatt I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, civil society organisations and volunteers are making a huge contribution to ensuring that the most vulnerable across the country are supported. However, we know that Covid-19 presents serious challenges to the sector. We are hearing concerns around income disruption, particularly for those charities where the bulk of their money comes from public fundraising, trading or investment income, and they will be hit especially hard. We are working with partners across government in the sector to gather a picture of the impacts for civil society, including for those working in frontline roles with vulnerable and lonely people.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Reply. As chairman of the National Emergencies Trust, my noble friend has been pressing the Government to put a significant amount of money into the voluntary sector for two specific reasons. First, as the Minister said, general fundraising for charities has almost completely stopped, so that even the big ones, such as the Red Cross and St John Ambulance, are struggling to survive. Secondly, is the need to resource local charities that can help people on the ground now. The amount required —between £3 billion and £5 billion—is a fraction of the £150 billion put in to save businesses and jobs.
Last week, with the support of the Duke of Cambridge, the National Emergencies Trust launched a national appeal, which to date has raised over £5 million—a mere drop in the overall ocean—which will be distributed to where it is most needed by the community foundation. Will the Minister please tell the House whether and how the Government plan to support the charitable sector?
Baroness Barran
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for this Question and commend the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for the work that he has done in his leadership of the National Emergencies Trust. However, this is not a competition between funding for business and funding for the voluntary sector: both need to be funded. We need to keep people safe and make sure that the economy comes through this with as little damage as possible.
In terms of what the Government are doing, many actions have happened already, including the ability to furlough some staff offering of loans, which to certain parts of the sector—although not all, I appreciate—is important. But for some charities, demand is up sharply and income is down sharply, and we are working tirelessly and talking every day to the sector about how we bridge that gap.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of my railway interests, as declared in the register. The Minister will be aware that the heritage railway sector has effectively been wiped out for the whole of this summer season by the emergency. However, will she commend a worthwhile initiative which the HRA—the trade association—has taken to help Network Rail with its laudable aim to keep trains running for the next six months under government control? The heritage sector is volunteering its members, who are retired railway staff, particularly signallers and station staff, to help Network Rail. Will the Minister encourage Network Rail to take up this offer and, maybe, encourage similar groups where volunteers are available and skilled to take on work in the national interest?
Baroness Barran
I thank the noble Lord. One thing that brightens my day is hearing stories such as that. People are being extraordinarily generous and creative in how they are sharing their organisation’s assets. I will share the noble Lord’s comments about Network Rail with colleagues in the Department for Transport and I thank him for raising this.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, community foundations will be critical to ensure that aid is properly distributed to those who need it most. Can the Minister confirm that they will receive the support that they require to do this?
Baroness Barran
My noble friend makes an important point. In other emergency situations we have seen that aid is not always distributed effectively. Community foundations around the country have extraordinary networks of local charities and can make sure that the money raised gets to the places that need it most. I know that the National Emergencies Trust and others are working actively with the community foundations.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as patron of a number of charities, including very local ones. As the Minister is well aware, many people who deliver services for charities and local communities are volunteers who are themselves in the same vulnerable categories as those they wish to support. We know that local charities often find a great deal of bureaucracy in securing funds, especially when they have to match fund or go through a byzantine system of funding applications. Will the Government’s package of support include that element?
We have seen reports of people using the good support for charities for their criminal activities. One example is scammers leafleting people offering to get shopping then taking money and not providing it. Will the Government make sure that our criminal justice system is acting proactively on those who are taking advantage of the most vulnerable in society? This is abuse and there should be zero tolerance of it at this critical time.
Baroness Barran
The noble Lord made important points about local charities, simplification of funding and older volunteers. I am pleased that we announced this morning, through the Department of Health and Social Care, the launch of the GoodSAM app, which I commend to Members of the House. It allows volunteering both from home, by telephone support for others, and in the community if necessary. On simplifying funding, every funder that I have spoken to is looking at ways to simplify and become more agile and responsive. That is happening across the piece. The noble Lord made an important point about scammers; colleagues across Government are working on that.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Non-Afl)
I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register. I commend the Government for the steps they have already taken in support of charities. I particularly support the charities on the front line and the dedicated volunteers who are doing such important work at this time. The Charity Commission is taking a flexible and pragmatic approach to regulation where relevant and appropriate, and will continue to do so. Will the Minister assure me that, as the commission continues to explore regulatory opportunities to make life easier for those charities doing such important work on the front line, we will be able to seek government support for that aim should we need it?
Baroness Barran
I am delighted to give the noble Baroness that reassurance.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester
My Lords, the noble Baroness has indicated that conversations are going on between the Government and the sector. I wonder whether she could give us more detail on that and on whether new networks are being put in place in the present circumstances, especially to link not just with the larger charities but with the wider sector, particularly those on the ground.
Baroness Barran
We are working closely with some of the major delivery organisations as well as with the umbrella bodies, particularly organisations such as the NCVO and NAVCA, the latter being responsible for organising the local community response. We are also aware—but think that we need to be supportive but not controlling—of some of the more spontaneous work going on, including from established networks such as faith groups.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, may I briefly pick up on the last point? How often is the Minister meeting the NCVO, the umbrella organisation? It has come up with a three-point plan; does she have a response to it and have the Government responded to it? It is a diverse sector, and working with the umbrella organisation is vital.
Baroness Barran
I think the chief executive of the NCVO and I have each other on speed dial. I can reassure the noble Lord that we are talking pretty much every day and certainly were over the weekend. We are in very close conversation. The noble Lord is right that this impacts on the sector in different ways. There are organisations, perhaps more in the arts and heritage, that can mothball staff and then re-emerge, but there are also those where demand is up but income is down, and that is what we are trying to pin down now.
Covid-19: Public Interest Reporting
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that, in the event of any further restrictions on movement to limit the transmission of COVID-19, journalists and photographers carrying press cards will continue to have the freedom to travel for the purposes of public interest reporting.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are clear that journalists are critical to providing essential information about coronavirus to the public and that it is imperative that they are able to continue doing so. We are working with the industry and others to ensure that journalists are able to continue performing their vital function at this time. Relevant journalists, broadcasters and ancillary staff have been included on the list of key workers whose children will be prioritised for school or other educational or childcare places. We are also clear that employers need to be responsible about who needs to be in the office, and we encourage them to help their staff find alternative arrangements and to support them in working from home.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I thank the Minister for that response and welcome the Government’s response on designation, but it is not the only issue. The Minister mentioned others; I hope they include the National Union of Journalists, which across the sector represents not only employees but the self-employed. When it comes to the means for journalists to do their job, it is the self-employed—the freelancers—we must be concerned about. In the debate on the Bill, we have talked about support for the self-employed; I hope that the Government will be able to respond positively to that. I also hope that the Minister will reassure us that, if she does not have the general-secretary of the NUJ on speed dial, she will be speaking to him soon.
Baroness Barran
I hope my honourable friend the Minister for Media and Data has the NUJ on speed dial, but I will check; he is certainly actively talking to broadcasters, the Society of Editors and others regularly. As the noble Lord rightly raised, work is going on in relation to the position of the self-employed.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I pay tribute to all the journalists, photographers and, in particular, camera staff in our 24-hour news service, who are providing a vital, trusted news source in an incredibly fast-moving situation. As the noble Lord said, many of them are freelancers. Does the Minister agree that it would be quite wrong for those freelancers to feel under pressure to work because they do not have the underpinning support enjoyed by those employees rightly identified by the Chancellor in the very supportive settlement that he arranged? There is no equivalent for those freelancers. We have the UQ coming in a minute, but I see that the Statement says that further help is coming. I hope that further help is coming very fast indeed; otherwise, we will see freelancers who feel obliged to carry on working when they are creating a danger to themselves and others.
Baroness Barran
The noble Lord has covered a number of points. I absolutely echo his sentiment about the importance of journalists and those involved in public service broadcasting at the moment; not only are they a trusted source of facts, but they will have a role to play in rallying communities and getting the message across about how we can keep ourselves and our families safe, and protect our NHS. Undoubtedly, they have a critical role. I know the noble Lord understands the pace at which government has had to work over the past couple of weeks. In a number of these areas, it may be worth waiting a couple more days and getting the solution right, rather than being too hasty.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, might this be an appropriate moment for the over-75s to be given back their free licences?
Baroness Barran
The noble Lord might not be aware that an announcement was made about the changes to licences for the over-75s due to be effective from 1 August.
Business of the House
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper. This Motion will allow us to take all stages of the emergency Contingencies Fund Bill tomorrow. Like the Coronavirus Bill, it is an essential part of the legislative response to Covid-19.
Covid-19: Support for the Self-employed
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat an Answer given to an Urgent Question by my right honourable friend Steve Barclay earlier in the House of Commons.
“Mr Speaker, we know that many self-employed people are in real distress, but we are working urgently to address this problem and I say to the self-employed: we have not forgotten you. Help is coming, but the policy and delivery are complex, and we cannot and should not rush to announce a scheme that begs more questions than it answers. The Chancellor has held meetings this morning with representatives of the self-employed and will continue to meet them this this afternoon, but it is important to remember that Covid-19 is an urgent challenge to our entire economy, affecting workers of all types. It is essential that we respond swiftly, so that people can keep their jobs and businesses can carry on. This is the basis of our coherent, co-ordinated and comprehensive plan. It is a plan that gives those on the front line the tools they need to tackle the virus, with all the support the NHS needs, backed up by an initial £5 billion fund for public services.
It is a plan that puts a shoulder behind business with a statutory sick pay relief package for SMEs, business rates holidays for all retail, hospitality, leisure and nursery businesses in England, and grant funding for small enterprises, as well as support through HMRC’s time-to-pay scheme. As of yesterday, businesses with cash-flow concerns will also be able to access the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, offering up to £5 million for SMEs through accredited lenders. For larger firms, the Bank of England is providing a new facility to help support liquidity among larger firms. I urge all Members of the House to speak to business leaders in their constituency and make sure that they are aware that they are not alone, and that help is coming.
In this House, we are standing behind all businesses, and everyone who works in them. To encourage businesses to retain staff, we are deferring VAT and my right honourable friend has announced the coronavirus job retention scheme. Taken together, this is a huge programme of support, and will keep thousands of workers in their jobs.
However, we know that there are thousands of self-employed people who have been wondering what the future holds for them. My right honourable friend the Chancellor has already set out a range of measures in support. Sole traders and freelancers will be able to access the business interruption loan scheme, as long as activity is channelled through a business account. We are also removing the minimum income floor for self-employed workers affected by coronavirus, so that they too can access universal credit in full. At the same time, the next self-assessment income tax payments will be deferred until January 2021, which means that those assiduously putting money aside for the end of this month now have more freedom to prioritise and plan for next year.
Let me reassure everyone in this House and the self-employed people they represent that further help is coming. However, we have to make sure we get this right and target the right support towards those most in need. The Chancellor will provide a further update on support for the self-employed in the coming days.”
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for reading that Answer, which was quite scant on detail. In response to this pandemic, Norway immediately committed to paying the self-employed 80% of their three-year average earnings, obviously with an upper limit. Denmark and Belgium have brought in similar schemes. We are happy to work with the Government to look for solutions, but these solutions need to be delivered quickly. Many self-employed people are in desperate situations in these desperate times. What timescale are the Government looking at to bring in these new measures? Can the Minister encourage them to do so as quickly as possible?
The Earl of Courtown
I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNicol. I am in total agreement that these things must be advanced as soon as possible. As I said in the Statement, my right honourable friend the Chancellor will provide a further update on support for the self-employed in the coming days.
The noble Lord mentioned other countries. As he will be aware, the situation has unfolded in different countries around the world at different paces. Her Majesty’s Treasury is keeping a close watch on what is happening elsewhere in Europe and in other countries. We will keep all these matters under review.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I am sure we can all imagine the households up and down the country of the 5 million self-employed and freelance workers as they watched the Prime Minister’s statement and the penny dropped. You can imagine the scene: a builder talking to his wife, a freelance speech therapist in a school, and saying an expletive beginning with “S” and then, “This means we’ll have no money coming in for the foreseeable future.” That is what we need to consider. These people will have no access to funds.
Can the Government confirm that the support package mentioned by the noble Earl—much of what he said was about business in general, not the self-employed in particular—will be equal in generosity to that already provided to business and employees? Likewise, will the Government agree to the self-employed having the same access to zero-interest loans as other people for the next 12 months? They are not second-class workers. Perhaps more radically, will they consider a form of statutory self-employment pay, as the noble Lord mentioned, based on previous tax returns? That would seem the ideal safety net for those who will need it during the course of this pandemic.
The Earl of Courtown
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her question. Her Majesty’s Government are looking at all options for how we take this forward. Specifically for freelancers and the self-employed, at the moment we are doing it through the welfare system, which will benefit from changes made on 20 March, such as the £20 increase in the UC standard allowance and the uprating of local housing allowance. We are also temporarily relaxing the minimum income floor for all self-employed UC claimants for the duration of the outbreak. This means that a drop in earnings due to sickness or self-isolation, or as a result of the economic impact of the outbreak, will be reflected in claimants’ awards. Self-employed people unable to work because they are directly affected by Covid-19 or self-isolation will also be eligible for contributory employment and support allowance, as announced in the Budget; that is now payable from the first day of sickness. This package will enable self-employed people to claim welfare close to statutory sick pay.
The noble Baroness mentioned another issue, to which I do not have the answer. I will arrange for her to be written to on that.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I will not ask about the self-employed; I will wait for the Chancellor’s Statement in a few days’ time. Will the small businesses able to access zero-interest loans have to put up any form of security for that loan?
The Earl of Courtown
My noble friend refers to the business interruption loan scheme, I think. The recent Budget announced a temporary new coronavirus business interruption scheme to help businesses access the finance that they need. On 17 March, the Government went further by increasing the value of the facilities available under the scheme from £1.2 million to £5 million. Alongside the action being taken by UK lenders, this will help to ensure that eligible businesses facing short-term cash-flow difficulties continue to access the finances that they need to respond to the temporary impact of the coronavirus outbreak on their cash flow.
My noble friend asked a specific question about security. I will write to her on that matter.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that it can take a while to develop specific targeted measures for the self-employed, but can the Minister say why so little is being done on social media, for example, to publicise to the self-employed the limited range of measures that currently exist?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. That is imperative. So far, we have been able to give them wide coverage and ensure that the self-employed are aware of what is available to them at the moment. I am sure that over the next couple of days, when the Chancellor has the opportunity to bring forward further measures, there will be an effort on this basis to ensure that the self-employed, whom we all know and employ at some stage or another, are given the opportunity and looked after.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the plight of the creative industries? For instance, 72% of those working in the music industry are freelance. Last week, the Creative Industries Federation conducted a survey which showed that almost 50% of freelancers in the creative industries who responded to its poll had already had 100% of their work cancelled. Will the Government urgently consider a scheme in Norway—the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, has already mentioned schemes in Belgium and Denmark—which has guaranteed temporary income protection of 80% of average self-employed earnings from the past three years? That seems exactly the kind of scheme that would fit the bill here.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is quite right to raise the situation of freelance workers in the entertainment and music industries. He makes a very good point. We will carefully consider the schemes of all other countries. We want to ensure that we can look after the self-employed and will try to give them every opportunity to take some of their worries away.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I commend the Government for removing the universal credit minimum income floor for the self-employed and for the business interruption loan scheme for sole traders and freelancers. However, in the meantime, self-employed and freelance workers are likely to need to turn to their banks, either for a credit card or an arranged overdraft. Credit card interest rates are now significantly higher than they were before the 2008 crash—they have just reached another record high—and arranged overdraft interest rates have just increased significantly to around 40%. Given the dramatic drop in Bank of England interest rates, would my noble friend agree that it might be time for the banks, especially given the huge sums they received from the public during the last crisis, to consider dramatically reducing interest rates on credit cards and overdrafts? Will he take that back to the department and discuss it?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I will of course take that back. My noble friend will also be aware that we have been talking to the high street banks—there is now the mortgage holiday situation—and there will be an announcement from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on renters and evictions.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the scheme for the employed announced last Friday was backdated to 1 March. Could the noble Earl take back to the Treasury the importance of ensuring equivalent backdating for the self-employed?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, this question was also raised in the House of Commons when the issue was debated. I know my right honourable friend was listening to the question closely, as am I.
British Citizens Abroad
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat the form of a Statement the Answer given to an Urgent Question on the assistance given to British nationals abroad. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, we have FCO staff in all our 280 posts in 168 countries and 10 overseas territories, and they are working around the clock to respond to this global pandemic. Over the last three days, we have seen 80 countries place restrictions on their borders. That situation is unprecedented in scale and our overriding priority now is to assist the thousands of British travellers who need and want to return home, bearing in mind the hundreds of thousands of UK nationals who may be travelling at any one time.
Following last week’s decision to advise against all but essential travel globally, last night I changed our travel advice again because of the rate of new border restrictions. We strongly advise those British people who are currently travelling abroad but who live in the UK to return as soon as possible, where they are still able to do so because commercial routes are still running. Where commercial options are limited or prevented by domestic restrictions, we are in close contact with the airlines and local authorities in those countries to overcome those barriers and enable people to return home. With my ministerial team and across the diplomatic network, we are engaging with numerous Governments to keep commercial routes open, particularly in transit hubs. The Department for Transport is working closely with airlines to ensure that travellers can rebook or find alternative routes home.
I know that Members on all sides have constituents who have contacted them in relation to particular countries, so with your forbearance, I shall update the House on a few of those countries. On Peru, I spoke to the Foreign Minister at the weekend and we have agreed special arrangements for flights to return British nationals later this week.
I spoke to the Singaporean Foreign Minister this morning and we have agreed to work together to help those stranded get back to their homes in the UK. We have also agreed to help Peruvian nationals here get back to Peru. Given Singapore’s role as a transit hub, the commitment to work with us to enable UK nationals to transit via Singapore is particularly important, not least for those currently in Australia and New Zealand.
In New Zealand, the high commission is working with airlines, airports and the New Zealand Government to keep flight routes open and reopen some that have been closed. The high commission in Australia is doing the same. It has also opened a register of British nationals hoping to return to the UK and is supporting them via phone calls and walk-in appointments at the high commission, as well as updating social media pages.
For those trying to get home from other countries, we are providing as much practical advice as is physically possible. We would ask all travellers first to look at the travel advice online. It is the best and most comprehensive source of information and is updated in real time. If people are in need of urgent assistance, they should call our embassies and high commissions and they will automatically be connected to our global consular contact centres based in Malaga and Ottawa. We know that considerable pressure has been created by the restrictions put in place in countries around the world and the rate at which it has been done, with either limited or no notice. We have doubled our capacity and we are now doubling it again to deal with the surge in demand.
We are seeking to reduce travel costs by encouraging airlines to have maximum flexibility on changing return tickets. Where people are in real need, our consular teams will work with them to consider their options and, as a last resort, offer an emergency loan.
More broadly, the UK is working alongside our international partners to deliver our international strategy, which rests on four tenets: to provide resilience to the most vulnerable countries; to pursue a vaccine; to keep vital trade routes and supply chains for foodstuffs, medicines and other things open; and to provide reciprocal support to return British nationals overseas who are stranded.
These are the right priorities. We are working day and night to keep British people safe at home and abroad.”
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Answer. Since we last discussed this issue, there has been welcome progress. Again, I thank all the staff of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who have worked tirelessly to address this issue. Anyone who heard the debate in the other place earlier would have been shocked by what was said about the number of people contacting MPs. As we saw in the media this morning, it remains a matter of huge concern.
The Foreign Secretary mentioned working with international partners, including the G7 and EU partners, to try to ensure that we can repatriate those who want and need it. However, he acknowledged—and this is my key point—that clear information is vital for those stranded. He said that the Government were providing certainty through embassies; although physical access is often restricted, they are not closed. The Statement mentioned doubling capacity, particularly through call centres. Can the Minister explain whether this is meeting demand? Certainly, MPs are hearing concerns from constituents that they are not getting a response. Can he address that capacity and demand issue? We have heard on the radio that a number of medical staff are very frustrated at not being able to get back to their job helping the NHS. Has the Foreign Office taken steps to compile a register of NHS staff stranded overseas to pass on to the Department of Health?
Given the scale of this situation, compiling full data is really important. I hope that we can get a better picture of those stranded abroad.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, once again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for his support. He and I are talking about the issues impacting British nationals globally, and I am very grateful for his support in this matter. He asked a number of pertinent questions on the concerns that exist. I, too, listened to the debate on the Statement in the other place, and, rightly, genuine concerns have been raised. I am sure that I speak for many in your Lordships’ House today, as well as others.
Noble Lords have been contacting me on an almost hourly basis with genuine concerns that have been raised with them. I assure the House that my colleagues and I are dealing directly with, and taking up, those issues. Only this morning, I was dealing with a consular case that had arisen. We are seeking to speak directly to the Members of Parliament concerned to ensure that we address those issues head on. As the noble Lord will be aware, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will be leading a virtual call with G7 Foreign Ministers tomorrow and this is the item on the agenda. We are not alone in this matter—all countries across the world are impacted. However, the noble Lord is right to raise the need for clarity and information. We are seeking to improve that, as improvements can always be made.
He talked about doubling capacity and asked whether demand was being met. The fact that we are having to double capacity means that current demand is not being met. To be candid, there will be challenges ahead. I am the Minister for south Asia, where, thankfully, the number of cases thus far has been minimal. However, we are challenged by the fact that there are thousands and thousands of British nationals abroad, and we need to react to that positively and proactively. A major part of the Foreign Office effort is that, barring certain priorities that need to be sustained, Ministers and officials are now fully focused on this crisis.
The noble Lord’s point on data collection is well made. We are continuing to collect data on nationals abroad. He made a very constructive suggestion about NHS workers abroad, and I will certainly take that back to see how we can best factor it in.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I understand what the Minister says about Singapore, but he is aware that Qantas, for example, is rerouting via Darwin rather than Singapore? What discussions are the Government having with the Australian Government about perhaps rerouting British Airways flights via that route? Is he aware of the BBC story about a couple who were booked on a flight from Egypt? They were told that their flight was cancelled, only to find that it then operated as an emergency flight, with their seats having been sold to somebody else and leaving them stranded. What are the Government doing to make sure that airlines do not profit from this disaster?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the noble Lord has, rightly, raised a concern. We are actively engaging directly with various airline operators. British operators and our colleagues at the Department for Transport are meeting regularly—not just not on a daily basis but often several times a day—to establish connectivity. He raised the issue of hubs and the rerouting of certain flights, and specifically mentioned Qantas. Singapore acts as a key hub for those coming from Australasia. I have a vested interest in that, as my in-laws are in Australia, so it is a route that I know well. The other key hub that we have is in the Middle East. Concerns have been expressed about the suspension of flights announced by both Etihad and Emirates, which has implications for travellers going through the Dubai hub. I know that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is prioritising calls in this respect.
The noble Lord raised a specific case relating to Egypt. I did not know about that, but perhaps he can forward the details to me. However, I stress that, if anyone is aware of a constituent, friend or family member in that situation, the first port of call has to be the high commission or the embassy.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that one communication that he received last week was from me, copying him into an email. Having followed Foreign Office advice scrupulously, I travelled to an African country, which, without notice, declared a state of emergency and closed the airport and all borders. I secured an exit via another country and travelled back to the UK over the weekend. When it came to getting accurate, up-to-date advice that could be shared with a small group of British nationals, including me, and colleagues who were British residents but European Union citizens, I saw at first hand the reality of the UK not being in the same room as the European Union delegation in that country. It is not too late for the Government to think again about having a treaty relationship to ensure that the same level of support can be provided to EU and British citizens who are abroad in multi-country delegations or groups. It is not too late to accept Theresa May’s position on such a treaty, rather than Boris Johnson’s, which is to decline it.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord. First, I pay tribute to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who is doing an incredible job in leading our country through an unprecedented crisis, and now is the time for us all to get together and ensure that we act as one. The noble Lord raises the issue of co-operation with our European partners, which is a genuine question. We are indeed co-operating. There were 1,444 British nationals repatriated, including from Wuhan, the “Diamond Princess” through Japan, the “Grand Princess” through the United States and the “Braemar” through Cuba. There were an additional 254 non-British nationals. We are readily talking with our European counterparts, acting as one and ensuring that we help each other. I quote a phrase we have often talked about: we are all in it together.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, many people are trapped overseas. As the Minister says, some routes are still open. However, people are being financially crippled because of the extortionate rise in some ticket prices. I declare an interest, with a cousin trapped in Brisbane. The hike in Emirates air tickets is quite rightly described as extortionate. Will the Minister, along with other Foreign Ministers, therefore put pressure on the airline carriers?
And, although this is not in the Minister’s remit—it has been raised with me by airline personnel—is he aware that social distancing rules are not being thoroughly followed in some UK airports?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
On the latter point, I am aware of it. I have family members involved in the airline industry in the UK, and that is a concern being addressed directly by colleagues.
In response to the noble Lord’s first question, I agree with him and we are working with airlines to ensure that any prices charged reflect the true nature of the emergency.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I echo the thanks to all our staff around the globe and here in the UK who are working day and night to help British citizens stranded abroad. Can my noble friend assist me? I have a friend whose daughter is one of the 400 stranded in Peru. Apparently, the problem is not so much that they cannot get any flights but that they are stuck in an area that is not by the airport and are not able to get to an airport. I ask my noble friend to give some information to the House on what the Government’s plans might be to get them to the airport.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point. Noble Lords will know that Peru has been high up on the agenda. There are approximately 1,000 British nationals seeking to return. My noble friend is also correct that it is not just an issue of them being able to fly out from Lima; many are dispersed throughout the country. I assure my noble friend that we are working directly with the Peruvian authorities. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary had a productive phone call with his opposite number over the weekend. They have assured us of co-operation in ensuring that we can repatriate from Peru all British nationals seeking to return. Indeed, the first flight will leave tomorrow and arrive back here in London on Thursday. It is a series of flights with a commercial operator. Each flight’s capacity is circa 200. We hope that with that schedule of flights we will be able to repatriate all British nationals wishing to return from Peru.
Coronavirus Bill
Tuesday 24th March 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Coronavirus Act 2020 View all Coronavirus Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 110-I Marshalled list for Committee - (24 Mar 2020)
Lord O’Shaughnessy (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests set out in the register, particularly in health and education.
I join other noble Lords in registering my gratitude to and admiration for the NHS and care staff who are at the front line in battling this disease. We know they do an extraordinary job in ordinary times, but these are not ordinary times. Many of them are putting their lives at risk to keep us safe, and they deserve our eternal thanks for doing so. There are other workers whose work will also be important: the police, school teachers, postal workers, bin men and those working in shops and supermarkets. I add to that list my noble friend, other Ministers and the civil servants who are working so hard. Let us not forget the sacrifices that they are making to keep us safe and resolve to do everything we can to lead by example to show that we are listening to the Government’s advice about how we should go about living our lives.
The purpose and content of the Bill would ordinarily be anathema to a freedom-loving people like the British, but in these circumstances there is something we prize even more than liberty—security, which is what the measures in the Bill will provide. For that reason, and in accordance with other noble Lords, I am very supportive of this legislation, while sincerely hoping that we will not need it for the two years the Bill provides for.
I have a few specific questions that I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could address, if not today in his response, which necessarily will be loaded with content and questions already, then subsequently by letter. The measures to allow for the urgent registration of health and care staff are sensible, necessary and proportionate, but can my noble friend explain how his department is using technology to meet the challenge of registration, credentialing and deployment of staff in the NHS and care systems? He will also know that this will be reliant on very good and fluid data flows within the NHS, which has not always proved possible because of GDPR. I understand that a public health exemption for GDPR has now kicked in, but can he provide reassurance that those exemptions are well understood when it comes to front-line practice and that the GDPR regulations, which are understandable in peacetime, are not being used to provide barriers, however unwilling, to the proper deployment of the staff we desperately need to keep us safe?
I commend the Government’s idea for emergency volunteering leave. It is an excellent innovation, but the current plan allows for only up to four weeks’ leave. If the pandemic lasts longer than we hope for, are the Government open to extending this leave if there is need in society? In particular, what plans do the Government have to use the labour force, whose wages the state are now subsidising, which the IFS has estimated could be up to 10% of workers, to fill critical gaps in health, care and the wider economy? We do not necessarily want to get to the Ministry of Labour-type approach that we had in the Second World War, but there is nevertheless a moral obligation on those whose wages have been subsidised. We need to make sure that we can make the best of their good will.
I confess that I am slightly confused about the situation regarding the DBS checks set out in the legislation. There seem to be clauses covering Wales and Scotland, but not England. Making sure that we can safely but urgently redeploy people in the health and care system without suffering from this bureaucratic bottleneck will be critical. Can my noble friend clear up my confusion?
Clause 10 provides indemnity for those in the NHS and care systems who are moved on to Covid-19 work. That is excellent news. However, the EVL scheme is also likely to raise issues of employer indemnity outside the health and care system. Are the Government open to extending indemnity to the wider economy to cover those under the EVL scheme to reduce the barriers across the entire economy to using this pool of willing labour?
I would also be specifically grateful to my noble friend if he could provide more clarity on the responsibility of employers. I have just been on the LBC lunchtime programme, where this was raised by many listeners who felt that some employers are not acting responsibly by insisting that people should go to work. What provisions exist to force recalcitrant employers who are posing a health risk to their staff to obey the guidelines? Do the enforcement powers extend to organisations as well as to people? Many people would want to know that.
Finally, regarding education, schools across the land are managing heroically to provide physical key worker schooling while delivering online education for everyone else. I declare an interest as a parent of three children going through online education at the moment. No doubt we will muddle through to the Easter holidays, but schools simply are not set up for this eventuality in the long run. What plans do the Government have to provide financial and technical support to enable rich, high-quality learning from home? I reassure my noble friend that, notwithstanding the answers to these questions, which I know he will be able to give, the Government have my full support on these measures and I will do whatever I can to support the national effort.
As my noble friend Lord Bethell pointed out, the Bill is one part of the national response to Covid-19, but it is not the full armoury. Many other interventions are needed besides. That means, for example, making sure that as borders close, we do not interrupt the supply chains of the medicine and medical device industries and that they stay open; mercifully, that seems to be the case at the moment. The Government are ramping up ventilator and ICU capacity, which is extremely welcome, and we have unprecedented financial help for all those families whose livelihoods are at stake. Government should be and are being applauded for their actions, even while we know that much more is needed.
If my noble friend will allow me, I will make two more suggestions about policy interventions that I believe will be needed. The first is diagnostic testing. We simply are not yet at the capacity that we need to be at; we ought to be aiming for nationwide population-wide testing so that we can understand who is infected and who is not, to be able to redeploy them in the economy as soon as possible. Can my noble friend give me some idea about when that might happen? The cost-benefit analysis is overwhelming. It might cost £5 billion or £10 billion a year to provide such a scheme, which is a lot of money, but that is set against the £330 billion-plus package to keep our economy going through this time. I am sure that all Members of the House will appreciate some information on this. We also need a social policy package that is as ambitious as the economic and health plans we have in place. That is essential if we are to get through this crisis as a stronger and more cohesive society.
To conclude, we find ourselves, sadly and unexpectedly, in the most difficult of times, but I believe there is cause for hope. On the health side, we see the potential for vaccines and new treatments coming on stream. However, more than that, we will display our real character as a nation. The good news is that, according to the University of Delaware’s Disaster Research Centre, when faced with these crises we become kinder, not more selfish. Let us use this opportunity, which of course nobody wanted, to demonstrate just what the British have in their character.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, in paying tribute to NHS staff. I will pick up on his point about the importance of diagnostic testing. If we are to find a way through this that does not involve people being off work for months and months, which could be the alternative, we need to start mass testing of the population. I know that the Minister has been on to this, and preparations are being made for ensuring that the tests meet appropriate standards, and so on, but this clearly is a way through. Just as we are having to make it up as we go along, to some extent boldness on the part of the Government would be appreciated.
I commend the Minister and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer on their opening speeches, which were well judged. Nobody wants to be here but we are where we are. It is because we trust the Minister and his colleagues to use these powers in the public interest and we are defending our way of life and not attacking it that we entrust these powers to them. However, to quote the Book of Proverbs
“Where there is no vision, the people perish”.
We need to look beyond the crisis; the crisis measures need to look beyond so that people have significant hope. I will make a few practical suggestions to the Minister which he might be able to latch on to in his reply or in a letter in respect of three extremely significant and vulnerable groups: young people, the low paid, and those in rented accommodation.
Massive disruption is taking place to young people’s education at the moment—that is unavoidable. Appropriate steps are being taken with regard to ensuring online learning, guaranteeing places at university and in sixth forms for students who will not be able to go through the proper exam systems, and so on. However, there will be a huge impact on education, and I suggest to the Minister that the Government should think about making an offer while this crisis is proceeding for people to repeat years at public expense when this is over. That will be particularly important to people in the final years of GCSE, A-level and university courses, where they may not be able to complete those courses properly or get properly graded exams. The opportunity for them to complete and for this to be offered at public expense—or, in the case of the universities, which have quite large reserves from the big increase in fees, maybe partly at their expense—would be a big step forward.
Secondly, on the low paid, we had a Statement earlier on the self-employed—or rather, we had a Statement saying that there would be measures in respect of the self-employed; we still do not have them. However, this group was already vulnerable. Those most vulnerable in the community at the moment regarding employment protection and the protection of their wages and rights are the vast number of workers in the gig economy—I had to stop myself saying “employees”, because that is the fundamental point.
A whole slew of cases is going through the courts at the moment, so this is about whether the 5 million people in the gig economy, a number which has doubled in the past three years, are or are not employees. There is the big Uber case that is going to the Supreme Court later this year along with a load of other cases. Because of zero-hours contracts, people in this group do not have secure employment and in many cases they do not even appear to qualify for the scheme that the Chancellor announced last Friday. In many cases, people in this already vulnerable group stand to see their incomes cut to ribbons and with no great future to look forward to afterwards. If the Government want to offer hope and security to people, I suggest that they should indicate their willingness to look at the really vexed issue of the employment status of gig economy workers. We have had the Taylor review which contained a set of recommendations, but the Government have not actually moved on them. They said that they would—it was a big theme for the last Prime Minister and it was in the Conservative manifesto—so if they are able to indicate that they are moving forward on this, that would be a big and positive step which would give people the confidence they need in the period ahead.
The third issue is people’s accommodation. In his opening speech, the noble Lord referred to the huge transformation in technology that took place in the First World War. The element of that war which sticks the most in my mind, where delivery did not match promise, was Lloyd George famously saying that there would be homes fit for heroes. The homes never materialised and we had a housing crisis that took the best part of the next 60 years to resolve through mass housebuilding on the part of local authorities.
One of the biggest and most sorely felt issues of the current crisis is that of people in rented accommodation, who are in a very insecure state. I would like to press the Minister to say in his reply whether he can further elucidate the meaning of Schedule 29, related to the provisions in respect of renters that were inserted late last night in the House of Commons. It is extremely complex and I do not fully understand it—I am not a legal mind, although there are others in the House who may be able to help us in Committee tomorrow. My understanding is that while Schedule 29 meets the concerns of people who may potentially be evicted by preventing actual evictions during the period of the coronavirus crisis, it does not prevent evictions or action being taken against tenants afterwards in respect of the non-payment of rent while the crisis is proceeding. That simply does not seem reasonable to me if our aim is to offer security and decent support for people because of the crisis. We need to see to it that not only are they not evicted, but that they are not waiting until the day after the crisis ends to be evicted because they have not been able to pay the rent in the interim. The rent waiver provisions which have so far been announced by the Government are quite weak. I know that it is not his area and I do not know how the Government are going to handle the Committee stage tomorrow, but perhaps I may ask for an elucidation of what Schedule 29 actually means. If he is able to come forward with stronger assurances that it is not just that people will not be evicted during this crisis but that that will not happen afterwards, we will be able to offer some genuine hope to those whose lives have been made a misery through this crisis.
Lord Oates (LD)
As many noble Lords have noted, this Bill contains unprecedented powers, but we recognise that it comes before us in unprecedented times. Its purpose is to protect the lives of the public and to provide the National Health Service with the best chance of minimising the death toll from this virus. We owe NHS staff, the staff in our care services and all key workers who are working so hard and taking many risks to keep all of us safe, an immeasurable debt of gratitude. Among all the debts that we as a country will run up in tackling this virus, that will remain by far the greatest debt.
I support the Government in bringing forward this Bill. My noble friends and other noble Lords have set out a number of concerns about some of the measures it contains, which I share, in particular covering the duration of the powers and procedures for bringing them to an end, the variants to the social care duties of local authorities which were spoken about so powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, the changes to sectioning powers, the wide powers to detain people under Schedule 20, the issues around prisoner management, immigration detention, the hostile environment and data sharing. I hope that the Minister will be able to address the important questions which have been raised in these respects on all sides of the House.
Personally, I would have preferred a Bill which was of a much shorter duration—perhaps three months, as my noble friend Lord Scriven suggested—with robust arrangements for scrutiny and review, but which also contained further powers in three specific areas. The first is the powers to regulate the food supply industry, including retailers; secondly, the powers to support the self-employed and to protect renters from eviction; and thirdly, the powers to direct both supply and labour across the economy to ensure that we can meet the urgent demand for critical equipment and, going forward, for the manufacture of a vaccine, when it is discovered—hopefully, in the near future.
At the weekend, an elderly woman asked specifically that I raise with noble Lords her experience of trying to shop for essential food items last week. She went to a dedicated shopping hour for the elderly in a major supermarket in my home town of Surbiton. She had to stand in a long line of people packed close together; the majority of them not elderly. When the shop opened, the staff had no powers to prevent people who were not elderly from entering the store. As a result, she was pushed and jostled in a congested and unsafe environment as she tried to shop. She has a husband at home with underlying medical problems and she is desperate about how she can look after him and keep them both safe.
It is not enough for us all to decry the obvious selfishness and irresponsibility of those who act in this way. What this elderly lady wanted from the Government was not more censorious words but actions to enforce and protect. I therefore hope that the Government will consider introducing powers to direct food retailers and the supply chain to ensure that there are sufficient supplies in the shops, because the actions of some of these people are driven not just by greed but also by fear. They should also allow police or designated council officers to enforce dedicated shopping hours for NHS staff and the elderly and, if required, powers to require controls on the price of goods and the quantity that may be sold to individuals.
Secondly, the Bill needs to provide sufficient statutory authority for the measures that the Chancellor will need to take in the coming days and weeks—in particular, the urgent need to provide support for the self-employed. I raise the specific case of a self-employed neighbour who is working in NHS hospitals constructing the additional wards and isolation partitions needed to expand NHS capacity to deal with the crisis. He is taking risks every day by going into hospitals and yet, when this work is completed, his only recourse will be to the benefit system. That is no way to treat someone who is doing so much to ensure that the NHS is able to cope with the virus.
That is a particularly resonant case but, all over the country, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, highlighted, self-employed people are seeing their livelihoods disappear overnight due to government restrictions. It is right to impose those restrictions, but we must stand by the self-employed who are impacted by them just as the Chancellor stood behind those in employment. The Bill should also contain powers to introduce a rent holiday and impose a moratorium on evictions in the rented sector for rents not paid during this crisis, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, mentioned. We cannot have one rule for owner-occupiers and another for renters. That is the way to division, not unity.
Thirdly, the Government need greater powers to direct both supply and labour across the economy to ensure that we can meet the demand for critical equipment, testing kits, personal protection equipment, ventilators and any other equipment needed to fight this virus and protect NHS staff and other frontline workers and volunteers while we do so. Cabinet-level Ministers of supply and labour should be designated to direct this work and, in time, to ensure that we have the manufacturing capacity for the vaccine that we hope will be discovered very soon.
The Bill contains unprecedented powers that in normal circumstances this House would not dream of entertaining. But these are not normal circumstances. Therefore, with a heavy heart, a plea to the Government to shorten the duration of powers in the Bill and to review the procedures for renewal, I support the Bill and commend the hard work and dedication of Ministers and civil servants in assembling it so rapidly. Most importantly, I thank once again all our frontline NHS staff and all key workers who are working to keep us safe.
Lord Adebowale (CB)
My Lords, I support the Bill. Clearly, we are in the throes of a pandemic, and the Government’s attempt to make it a slow pandemic rather than a fast one needs to be supported.
I want to make three points, the first of which relates to the vulnerable. It is in a time of crisis that the real values and priorities of a society become apparent, and I will reference homelessness in this regard. The homeless will be on the front line of whatever happens next in the Covid-19 pandemic, and I wonder whether we are really doing enough to ensure that they get the support that they need. I am aware of the hotels opening up rooms for the homeless, but more needs to be done to co-ordinate the efforts of the homelessness organisations, which are attempting to do their best for and with the homeless.
Here, I refer in particular to the Faculty for Homeless and Inclusion Health, formerly known as Pathway, which has been working very hard with UCL professors to ensure that there is a proper care pathway for homeless people. Will the Government ensure that organisations such as the Faculty for Homeless and Inclusion Health, which I know are struggling for funds while doing this important work to ensure that the most vulnerable homeless get the support they need during this pandemic, are supported? Will the Government go as far as they can to ensure that homelessness services are co-ordinated in their attempts to provide support for those on the streets?
That leads to my second point, which is about testing. I know that the Government are looking to bring forward testing, but what will they do to prioritise it? The World Health Organization has made it clear that we need to test, test, test; we cannot manage what we do not know. In so doing, however, it is important that we are very clear about the priorities and stratification as to who gets tested first. In my view, that should be the most vulnerable and those who are working on the front line in the NHS and other areas. Can we have some assurances about the timing of that testing and how it will be prioritised?
Moving on, I declare an interest as the incoming chair of the NHS Confederation. In preparing for this debate, I sought feedback from NHS Confederation members about the Covid-19 Bill. There continue to be concerns about PPE supplies. The Government need to work closely with the NHS Confederation and providers in ensuring that supplies are available for those in most need on the front line. I am receiving emails from doctors and nurses who are very concerned about the supply of PPE to them and their colleagues.
I have mentioned that testing must be ramped up for all staff; staff in the NHS need to be prioritised. We welcome the £5 billion emergency fund in the Budget for public services, but we need to ensure that money can be accessed quickly to manage additional workloads and to cover absences due to staff sickness. Relaxing the rules on PCN underspends would be a positive enabler of this. Further, there is a need for care and nursing home staff, who will require training and preparation for scale, which will be difficult.
I should mention the efforts being made to make transport more available for staff on the front line. I am concerned: I have read reports that reducing transport has an impact on staff who work shifts, particularly in London, and there are reports of overcrowding.
Before I leave this issue, I note the self-employed. Notwithstanding the Government’s statement on the self-employed, I am concerned, because I am aware that people who are self-employed in the health and social care sector feel forced to go to work in order to put food on the table. I note the Minister’s comments on the self-employed. Shakespeare, of course, wrote some wonderful works during a time of stress, but I note that he had a patron; these people do not. It is very, very important, not just for their welfare but for the welfare of all of us, that people are not forced into a position where they have to work in order to feed their family and put a roof over their kids’ heads. I hope that those proposals are brought forward now and are focused with particular rigour on those in the health and social care sector.
Finally, I know the Minister is aware that social enterprises are also businesses. Some 38% of community services are provided by social enterprises. They need to be treated in exactly the same way as other providers in the health and social care sector. Indeed, the fact that social enterprises are run not just to provide dividends should be taken into account as a favourable aspect of them. I am sad to report, however, that many social enterprises have not yet received the communication that others in the health and social care sector have, and some are relying on emails being passed via CCGs. Details of reimbursement for any additional services are not being provided to the social enterprise sector, and day-forward and other Covid-19 payments have not been extended to social enterprises, nor have evaluations of supply of PPE. This is important, because social enterprises tend to provide services in our poorest communities. Not many Peers have mentioned the fact that those are the communities that will suffer most from this pandemic. I urge the Minister to communicate with social enterprises and ensure that they are treated in exactly the same way as other providers of health and social care during this crisis.
Lord Sheikh (Con)
My Lords, I commend the Government for bringing forward this important piece of legislation. We are indeed facing challenging times. The coronavirus has caused widespread disruption and tragedy. Families have been torn apart and businesses forced to close.
I was in self-isolation but felt that it was important to contribute today as this Bill raises important questions about the treatment of the deceased. The permission granted to local authorities to cremate the deceased caused anxiety within the Jewish and Muslim communities. I therefore broadly welcome the Government’s decision to amend the Bill to provide safeguards against this practice. I pay tribute to members of the Muslim community, who have all worked together on this issue to face the problems in a true spirit of solidarity.
There should be respect for the souls of our dead. Our collective human dignity and preservation should not be compromised and defeated by this pandemic. It is important to emphasise that Islam strictly forbids cremation of the deceased in any circumstances. There are verses in the Holy Koran which state that the body must be buried. We regard what is written in the Holy Koran as the words of God, and we need to abide by them. There is a great deal of disquiet and concern about the provisions of the Bill relating to this subject.
I have had discussions with, and received correspondence from, leaders of mosques, burial grounds and Muslim organisations, and scholars, who all recognise the practical challenges of burials due to the coronavirus pandemic. This has caused deaths in the community to become a major talking point, as a number of Muslims have underlying health issues including heart and lung conditions and diabetes.
Although I welcome the Government’s concession, I fear that it may not go far enough, as there is a chance that cremations could occur in exceptional circumstances. I would therefore be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could inform your Lordships’ House as to whether Her Majesty’s Government will give further guarantees to ensure that cremations do not take place against the will of the deceased’s loved ones in any circumstances. These guarantees are absolutely essential.
The Muslim community is keen to work with local authorities to find solutions to the challenges arising from the coronavirus pandemic. A fatwa has been issued by the Ulama Council of the UK Islamic Mission, which has declared that the practices of Ghusl and Kafan have been suspended in the present climate. Ghusl means washing the body and Kafan means shrouding the body in accordance with Islamic principles. The deceased’s body will therefore be buried as it is received in a body bag. Furthermore, the burial prayers will be performed in a graveyard from a convenient distance at the time of the burial or offered at the grave after the burial has taken place.
Today, I was told that there is a shortage of body bags in mortuaries. That needs to be addressed. Mosques and burial grounds are providing protective clothing to their members who will deal with burials. The number of friends and relatives of the deceased at the funeral is being kept to a minimum. The community also acknowledges that there may be problems regarding burials in the light of a shortage of land and is willing to work with authorities to find solutions. A number of proposals have been made, including: burying bodies one on top of the other; burial in the garden of the deceased person, if this is possible; and burial in mass graves. In relation to the latter, local authorities will need to provide the appropriate land for this to happen. Today, I spoke to the head of a major Muslim charity who is willing to provide support.
The coronavirus pandemic has raised many challenges for our global and local communities. It is vital that we strike a balance between addressing the concerns of our communities and enforcing this important legislation.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I commend both the Minister for the way he introduced the debate and the responding speeches from the Front Benches.
Any Member who speaks from the well of this Chamber does so on wooden floorboards that were put in place to repair the Chamber after an unexploded bomb from the Luftwaffe fell 80 years ago. Our response to that crisis as a Chamber was simply to move; not a day’s sitting was missed and there was no break in proceedings. This emergency will require us to carry on with our parliamentary duties differently, rather than simply moving. It will mean us perhaps carrying out our roles of scrutiny and oversight through different means when we come back after the Easter Recess.
I agree with my noble friends Lord Scriven and Lord Alderdice that this is not a war that we are engaged in but a health and, by association, economic emergency. The Minister is right that some elements of crisis response are necessary. This legislation is the kind that no Parliament would ever wish to consider; in general circumstances, no Parliament would ever pass it. The powers in it are ones that our police, public services and local authorities should never have and that many of them would never want, but what is facing our country requires such measures. In passing them, we should not abrogate our responsibility to consider them in detail; sometimes that consideration is about asking pointed questions. It means that government still must be accountable to the people who will undergo many restrictions on their normal way of life.
The unsaid areas in the Prime Minister’s address to the country last night have been responded to by Ministers throughout the day. That is welcome. Further clarity is needed for people who need to travel to work in the areas of retail that are exceptions to the closures, and for people in the professions or in the circumstances that noble Lords have mentioned, insufficient information has been provided—but it is coming piece by piece. That is welcome.
After the immediacy of what we are doing in this legislation, there will need to be sober reflection. As I referred to earlier, I saw this approach abroad. Over the past three weeks, I have been in the Gulf, the Middle East and Africa. It was clear that the three regions I visited struggled at times to understand some of the UK Government’s messages during the response. I welcome the greater clarity that is now emerging, which will be underpinned by statute.
I am the very proud son of an NHS ambulance driver who retired a few years ago after 30 years of service. Our nation is proud of our recently retired health workers who are returning to service, as well as of our police workers, transport workers, retail workers who are working in the shops and premises that we will need to remain open, and adult care and health workers. They are the very backbone of our response to this emergency; they and their families need to be supported going forward.
The House will know that I live in Scotland and represented a border constituency when I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament. My following comments therefore relate to this issue. Many thousands of people who live and work across the border will see an emergency response from two Governments, underpinned by legislation from two Parliaments. Can the Minister reassure the people who live and work continuously over the border, in the agricultural sector and in the public services, that UK Ministers will work hand in glove with Scottish Ministers and those from the Welsh and Northern Ireland authorities?
The competences in many aspects of this legislation are devolved competences. It is the convention of this House, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and other noble Lords, have said, that we respect the devolution settlement, but equally, the necessity for close working and understanding that there will be times when legislation is required to be consistent across the border is welcome.
Can the Minister, if not today then in writing, answer some detailed questions. In Clause 83, there is a duty on the Secretary of State to make reports at two-monthly intervals on the interaction of devolved areas. Is the expectation that this would be the same from Scottish Ministers with regards to the implementation of those powers? It has been referenced before; the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, mentioned Clauses 32 and 33, regarding the suspension of disclosure requirements in Scotland. How will this interact with members of the public services across the different borders? How does this Bill interact with the Public Health etc. (Scotland) Act 2008, which includes quarantine, detention, medical examination and other powers for local authorities and health boards? How do the Government intend this interaction to operate?
There are two areas within Schedule 20 in which there are criminal offences regarding sanctions, and then the separate aspect of the notifications of infected areas. Will that definition of “infected areas” be identical north and south of the border, and if any offences under the Bill are committed north and south of the border, will they have different penalties? Can the Minister explain this?
As I said earlier, I have observed from other countries the UK’s response over the last three weeks. I want to put on record the support that I received from the Spanish embassy, through a colleague who was a British resident but a Spanish citizen, working with British authorities and officials. The Minister was previously slightly upset at my question. The Spanish deputy ambassador to the country that I was in, Alfonso Herrero Corral, gave the epitome of what sort of support one should receive from one’s Government: the information was clear, accurate and up to date.
This emergency will have major consequences. I very much hope that while we naturally look to our own citizens, providing services for our vulnerable until we get our economy back on track, we do not become insular. This country can manage a crisis better than many others around the world. I hope that we will still be global citizens of high honour, supporting other nations which, even at this moment of emergency in the UK, are more vulnerable than us.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as detailed in the register.
If anybody ever doubted the statement that we could not have a truly sustainable National Health Service without a truly sustainable care service, this pandemic will write it in neon lights. I am sure that the whole House will ensure that it is heard loud and clear by the Government at every opportunity.
Unlike the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Scriven, I have not been the leader of Sheffield City Council, but I am still the leader of South Holland District Council. I put on record my gratitude from a first-hand sighting of the fantastic work that local government staff up and down the country are doing. Yesterday, I returned from here to the flatlands and had the pleasure of making my own spaghetti bolognese because my wife is looking after my mother-in-law—not generally the best of statements. While I was doing that, and watching the Prime Minister on the telly, our gold commander was on the phone trying to interfere with my concentration by digesting what the Prime Minister was saying as he was saying it. We started the conversation again at 6.30 this morning, based on the actions we had finished talking about at 10.30 last night. Local government staff are doing a fantastic job everywhere.
I have two other relatively minor points to make. First, we are rightly concerned about people being made homeless for not paying their rent because of this. One way that the Government can minimise the impact of that is by making sure that the rents they currently pay to tenants are paid directly to landlords, rather than risk them being misused in the process. That would make it less likely that we end up with a big spike in evictions in four or five months.
Secondly, does the Minister think that these powers go far enough? I know that every other noble Lord has said that they probably go too far, but I am concerned that we might be back in six or eight weeks looking for additional powers.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, forgive me; I was not expecting the noble Lord, Lord Porter, to finish quite so soon. I support the Bill and certainly agree that it, or something like it, is necessary. However, I want to sound one or two warnings and flag up some points that need the Government’s continuing attention.
We face a national emergency. In these circumstances, we should all be prepared to accept some sacrifice of personal liberty. What worries me more is the threat the Bill poses to structures of social and community support, already seriously eroded by a decade of austerity. I shall be supporting amendments that seek to ensure that these remain intact, as far as possible. After all, the fact that coronavirus is on the scene does not mean that pre-existing needs for support have somehow gone away. I hope that the Government may subject this area of the legislation to particularly searching review, with a view to ensuring that subsequent iterations are able to address some of the concerns that I and others are expressing.
I have received many expressions of concern at the way the Bill undermines social care support for disabled people. It suspends many duties in the Care Act 2014, including the duty to meet the eligible needs of disabled people, under Section 18, and their carers, under Section 20. Local authorities will have to provide care only if they consider it necessary for the purposes of avoiding a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. That largely frees local authorities from their duties to provide support under the Care Act 2014 and will oblige them to provide support only in cases where the human rights of disabled people, under the convention, are breached. That is a much higher standard to satisfy.
The Bill changes duties to meet disabled children’s educational needs to a “reasonable endeavours” duty. I have received many expressions of concern about this. First and foremost, there are concerns about the impact of relaxing statutory provisions for children with special educational needs and disabilities. How will the provisions in the Bill on education, health and care plans be used in practice? Will they be used to water down provision? I understand that that is not the Government’s intention, but backsliding authorities could easily use them as an excuse. Even if the Government are forced to relax their efforts to promote better provision at this time, they should not provide excuses for a deterioration in provision. Many parents will understand the need for flexibility at this time. However, their children still have the same need for specialist support. The Government need to give a clear account of why it is necessary to relax the statutory underpinning of the support that disabled children need.
If the duties around education, health and care plans are suspended, how will vulnerable children access the support they need? Can the Minister confirm that the Bill does not change the duties of schools and education authorities, under the Equality Act 2010, to provide reasonable adjustments and auxiliary aids for disabled pupils and students? Can he also indicate whether there will be any guidance for schools and local authorities on how they can support those children with special educational needs and disabilities who do not have an education, health and care plan? It is estimated that fewer than 20% of deaf children have a plan, for example. This area needs the Government’s attention.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Low, and endorse the concerns he expressed.
I want to pick up a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, about nursing and midwifery staff. Many noble Lords have begun by offering the thanks of the House and the country to NHS staff who are crucial to all our lives and working so hard under such difficult conditions. The Bill allows nursing and midwifery students who are just finishing their courses to begin working before they would normally have done so. This cohort of students is the cohort facing maximum debt. They face fees of nearly £28,000 and in many cases have had to take out loans for living costs. In London, that can total up to £34,000. They have had no bursaries. They have not had the new grant of £5,000 a year that is coming in for students starting now. I therefore ask the Government—no, I beg the Government—to make a special grant to these students, reflecting their special circumstances, of £15,000 each so that they will be placed in the same financial position as nurses and midwives starting their courses now.
Like many noble Lords, I support the Bill with great reluctance. It is a huge assumption of government powers. I welcome the Government conceding and not trying to force that it should be in force for two years and going to a six-month review. I echo other noble Lords: three months would be more appropriate, particularly given the haste with which we are passing this legislation. I also welcome the Government having yesterday introduced Clause 78, allowing for the remote meeting of councils. As many noble Lords have noted, that is crucial for their functioning in the coming weeks and months. I believe there is still an issue about parish councils to be sorted out and I hope we can work through that.
That stresses the point that, in the coming weeks and months, democracy will be crucial to the functioning of our country. I endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about the essential need to keep this House and the other place functioning. Last weekend the Green Party held a remote conference, over the four days when we had been planning to have our spring conference. We are a very small organisation, yet we managed to organise that in a very short time. More than 700 people took part—almost as many people as are in your Lordships’ House. We successfully held debates and people held discussions, had chats on the side and essentially did everything that we do in this House except vote. I note for your Lordships’ reference that the European Parliament will now be voting by email. I spoke to the Clerk’s office two weeks ago and was told that it was working on the remote working of the House. I urge the Government and the authorities of the House to ensure that we can fully operate remotely as soon as possible.
I have very little time and lots of points to make, so I hope the House will forgive me a bullet-point approach. I have grave concerns about some of the draconian powers, in Schedule 21, relating to “potentially infectious persons”. I am particularly concerned about the potential treatment of children under that provision.
For the cause of my noble friend Lady Jones, who cannot be with us today, I have to note the extension of powers under the Investigatory Powers Act and urge that they should be used only for the absolute minimum period possible.
I endorse the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. As many noble Lords will have done, I have had many representations over the concerns of disabled people and frail people about the provisions of this Act.
What is not in the Bill is the protection of incomes. We have talked about protecting wages and businesses and the Government have acted, but we have to protect everyone’s incomes. As your Lordships’ House has heard, I am a long-term champion of a universal basic income. For the period of this crisis, we have to ensure that everyone has an income to survive. On that point I will refer, as many have, to the situation of the self-employed. There is an amendment for statutory self-employment pay, and that is something that we should definitely look at.
On food provision, there are some limited provisions in the Bill, but I would also like to see provisions in the Bill—or soon—ensuring that we do not see profiteering in food prices or other essential supplies. I would like to see provisions to help seasonal workers to get farming produce growing and to bring it in from the fields. There is talk of a land army of volunteers to help with that, and I would like to see that happening.
I turn to the question of the vulnerable in our society. We should be closing the immigration detention centres. Those people have committed no crime. To take the example of Yarl’s Wood, 70% of people who are held there are eventually released anyway. They are in an incredibly dangerous and difficult situation and should not be there. People in prison for short-term sentences and those whose sentences are going to end shortly should also be released and, as the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, said, we need much more provision for the homeless.
I am being asked by many people whether the Government will suspend the requirement for MOTs because many people are leaving their homes dangerously to deal with that.
On construction, surely only essential safety-related construction should be continuing. In London there are grave concerns about construction workers on the Tube and what that is doing to overcrowding on the Tube.
Lastly, there is the question of burning on the moors. Yesterday a controlled burn got out of control on the West Yorkshire Moors and 15 fire appliances had to be called the deal with it. Surely things like that should not be being done in this crisis.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, before I say anything else I would like to pay tribute to the Prime Minister and his team of two advisers who communicate almost daily with the British people. In my experience of 46 years across two Houses, that is unique. I pay tribute to that team and to all Ministers at every level, particularly my noble friend on the Front Bench, who was my excellent Whip until he was promoted.
I am here—as someone who is 83 I am not supposed to be here—because the Bill is very intrusive, but I recognise that the situation is so serious that it is appropriate. I see my role as one to ask questions. I have spent most of my 46 years here asking questions: on the Public Accounts Committee for 12 years; as Deputy Speaker; and then in this House.
I come from a medical community: my wife, to whom I have been married for 59 years now, is a full-time GP while my son is a doctor. Necessarily, as I and my wife have worked in the UK, India, Sri Lanka and other parts of south and south-east Asia, we understand the medical world at some length. I recognise that south Asia and south-east Asia had the SARS catastrophe, and as a result of that they are used to dealing with the great problem that we now face. They were prepared for pandemics, which the West was not and is not.
I have a question about the aims of the Bill. The summary of impacts says:
“The purpose of the Bill is to provide powers needed to respond to the current coronavirus epidemic. Powers are for use only if needed, judged on the basis of the clinical and scientific advice”—
or, as the Prime Minister says, action to save the NHS and to save lives. Is that the limit? Frankly, I do not think it is. I believe that there is another criterion. Are we to follow totally slavishly those two conditions, regardless of any impact on the economy? I venture to suggest that we should not.
A section of the NHS which I looked at closely over the weekend is the dental community. I had a telephone call on Sunday from a dental practitioner in Bedford, because Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire are where I know best. He raised with me the key point issued by the British Dental Association, and that is uncertainty. The BDA recommends that
“no aerosol generating procedures are undertaken on any patient without appropriately fitting FFP3 masks, other required protection equipment and protocols”.
That is pretty clear. It is backed up by this individual consultant, who then said to me in an email: “The situation is that the front-line ITU staff do not have FFP3 masks. We will not treat cancer cases until equipped. We will need to run some emergency clinics, but where are they to be?” Since nobody else has raised dental matters, I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that I hope this can be looked into.
Secondly, I thought we were communicating with all the trade associations, but two days ago I read in the Telegraph that the CEO of the UK Chamber of Shipping in London makes the point that shipping is an absolutely vital industry. It has made contact with Her Majesty’s Government—that has been raised with the Transport Secretary—but has heard nothing. That is a problem, is it not?
What can be done? Since the Prime Minister is a great believer in Churchill, I suggest that he might think about having the equivalent of Lord Beaverbrook. On the television news last night or the night before, there was a shedload of these masks—a warehouse full —at Amazon. Why are those in the warehouse? They should be out with the front-line people waiting for them. It needs someone to get behind this and get those masks out and into the field. I suggest that this must be happening in many other areas as well.
I finish by saying a huge thank you again to the front-line NHS staff. I have lived with that community for years. It is doing more now than it has ever had to. I re-emphasise that we have to learn from what Korea and others did. The key word is “testing”. We need large-scale, readily available testing, combined with case isolation and contact tracing.
My last question to my noble friend is: where are we on testing? The WHO recommends: trace the contacts to trace infection; isolate to stop the spread; then test, test, test. If we do all that, we ought to, and might hopefully, get through the incredible challenge we face at the moment. I wish all those involved all possible success in their attempt to do so.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I begin by referring to my interests in the register. I am involved in business and am chairman of the Cumbria local enterprise partnership and, as a result of that, a member of the NP11—the Northern Powerhouse 11. It is because of those two things that I have come down south to London to this debate. The Cumbria LEP is leading on business resilience, which is an integral part of the Cumbria local resilience forum. At regional level, the NP11 is doing much the same on a wider canvas.
Quite rightly, the Government are placing their prime focus on the country’s health, but the more health measures introduced, the greater the impact on business. That is not to say they should not do it, but it is a consequence. The impact on business, commercial life and jobs is therefore getting greater.
There are two fundamental and important implications. First, if people do not have any money, the consequences are self-evidently dire. Secondly, businesses provide work, and with it wages, to the parts of the supply chain and among producers of things that we need and want. They are the basis of commercial life. In future, if they do not have any money, they will cease to exist.
Cash is king. If cash stops, business stops. If business stops, cash stops. If business stops, jobs and goods stop. On top of that, the infrastructure of the future economy is strangled. I welcome that the Government recognise the need for cash and are putting measures in place to get it into the wider community. But is it enough, and is it being done quickly enough? What is needed from central government is speed, precision and user-friendliness in the economic and governance measures that it puts in place, to run in parallel with the health measures that are the predominant topic of this debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, money is needed now—not at the end of the week, or the month, or the end of April, or this year, or next year or whenever. I echo the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, about the self-employed, and that the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, made about charities.
As I have intimated, I welcome the general direction of travel shown in the Answer repeated by the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, to an Urgent Question earlier this afternoon, but where is the beef? Individuals are running out of both time and money. Business owners, perplexed by the lack of clarity, will shut up shop, get out with what they can and cut their losses. The devil lies in the detail. Banks distributing interest-free loans are seeking collateral, I understand—and anyway a loan, interest-free or not, has to be paid back. People, especially smaller operators, are understandably asking themselves, “Is it worth it?” The self-employed are feeling exposed and discriminated against, as has been said.
What is needed is equivalence and even-handedness across the piece—big and small, rural and urban, employed and self-employed. The perspective of everyone’s personal and business financial affairs, looking both forwards and backwards from this coming year end, seems diametrically different, in my view. I think that no payments should be made as opposed to liabilities incurred until the end of the forthcoming financial year, in order that liquidity is preserved in society.
Twenty years ago, my own farming business was destroyed in the foot and mouth outbreak in Cumbria, when I was a Member of the European Parliament for that area. I have first-hand and close experience of some of these things. One thing that we must not overlook is the implications of isolation combined with worry. It is very unpleasant and damaging for people’s mental health. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice.
Finally, there is the long term, which I hope will start with the comprehensive spending review later this summer. As many Members of your Lordships’ House have said, we are looking at an unknown future, and we must revisit de novo, pragmatically, our future national economic, commercial and business policies so that they are based on hard-nosed, real-world economics, to get our economy up and running again. The first step on that road is a recognition that cash is king, because cash is the lubricant of the engine that is the economy.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I salute the superhuman efforts of NHS staff and all other key workers in their efforts to win this battle against an invisible enemy. I will focus my remarks on issues within the remit of the Department for Education.
It may not be widely appreciated that staff on casual contracts are widespread throughout the education sector. Many from early years to higher education are on casual or zero-hour contracts or are freelance. If there is a guarantee that institutions will not lose funding, it should be made clear by the Government that these kinds of contracts should be honoured in full.
It may require secondary legislation, but the 25,000 students currently undertaking a course leading to qualified teacher status need to have their coursework validated so that they can start teaching in September—the earliest schools are likely to reopen. It will be essential to ensure that the supply of new teachers is maintained when the school system will need them more than ever.
I welcome the key role for local authorities in co-ordinating the new arrangements. By working with maintained schools, academies and the independent sector, they should ensure there is sufficiency of places for children of key workers and vulnerable children. But why is the Secretary of State not being given a power to authorise local authorities to co-ordinate all 16 to 19 provision in their area? In Schedule 15, the local authority can be authorised to exercise powers over childcare, schools and 16 to 19 academies, but why should that be restricted to academies?
The decision to close schools is unprecedented but proportionate given the scale of the crisis. None the less, it must be recognised that a decision of this scale will have life-changing consequences for families, many of whom are already stretched to the limit. It is vital that the issues that school closures create are properly considered and appropriately dealt with.
It is of course right that the interests of the most vulnerable children—those who are known to social care because of issues such as abuse and neglect, or those with additional learning needs—are being prioritised. However, we know that many highly vulnerable children are hidden from view and do not benefit from the official status that will mean they can continue to attend school. For instance, as highlighted by Barnardo’s, what about children living in domestic abuse households who do not have a social worker or an education, health and care plan? How will they be protected?
There are genuine concerns about the effects of the crisis on children’s social care, and other children’s social services. Many social workers are also on temporary contracts and not eligible for sick pay. Will the DfE instruct schools or safeguarding leads to check on vulnerable pupils who do not have an official social care status? Will schools receive discretionary powers to ensure that vulnerable pupils who do not have official status can remain in school? Will the Government keep pupil referral units open, given the vulnerability of most of the children who attend those schools?
Clause 5 provides for the emergency registration of social workers, with guidance referring to
“deployment of volunteers where it is safe to do so, and where indemnity arrangements are in place.”
This will be important, but they will also require sufficient protection for themselves and those they work with, and an induction to ensure that they understand their remit and can conduct their role safely.
In essence, the Bill suspends or disapplies all the key provisions of the Care Act 2014 and there are genuine concerns about the impact of relaxing statutory provisions for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Ten years of local authority cuts have already seriously eroded SEND provision; coronavirus must not be allowed to compound that.
Schedule 16 contains powers for the Secretary of State to vary or disapply statutory provision, such as Section 42 of the Children and Families Act, which is the core duty to secure special provision in accordance with an EHC plan, and the Secretary of State could vary Section 43 of the same Act, which covers the duty on schools and other institutions to admit a child where they are named in a child’s plan. Many parents will understand the need for flexibility in these uncertain times. However, their children will remain in urgent need of specialist support and they deserve a clear explanation of why it is necessary to relax the statutory provisions.
There is a further concern; namely, the assurance that children with special educational needs and disabilities continue to receive the support they need. Can the Minister confirm that the Bill does not change the duties of schools and education authorities under the Equality Act 2010 to provide reasonable adjustments and auxiliary aids for disabled pupils and students? For example, there is concern about how deaf pupils will be able to access online or remote teaching.
The cancellation of GCSEs and A-levels will have a major impact on the hopes of millions of young people for their future. My noble friend Lord Adonis called for students to be able to repeat this year should they so wish. The Secretary of State said yesterday that children would have the option to sit their exams in 2021. Could the Minister clarify what that might mean? The Secretary of State has said that not just predicted grades will be used to replace cancelled assessments. His statement yesterday offered some insight as to what is proposed, but not enough to assuage the concerns of teachers, students and parents. There is widespread anxiety and confusion over the replacement assessment system, and the Government should at least set out a timetable for making definite decisions so that there is clarity.
One lesson that emerges from all of this, which applies in many areas of life, is that we have developed systems that rely on everything working perfectly. That is true of intensive care bed numbers and supermarket deliveries, but also of school exams. Once we had AS-levels and coursework, which could have provided evidence to counter the crash of the exam system. Building in some spare capacity should be part of any robust system; for exams, that means not relying on just one source and therefore being better able to withstand shocks. There is a lesson here too for the future: a fragmented education system does not work well when subjected to stress.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, we are all immensely grateful for the selflessness and professionalism of everyone responding to this pandemic and for the reasonable, calm heads of those in government. I associate myself especially with the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Scriven, Lord Blunkett, Lord Robathan and Lord Alderdice, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
There is a need for tighter scrutiny, a shorter timeline—three months has been mentioned; I strongly support that—and reasonable balance. We need not to fall into a collective consciousness of consent. We need dissent for democracy to continue to flourish. We continue to need to ask hard questions and not be rolled over by fear but instead, with reasonable wisdom and proportion, keep this thing in balance.
I will make a few specific remarks about areas of the Bill, particularly paragraph 7(5) of Schedule 21, which refer to the powers to be given to the police and immigration officers for detaining and holding people on the basis or assumption of their ill health or of the coronavirus being present. We have had a number of warnings from Liberty; in its briefing, it rightly points out that the consequences of some aspects of the Bill are too grave and far-reaching to be simply nodded through. One dimension of paragraph 7(5) of Schedule 21 states that the police and immigration officers may detain and, if necessary, remove someone for testing and, if possible, have a health official present. I do not think “if possible” is good enough, especially coming from a community where people are very frightened of being tapped on the shoulder or even asked to their face by police to come with them. In a prospective detention or if someone fears the possibility of exposure on an immigration case, they are more likely to abscond—which now becomes an offence, according to the requirements in Schedule 21.
We all want to have the utmost regard and respect for the police and immigration officials at this time. I do not want to unnecessarily conflate two things, but I draw the attention of the Minister and the House to the comments made in this House and in another place last week. On Thursday, at the tail-end of business here, the Minister repeated a Statement on the Windrush report from the Home Secretary, who used the words:
“Ministers did not sufficiently question unintended consequences”
of their conduct, behaviour or decisions. In particular, she referred to the fact that there was institutional
“ignorance and thoughtlessness towards the issue of race and the history of the Windrush generation”.—[Official Report, 19/3/20; col. 1615.]
I have had many representations from people in the black and minority communities who still feel that nothing has changed between last Thursday and this afternoon. The very department with responsibility for police and immigration—the Home Office—will probably help to set the tone of how officials, without health professionals, will go about detaining people and holding them, even though for only short periods of detention. The presence of health officials ought to be a fundamental requirement in an amendment to this Bill: a health official must be the decider, not the police or immigration officials.
There is a need for some elements of reasonable societal caution. However, too much suspicion of people who fit into categories that are uncertain and unclear leads people towards greater fear. Liberty says that there is a real prospect that groups may be targeted on the basis that they are effectively proxies for characteristics such as income level or race and especially in light of existing patterns of discrimination in police-public interactions, as identified by the Lammy review.
I hope we do not blunder into causing further, unnecessary fear in communities all over this country where black and minority-ethnic people are or where immigrants feel they may be holding out, by adding to police powers without ensuring that health security is the decision-maker, not the individual constable—there are constant references to constables, not senior officers, in the Bill. That places too much burden on those individuals.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. I agree with the entirety of his contribution. The entire world faces the colossal fear—unimaginable a few weeks ago—of an outbreak of such magnitude; a public health emergency.
Only today Dr Fuad Nahdi’s family laid him to rest as I sat in the Chamber. He lost his battle with several health conditions and finally succumbed to coronavirus. I do not know whether he was able to be resuscitated—whether that facility was available to him. But he was an outstanding community champion and he worked relentlessly—tirelessly—with Government Ministers, churches and the community to keep people safe post 9/11. I express my condolences, heartfelt prayers and good wishes to his family.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan, an honourable Member of another place, has called for urgent attention to be paid to the shortage of resuscitation units. These are already full, she says, in many hospitals as the numbers of admissions rise. NHS staff face an incredible decision: who will live and who will die? I add my thanks to all those NHS and front-line bravehearts who are putting their own life and well-being aside to take care of us and others.
The country understands that decisions must be made to prevent mass infection and preserve security, with adherence to the norms of a civilised, humane nation. Perhaps liberty is in temporary abeyance—the freedom and privilege that we have enjoyed. Therefore, the Government’s economic measures and responses are welcome, although I have pointed reservations. Since the Bill was published, all parliamentarians have been inundated by constituents and community and business groups alike; they support government measures but are deeply troubled by some aspects of the proposed legislation, and its short- and long-term impact on significant sections of our vulnerable communities. I record my thanks, for their incredible insights, to Toni Meredew at account3; James Lee at the City of London Corporation; Inclusion London; Haji Taslim Funerals; the East London Mosque; and Hasina Zaman from Compassionate Funerals.
I wish to raise two points in particular: first, how the Bill will potentially impact the lives of disabled people such as my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson. Many fear serious risk to their and thousands of other vulnerable people’s daily care needs, and that they will be abandoned in the emergency situation and left to the discretion of an already overstretched local authority. There are incredible misgivings about measures to suspend provision under the Care Act 2014. The fear is that social care provision is likely to breach the human rights threshold, as has been said, and will be offered only to those in critical and severe need.
We have large numbers of disabled people who require daily care and noble Lords are rightly concerned that the Bill will suspend their right to daily care from a local authority. If, as the legislation proposes, assessment needs are delayed, there will be untold suffering, which will cause lasting mental and physical harm to the well-being of those dependent for their care needs, as well as an unbearable imposition on carers to cope alone.
With regard to mental health services provision, I accept that this is a national emergency and we are being asked to suspend normal freedoms as a new norm. However, we must think carefully about obliterating our social care responsibilities. There is also significant fear about the power of detention by one doctor. I cannot overemphasise caution about that provision, given that many black and minority ethnic citizens experience detention disproportionately, as has been mentioned. Suspending any accountability in the process may leave a generational legacy of damage. Will there be an impact assessment in place to monitor the impact of the proposed legislation?
Equally, I declare an interest as a former social worker. The well-being of those who experience and will continue to experience domestic violence, child sexual and physical abuse, and sexual exploitation depends on social workers, but there is a huge shortage. What are the Government doing to ensure that social workers will also be asked to come back and provide emergency services?
We have worked for decades to advance the rights of people with disabilities, those who live with mental health issues and those who are cared for by social services. I echo the words of my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson and ask how the Government will adhere to the human rights of people who receive social care and social services support.
I also wish to make a point about the power in the Bill at Schedule 28, which proposes to suspend taking into consideration the preferences of the deceased, regardless of their religious duties and obligations. I apologise to the House for taking a few more minutes to finish this point. The Bill suggests using powers to direct the deceased to be cremated if there is a lack of capacity at storage facilities, thus suspending Section 46(3) of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, which prohibits cremation against the wishes of the deceased. This has caused serious panic and anxiety in many parts of our communities and many have written to ask us to raise that matter as Members of Parliament. The honourable Member for Bradford West tabled an amendment to the Bill and has now withdrawn it. I am thankful for her outstanding campaign to mobilise and bring about the Government’s understanding that, even in these times of national existential threat and crisis, we will remain resolute in remaining a society that values freedom of choice, particularly around the dignity of human death.
I spent the whole weekend speaking to various organisations that lead funeral services, including those I mentioned earlier. Will the Minister agree to consult and work with them and with faith-based organisations along the lines that I referred to earlier to ensure—
Baroness Uddin
I have nearly finished. With the leniency of the House I will ask my final question.
I appreciate the fact that the Paymaster-General has given his assurance, but will the Minister assure us that the provisions in Part 4 of Schedule 28 in relation to the wishes of the deceased will be respected? I thank noble Lords for their leniency.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I too offer my strong support to the Prime Minister and believe that the Government are doing the right thing to prepare the armoury, to be able to do everything they conceivably need to do to protect lives and support people whose income has disappeared in the face of this unprecedented crisis caused by the coronavirus.
There are many people who have experienced some of the symptoms and think they may have contracted a mild form of the disease but have already recovered. These people are self-isolating but wish they could be tested for antibodies so that they would know whether they have had the disease. If they know that they have, they should be free to do useful work, which they could easily find with supermarkets, on farms and perhaps in the NHS. Good testing kits are available which show a result within 24 hours or so. Can the Minister offer any advice to people in this situation and tell the House whether it is possible to arrange for such people to be tested?
I declare my interests as set out in the register. Statistics provided by the Association of Independent Festivals show that in 2018 the UK live music sector contributed £1.1 billion to the economy—an increase of 10% on 2017. The 65 festivals staged by the association’s members generated more than £386 million in revenue in 2017. In addition, festivals have a large beneficial effect on the economies of the villages near where they are held. According to UK Music’s report published last year, 4.9 million people attended a festival in 2018, a considerable increase on the 2.7 million back in 2012. Small music festival companies, many of which stage a single event every year, usually in the summer months, have been put in a particularly parlous position by the pandemic. The Government are to be congratulated on taking measures that will alleviate the financial damage to the leisure and hospitality industries, but many of these do not actually have a beneficial effect on the festival sector. Cash grants of £25,000 and £10,000 are, of course, welcome, but they do not have a major impact on the sudden and enormous negative effect on cash flow.
Festival organisers who had been planning events for this summer have seen their income from ticket sales and sponsorship completely dry up. Furthermore, festivals are still contracted to pay their artists’ deposits, which are often substantial. The business interruption loan scheme is a very welcome lifeline for the sector, but some lenders are asking directors of festival companies to pledge their personal assets. Many will be unable to do that. Will the Minister consider asking lenders to apply flexibility regarding the collateral required to cover the 20% portion that is not guaranteed by the British Business Bank? Will he confirm that it is the Government’s intention that all events businesses whose financial viability has been affected by the pandemic, whether or not they have yet cancelled or rescheduled their events planned for 2020, will be eligible to receive loans equal to the amount of financial damage they have suffered as a direct result of the pandemic?
Paragraph 5(5) of Schedule 22 empowers the Secretary of State, in exercising his powers to prohibit mass gatherings such as music festivals, to inform persons of the prohibition, but the Bill does not include any requirement to specify the duration of such prohibition, although that is the case under Clause 6, which deals with the powers to close premises. The industry needs to know when and for how long the Government intend to prohibit gatherings of more than 50 people and the process by which they will determine whether a prohibition will be extended beyond its original period.
The one measure that festival companies and other event organisers need most urgently, and which is not included in the Bill, is the suspension of the provision of the Consumer Rights Act requiring the return of monies to ticket holders within 14 days of cancellation. I was encouraged to hear the Secretary of State for Health say at a meeting on Thursday that the Government are looking at this. The German Government are considering a measure that would permit the promoter of a festival to defer refunds until the end of September but containing a review clause that could extend this break until 30 July 2021. I have also heard that in Italy a new law has been enacted that allows promoters of festivals to issue vouchers for future events instead of refunding cash. The Bill may not be the right place, but will the Minister inform the House whether the Government will introduce legislation to this effect?
Some noble Lords may dislike restricting consumer protection in this way, but it would, paradoxically, serve to protect consumers’ interests. If no relief is given to the 14-day refund rule in the very near future, it is likely that many small festival companies will be insolvent and will liquidate, meaning that the ticket holders would receive nothing back at all. This would also have a devastating effect on the income of artists, many of whom are self-employed freelance workers who do not benefit under the salary support scheme.
It is very welcome that this scheme will alleviate the problems faced by festival businesses that have no cash flow to pay their staff. Will the Government consider a London weighting provision for the threshold of £25,000? What are the Government’s plans for those whose salaries exceed the threshold?
Extraordinary times require an extraordinary response. I am confident that the various schemes introduced by the Government could alleviate the financial difficulties that will be faced by very many. I earnestly hope that access to the schemes will not be unreasonably restricted by bureaucratic and onerous conditions.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, to defeat a disease, strong and unpleasant medicine may be required. This Bill is that kind of medicine. Its likely side-effects are alarming, as we have heard today from all sides of the House. However, we must swallow it—and we must try to do so not like a child, with our eyes tight shut, but, as befits parliamentarians, with our eyes wide open.
The medicine is sweetened by two features which we would normally take for granted but which it is reassuring to see in abnormal times: the absence of any attempt to oust the jurisdiction of the courts, and the declaration of compatibility with convention rights that appears as a badge of honour on the front page of the Bill. Given the number of rights engaged, that is a tribute both to the pragmatic flexibility of the ECHR and to the Government for not seeking to derogate from that rather sensible reminder of our basic freedoms, as a few other contracting states have recently done.
Clauses 22 and 23 concern the judicial approval of warrants. Warranted investigatory powers are of course vital to our national security and the fight against crime. But the function of judicial commissioners is not simply to facilitate surveillance; it is to keep it within lawful bounds. To take one example—topical, though hypothetical in this country, so far as I know—they might have to decide the extent to which the location data from our mobile phones may be used for contact tracing, or for the monitoring and enforcement of the movement prohibitions that may be introduced under Schedule 22 to the Bill. These are not straightforward issues, which is why we entrust them only to judges of High Court rank and above.
These clauses strengthen, rather than undermine, the system of judicial approval by allowing for the rapid appointment of assistant or temporary commissioners and extending the time necessary for approving urgent warrants. The reasons are not far to seek: the overwhelming majority of judicial commissioners are over 70 and male, and the highly classified nature of their work requires the use of a secure physical location. The key safeguard, noted by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in opening, is that the Secretary of State can make the necessary regulations only if the Investigatory Powers Commissioner—a senior judicial figure—notifies her that this is necessary. That is good enough for me.
Before leaving these clauses, however, I would ask the Minister two questions. First—he can answer in writing, if he prefers—could a temporary commissioner serve under successive regulations for a total period of longer than 12 months, if required? That is a question on the meaning of Clause 22(3). Since it can take a while for judicial commissioners to get fully up to speed in this arcane area—I speak as someone who has done some of their training—I hope that the answer yes.
Secondly, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee pointed out in its report of yesterday, Clause 22(4) allows the Secretary of State to provide for existing statutes in this area to apply with
“specified omissions or other modifications”.
Why is that Henry VIII power necessary? Could the Minister give examples of the kind of omission or modification that the Government have in mind? Why are these powers subject only to the negative procedure, given that, as the committee explains in its report, a statutory instrument can be made just as expeditiously under the “made affirmative” procedure, under which they would lapse without parliamentary approval?
Finally, on parliamentary review, I welcome the new provision in Clause 98 for a six-month review by the Commons, though, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, I would have welcomed it more warmly if the Motion had been amendable. In either case, the effectiveness of review will be linked to the content of the two-monthly reports to be produced under Clause 97. I was encouraged to hear the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, say in opening this debate that the Government would “update Parliament regularly on how these powers have been used across the UK”. However, as presently provided for, the two-monthly reports need contain nothing more than an account of which provisions have been activated, and a statement that the Secretary of State “is satisfied” with that state of affairs; one hopes he will be satisfied, because this clause requires it.
There is a broader point here. My experience of reviewing exceptional powers against terrorism has been that effective review requires basic information to be provided by government. One needs to know not just whether a provision is in force but, as the Minister said, what use has been made of it, what unexpected problems have been encountered in its use, what steps have been needed to enforce compliance, and how effective they are judged to have been. We are all acutely mindful of the need not to overburden the Civil Service with major new reporting obligations. But the Government will, as a matter of course, conduct their own assessment of these exceptional powers, based on experience of their use and an assessment of their effectiveness. I would suggest that they can only benefit—as would we—by the opportunity to communicate their reasoned case in this way to Parliament and to the public.
I tabled a modest amendment on this point this afternoon—not in a critical spirit, but in the hope that the Minister might look on it favourably. It would be, I hope we might all agree, a useful way of generating the trust on which public acceptance of the measures in this Bill will ultimately depend.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my interests in the register. I start by thanking the Government for the actions they have taken over the last few days to help support employers and employees, especially taking into account the impact on small and medium-sized businesses.
I want to focus first on social care and the wonderful care staff who, along with their brilliant colleagues in the health service, are at the forefront of delivering care, both in hospital settings and in the homes of those who need their support. As a social care provider, I put on record how our staff have not wavered in ensuring that all our clients have been reassured, informed and been part of our contingency planning as it has developed. This is probably the same across the thousands of small and medium-sized providers across the country. Our care staff need assurances that they will be among the first to be tested for the virus, that we will ensure that protective equipment is readily available, and that the costs are not raised because there is a shortage. Will my noble friend the Minister assure the House that extra funding for social care is ring-fenced for social care provision? This is absolutely critical.
Being on the front line puts all care workers at greater risk of getting the virus. Will the Minister consider how, with the sector already under huge recruitment pressures, we can look at having all criminal checks for health and social care delivered in 24 hours, and the mandatory three to five-day basic training for care reduced to a day’s training? This would be as long as newly inducted staff work with experienced care workers in double-up calls for the most vulnerable, care-needing users.
I am sure there will be plenty of people wanting to play their part in supporting the health and care sectors. To ease the pressure on our health service, our trained care staff can reduce nurse call-outs and hospital admissions for such tasks as reapplying dressings and sterilising fluids on wounds and pressure sores. Also, with the shortage of blister packs, we could ensure that care staff are able to administer properly recorded medication prescriptions. Many other basic healthcare tasks can be carried out by trained care staff, which would ease the pressure on the health service.
Will the Minister talk to his colleagues in local government to see how these and other measures could be considered? Will he assure the House that those in the most vulnerable group, including the elderly, are not left without human contact, especially where they need assistance? Over the last weekend or so, I have had so many people calling to tell me how frightened and worried they are about their elderly, vulnerable relatives.
The care sector has been underfunded for far too long; too many Governments have not put care at the heart of their policies. There is a misconception that this sector is unskilled. It is not. It is a sector with hard-working, properly trained staff, who are well regulated, and subject to regular inspections by both local authorities and the regulator. I hope that, once this crisis is over, the social care sector will be given a much-deserved priority in government plans.
The other group I want to talk briefly about today is the self-employed and contractors. Many noble Lords have mentioned them in today’s discussions. Over the past few days, I have been inundated with people calling me to ask where they can go for government support. This important group of people help to grow the economy. We have a duty to ensure that they have proper care and financial support, and I urge the Minister to ensure that they get it. It was heartening to hear the Chancellor announce that a support package will be coming through very shortly. Will my noble friend impress upon colleagues across government that a proper communication strategy must be put in place and broadcast across all media channels to ensure that people know where to go for easy information?
People have contacted me to ask about the mortgage holidays and rent holidays for renters in the private and public sectors which were announced by the Chancellor. They all have the right to an initial three-month deferral to ease their financial pressures as they are told to stay home by the Government. Have commercial landlords been asked by the Government to give the same support to their tenants, particularly the larger landlords? I shall not name any landlords today, but if they do not support the Government in giving three-month holidays to their business tenants, I will not hesitate to call them out. This is a time when we should all come together and be supportive; nobody should think it is a time when they can make money on the back of somebody else’s pain, when they are simply following government instructions to close their business and stay at home. I want the Government to understand that small businesses just do not have the means and resources to navigate around complex forms. I ask the Government to ensure that all information is easy to understand and that if there are application forms to fill in, they are easily found and navigated around.
We all want to ensure that we keep everyone safe, but financial pressures have a huge impact on mental health, as has been said today, and our role is to ensure that in these most challenging times, those who can provide well-being and health support while people stay in their homes are encouraged and supported by the Government.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I, too, pay tribute not just to the staff of the NHS, who are doing a truly wonderful job, but to the army of cleaners, drivers and shop assistants who are playing an incredible role in the most difficult of circumstances.
I start by echoing what my noble friend Lord Newby —and, to a certain extent, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton—said about the need for scrutiny and for this House in particular to scrutinise legislation. Speaker after speaker has said that at any other time, this legislation would simply not pass.
It is extremely important that when the Government have to take extreme measures—and they do—they do so in an open way and that there is detailed discussion involving people who themselves have the relevant experience and information, or who have access to outside expertise, as do we in this House. That way, we will go beyond the level of a television interview. We need to deal with matters in great detail and be part of the information and education programme that will be necessary throughout all this, to ensure public support for and recognition of the need for extreme legislation.
Secondly, we must recognise that the Bill comes before us at a moment when we do not have large-scale testing programmes or vaccination, and that that has a direct effect on everything in it. If we have both in a few months—as I very much hope we will—life will be very different, and it will be important then to revisit some of the assumptions built into the Bill.
I want to make a point that may seem obvious, but nobody has yet said it today. When we talk about the NHS and local government, we are talking about completely different systems. The NHS is a centralised system which is largely run on a not particularly democratic basis; it is run more on the basis of expertise. It is a command-and-control system that enjoys a political standing in this country which practically no other body does. Local government is different. It is based on an open democratic procedure, with elected officials, and it does not, by and large, enjoy the same standing. Therefore, local government is, quite naturally, often very defensive and cautious, and for good reason—it gets taken to town by the Daily Mail quite frequently. We are suddenly expecting those two systems to function together in the same way. I go back to the point that my noble friend Lord Scriven made earlier, which may seem terribly technical but is in fact very important. There needs to be a general power of direction for local government, so that it can take the decisions that will have a bearing on the health and social care outcomes of its local population.
It is really interesting to see what, even in an emergency situation, government considers to be important and not important. Three things in the Bill are problematic. The first is the removal of the duty on local authorities to provide adult social care. Everybody understands that local government will go through the most massive transformation; it will never be the same again. It will probably have to reorientate everything towards this for years to come, and certainly for a year. However, to remove that duty completely is wrong, because from it flows not just the way in which vulnerable people are dealt with now, during the emergency, but the recovery process for local services and so on. It would be preferable if local government retained its relevant social care duties, but that their application was amended so that it was required to implement them only so far as is reasonably practical. As the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, said, domiciliary care is under immense strain. If local authorities do not make those investments now because they think they will not have the money, the impact on the NHS in a few months’ time will be even greater.
When I talk to local government colleagues, as I am sure we all do, they say that one of the big issues worrying them is indemnity for volunteering. The Bill refers to volunteering for a local authority only in relation to health and social care. It may well be that, just to fulfil the health and social care duties, local authorities will have to rely on volunteers to do all manner of other things, such as carrying out some of their environmental responsibilities. They are really bothered, because local authorities have traditionally spent an awful lot of staff time doing DBS checks because of the nature of what they do. We need not only a fast-track system—for example, not allowing somebody who has ever been barred to be checked—but a much faster system. We should also have an indemnity for a local authority that has to reconfigure very quickly a number of its central functions.
The other point that it is important to make at this stage is that, more so than the NHS, local authorities have had whole ranks of staff taken out. They have a few central managers, and front-line staff. They do not have very much; in fact, unlike in the NHS, most of their services are not provided in-house, so they do not have the ability to command or summon up capacity in the same way the NHS does.
We are expecting that charities will step into that breach, but that sector, as people heard during the debate on the Question answered by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, this afternoon, is on a cliff edge. Charities do not run with great margins or large amounts of reserves, and they cannot quickly scale up on nothing. You cannot have an entirely voluntary workforce; volunteers need to be managed, which is a skill in itself. Can the Minister talk about the need for there to be grant funds—some via the NHS, some via local authorities, and some direct to charities—in order to build up that capacity?
The Government have taken drastic action in respect of the Mental Health Act. Mental health tribunals are now to be a single judge on a phone—if we are talking in that way, we ought to require them at least to be videophones—and the three-month treatment rule will be changed. I, along with organisations like Mind and Rethink Mental Illness, accept that in a time of great stress on the NHS we cannot run the system as we do now. However, there are misgivings about people being sectioned under Sections 2 and 3 of the Mental Health Act. Having taken away some very fundamental safeguards with regard to people being deprived of liberty and incarcerated, will the Government reconsider the length of time before which somebody can have their case reviewed and make it much quicker, so that anybody who has been detained by one doctor instead of two will automatically go to the front of the queue for a swift review?
Having said that, one thing that has caused much remark in the social care sector is that there is no mention at all here of the mental capacity legislation. There are two problems with that. First, in emergency medicine there is still a requirement to establish that somebody has mental capacity and to ascertain their wishes. I understand that, at a time like this, an A&E department will not be able to go through such a comparatively bureaucratic process, and that it is possible to do a simplified version of that just for these purposes.
The other, bigger, problem is that we will have lots and lots of very vulnerable people in care homes without access to any sort of representation, or even assessment. So I say to the Minister, and this is a very difficult admission, that the Government may wish to take out some of the bureaucracy and form-filling that was in the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act, which some of your Lordships worked on. We should be requiring people who run homes to enable relatives at the very least to have some kind of contact—remote contact, telephone contact, or something like that—if it is not possible to go in and visit. To ignore this completely sends out a really bad message to people.
I fully understand the Government seeing the need to free up medical resources by going down to only one doctor. I imagine that across the NHS people are looking at ways to free up time for medical staff, cut down visits and make sure that people are not going on public transport unnecessarily. As the Minister knows, I am concerned about women’s access to early medical abortions. We already have an agreement in England, Wales and Scotland that women can take at home the second of the two pills that they need, provided that they have ongoing support and access by phone to a medical practitioner. I ask the Minister to consider whether women can have a telemedecine interview with the staff of a clinic. They could then very quickly get the medicines that they need and take them safely at home. I am not asking for any other change to the grounds on which that might be done. It is simply an administrative procedure, but it would make an enormous difference to the ability of women, most of them young, to receive that healthcare.
On the next point, I declare an interest: my brother is shortly to retire as a police officer—this week, I think—having served in the Greater Manchester Police for over 30 years. All the provisions in the Bill are about health and social care workers, particularly health workers, returning. All the issues about their pensions apply to other people in public service. I rather suspect that there may come a time when we need police officers who are not long retired to come back, not least because they are first responders, they have some medical training, and all of that. I do not think anyone else has mentioned this issue. It is not a personal plea on behalf of my family in any way at all; it is a genuine point.
On the provisions to review this legislation, it seems wrong that the Government are going to say that the Bill cannot be amended in future. That is a mistake, a point that was made by David Davis in the Commons. As I said, the Bill has been made now on existing knowledge, but the position may well be very different in three or six months’ time. Inevitably, some of the proposals that the Government have put in the Bill will turn out to have been necessary, but some will not. It would be in the Government’s best interests to retain the flexibility for this Bill to be amended in the light of experience. I hope I have demonstrated, as other noble Lords have, that we say this in the spirit of seeking to be helpful to the Government, not to attack them or to try to achieve any kind of political advantage, and I hope the Minister and his colleagues will reconsider.
The Government have said that there are various powers in the Bill and they will be switched on and off as necessary. That is potentially very confusing. Have the Government thought about having a website, a place to which anyone who has to refer to the Bill can go, with a rolling update on which provisions of the Bill were active and which were not? I can see a number of people who will have to try to make this legislation work having problems doing so.
That said, sadly the Bill is very necessary. We will work hard, and although we will, I hope, be back here, we will work smart and in different ways to provide ongoing scrutiny and to help the Government, and indeed the country, to get through these extraordinarily difficult times.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, we are living in a strange and frightening time. I congratulate all noble Lords on their speeches and questions today. I refer to my interests as listed in the register, including the fact that I am a member of a clinical commissioning group until the 31st of this month, when it will be abolished and absorbed.
As always, our thoughts have to be with those who have lost loved ones to this virus. Also, all of us would praise, as we have done today, the extraordinary efforts of our NHS staff and other dedicated public servants. We are for ever in their debt. My nephew, Oliver Carr, is a newly qualified first-year doctor at the Royal Free Hospital here in London. I cannot stress enough how proud we are of Oliver, but we are also, like thousands of families everywhere with loved ones working in our NHS today, very concerned for his safety.
Today, we are being asked to make decisions of a magnitude that we would never have dreamed of a few weeks ago. None of us came here to put on to the statute book powers that would curtail so many basic freedoms which our forebears had fought so hard to put in place and which we take for granted. As my honourable friend Jonathan Ashworth said yesterday:
“This virus spreads rapidly, exploits ambivalence, thrives on inequality”.
I shall speak about health and social care. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer covered justice and dealt with the aspects relating to coroners—I am very pleased to say—as well as the sunset clauses. Also, I shall not refer to education, because, between them, my noble friends Lady Blackstone and Lord Watson covered the waterfront on the educational questions that need to be asked with regard to the Bill.
The reference in last night’s statement by the Prime Minister to the fact that social isolation and distancing must be enforced was welcome. It was necessary because too many people were not following the advice. I think that we all watched with incredulity and horror the pictures at the weekend of bustling markets and packed Tube trains, beaches and parks, so I am afraid that the public health message was not heard loud and clear, and we now have to see whether it will be.
Everyone who should be at home, must be, and they must work from home. I am afraid that that includes your Lordships. There are six or seven speakers in this debate, including on our Benches, who should not really be with us. They are breaking the Government’s guidelines—now, instructions—and they endanger themselves, which is really worrying. I hate to say this but I know that they are here because most of their friends, including me, would not dare tell them not to be, and they have a contribution to make. However, it does not reflect well on this House after the magnificent example that has been set by the Lord Speaker. Hundreds of our colleagues are not here and have been sending messages to us, for which we are all grateful. They have been giving us advice, as many of us have mentioned.
I happen to think that Parliament must continue to sit as best it can. We must hold the Government to account, not least because, as many noble Lords have said, inevitably this Bill will have its flaws. Normally, we would have pointed those out over a period of months. It does not adequately cover some very serious areas which we have discussed today, not least the homeless, the self-employed and renters. Therefore, although I feel that the emergency powers, while draconian, are needed, that does not mean that the Government cannot regularly be held accountable. As the Minister said, the powers should be only in the context of this virus.
Turning to the health and social care workforce, one thing that we certainly now know unambiguously, as a result of this pandemic, is that nobody can be unaware of the importance of care workers in our community. There is definitely awareness of social care. It has to be accepted and of course properly funded.
The next few months will present a different level of challenge for the NHS and anyone working in the caring professions. We know that an increasing number of people will become ill and some will require medical treatment in hospital. The additional patient volumes will place enormous pressure on all sectors of our health and social care system. There will be pressures from increased absence by staff who are unwell and self-isolating in their households, so testing is absolutely vital, as is adequate PPE.
I will divert slightly from discussing the health and social care workforce. Several noble Lords mentioned the police, including the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale. If we are putting on the statute book, as we have been and will do, things that mean that you might be breaking the law if you go out or do something you should not be doing that might involve our police, what protection are we giving them? I will read on to the record what a female police officer has said in a message I have received:
“We need masks for every officer and prisoner, at least four washable masks for police officers: one to use, one to have in the bag for three days to decontaminate before washing, and two to change during the shift. Shower facilities for police officers—there are not enough showers. Gloves. Where do we take prisoners who are symptomatic? Where do we take people in a domestic situation? What happens to child contact arrangement orders? Can a person on bail not sign for bail who is self-isolating? What’s the process for breach of bail? What about registered sex offenders? Do they have to tell us if they intend to be at a different address? They have to attend police stations and register where they are. What do they do if they are symptomatic and away from home?”
She goes on, including on serving warrants and all the issues that our police have to face on a daily basis and which will increase. The Bill does not address those issues, but the Government absolutely have to address them.
The Bill includes provisions for regulators to register suitable healthcare professionals, such as nurses, midwives and paramedics, as well as social workers, including those who have recently retired or are on career breaks. To facilitate the return of experienced staff, we understand that rules that prevent retired NHS professionals working for more than 16 hours a week and which affect their pension entitlement have been suspended. However, procedures must be in place to ensure that background checks and other measures are fast-tracked. We must ensure that the well-being of these people is prioritised.
The Government will also be registering final-year nursing and medical students who are near the end of their training. These students have to be supported, supervised and properly remunerated. I absolutely back what the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, said about the debt that nurses face.
We recognise that it will be appropriate and necessary for doctors, nurses and other registered health professionals to work outside of the usual scope of their practice and specialisms, and that a far wider range of staff than usual will be involved in directly supporting Covid-19 patients with respiratory needs. The Bill includes indemnity provisions for those undertaking these services. However, it is vital that NHS staff working outside their usual scope of practice are trained in how to care for vulnerable patients. Can the Minister outline what training will be available, what it will entail and how many staff will need to be trained to use ventilators?
We also recognise that health staff will need to depart, possibly significantly, from established procedures to care for patients in highly challenging but timebound situations at the peak of an epidemic. Can the Minister advise what guidance will be issued to assist clinical staff to make these calls? Can he assure the House that they will be kept under constant review?
I echo and support the words of the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, about the importance of support for social enterprises. That is based on the role and importance that they have in the delivery of social care in this country. Can the Minister commit that he and his colleagues will meet with Social Enterprise UK and its colleagues to discuss this matter urgently?
The Bill also includes provisions for drafting in volunteers, which noble Lords have discussed, but we have to recognise that people with disabilities and chronic conditions often have some of the most complex care needs. It is very unlikely that volunteers will be able to provide the care that they need. We need reassurances that these people will continue to receive the appropriate care they need from professionals.
The Bill will allow NHS providers to delay undertaking the assessment process for NHS continuing healthcare for individuals being discharged from hospital until after the outbreak has ended. We understand that this will allow hospitals to discharge all in-patients who are clinically fit to leave without delay. Sir Simon Stevens has advised that this will potentially free up 15,000 acute beds. However, it is important that these measures are brought into operation for only the shortest possible time at the peak of the outbreak. The increased burden on social care services, already creaking before the pandemic, means that they will simply not be able to cope. We are concerned that the sector will be unable to cope. It is understandably a great worry for existing service users, who will know how dependent they are on the social care they receive daily.
There is huge concern about how domiciliary social care will cope during the crisis. It really is the front line of social care, with dedicated but low-paid care workers providing vital personal care services, visiting people in their homes daily, moving from client to client and providing the link with the outside world for people who depend on them, particularly if they are without family and care support. Can the Minister reassure us, for example, that the 15-minute visits will be extended to make sure that there is adequate time for a care worker to take the effective Covid-19 precautions as well as seeing to people’s needs, reassuring them and addressing any problems? What guidance has been issued on this?
Finally on social care, the risk to care and nursing homes with older people living in them cannot be overstated. There is a huge responsibility on managers and staff to keep the virus out. Does the Minister anticipate that care workers will be required to self-isolate with residents in the event of a quarantine or lockdown? I think it is obvious: if the pandemic takes hold in a care home, that care home could account for all the acute beds in that area, so it is a very serious problem indeed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, covered the waterfront on mental health issues. On the powers to detain and treat patients who need urgent treatment under the Mental Health Act, to be exercised using one doctor’s opinion rather than two if that proves impractical or would result in unhelpful delay, can the Minister just clarify for us what the thresholds are for impracticality and unhelpful delay? I think that was the only question the noble Baroness did not ask on this.
On deprivation of liberty, I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said. Also, pressure on care homes is already significant. The legislation—which the Minister was not involved in getting through the House, but many of us here were—is being carried through now, so this really increases the pressure on care home managers.
One of the side-effects of the Government’s Bill will possibly be to reduce access to terminations. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that this is a problem. The Minister and the Government really need to address that.
On supporting the public over domestic violence and abuse, the evidence suggests that domestic violence may increase during this time and that children are particularly vulnerable. What are the Government doing to recognise this? Are they improving funding to this sector? Are they considering the most vulnerable, including ensuring immediate funding as well as replacement income for refuges that have already had to close?
Turning to renters, it is clear that nobody should have to lose their home because of the virus and its impact. The Government have acknowledged that with their action on mortgage holidays, yet have failed to protect those in the rented sector. Despite suggestions otherwise, we believe that the Bill fails to legislate for a ban on evictions. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the Government intend to amend the Bill to this effect or to introduce further primary legislation. There seems to be an overwhelming case here. Some 20 million people in England rent, 6 million of whom have no savings whatever, so they are particularly vulnerable if they lose their job or have their hours cut as a result of this virus. Last week, Shelter estimated that 50,000 households could face eviction through the courts in the next six months, thereby creating yet another crisis. We therefore remain extremely concerned that a three-month pause on evictions will defer this crisis only to the end of that period because landlords will then demand the total arrears of three months’ rent from many tenants who may not have been able to work at all and certainly will not be able to pay.
I turn now to the homeless. The Government need to address the specific question of people who have no recourse to public funds. As noble Lords will know, people experiencing homelessness, particularly those who are rough sleeping, are especially vulnerable in this outbreak. They are three times more likely to experience chronic health conditions, including asthma and COPD, and many are unable to access healthcare or housing because they have no recourse to public funding and benefit restrictions. These people include those on appeals whose rights are exhausted, EU and EEA migrants, people with existing visas, those whose status is not regularised, domestic workers and other migrant workers, as well as the victims of trafficking and torture, so it is critical that this is resolved. It is in everyone’s interests that it should be resolved—if we have people on our streets who are either infected or infectious, that will put yet more strain on the NHS.
On income support, we need income protection for those in precarious forms of employment. Apart from anything else, it would stop them packing Tube trains. One reason the Tube is packed is that many people in very low-paid jobs have to get to work. Like other noble Lords, we remain concerned that the Bill fails to give many people the financial support they need to get through this crisis. They should not be expected to make the choice between their health and hardship. Several noble Lords have talked about the self-employed and they are absolutely right to do so. The Government need to look at the position of the self-employed in a generous way. The Government should also act now to assist millions of people through the universal credit scheme by increasing it, suspending sanctions and scrapping the five-week wait for the first payment. We await to hear what the Chancellor will announce on this as a matter of urgency.
The issue of food is important. Stockpiling is clearly taking place and it is happening because people are not reassured that there is enough food to go around. The most vulnerable are losing out, so the Government have to take this very seriously. We understand that military personnel might be brought in to help with food chain logistics. Can the noble Lord explain what their role would be? Additionally on our food supply, by this summer we will need some 80,000 seasonal workers to pick fruit and vegetables, so we will have to train a reliable workforce for that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, covered the issues affecting the lives of disabled people. The Government’s plans in the Bill for this crisis will roll back 30 years of progress for disabled people. While we may tolerate this for a short period, we cannot tolerate it for very long. All the years that we fought for disabled people’s right to social care are being eroded and undermined, along with their civil liberties and right to support. We need to put the noble Lord on notice that, particularly in this House, we will tolerate this for as short a period as possible.
I want to say a word about food banks, which are suffering from, or are in danger of suffering from, shortages. Here I pay tribute to some of our major retailers, the Co-op in particular, for ensuring that deliveries to FareShare schemes are going through. Today I saw a message from the manager of a Boots shop, complimenting the staff on dealing with a totally unacceptable level of abuse. Apparently, it happens particularly when they run out of Calpol. Such scenes are being repeated over and again in our shops and supermarkets, so I pay tribute to all their staff and managers, who are doing very hard jobs, along with other shopkeepers and indeed our farmers.
In conclusion, as my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said in his opening speech from these Benches, we lend our support to the Government to put this legislation on to the statute book without delay, but not without comment or scrutiny. This is just the beginning of the challenges of the crisis facing our nation and our democracy.
Lord Bethell
My Lords, I thank noble Lords enormously for their powerful contributions in this Second Reading debate on this important Bill. It is an incredibly technical Bill; it is nearly 400 pages long. It was drafted on the hoof, at pace and in quick time. Noble Lords have stored up an enormous number of extremely thoughtful and, at times, extremely technical questions; there have been literally hundreds of them in today’s proceedings. I will try my hardest to answer as many of them as I can and I will write to noble Lords where I can, but I emphasise to the Chamber that, given that we will go into recess shortly, my phone remains on for any noble Lords with questions about either the Bill or the ongoing Covid-19 arrangements. I very much want to stay in touch with noble Lords who have questions.
Despite isolation and social distancing, we embraced technological innovation and embarked on a large amount of engagement for the Bill. I thank very much all the parties who engaged on the Bill—the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who is not here, and their various parties and conventions—all of whom engaged in an extremely positive, constructive and important way. The tone adopted was a great example of Parliament coming together. I am very grateful and hope that that will continue during the Bill’s passage.
A number of noble Lords bore testimony to the hard work of NHS staff and those who work in social care. I want to take a moment to say thanks to those who work at Public Health England, without whom we would not be in the good shape that we are in, and who continue to provide incredibly important scientific and supporting work for our healthcare system. I also want to take a moment to say a word of gratitude to every single member of the staff of the House who is here despite the circumstances, as well as to the Bill team, which has literally moved mountains to pull together an incredibly complicated and long Bill in such a short time and done so with great humour and tolerance; huge thanks to them.
I want to use this speech, first, to update the House on a Statement made in another place by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care earlier today. Ultimately, our goal is clear: we must slow the rate of transmission to protect the NHS. Our instructions are simple: stay at home. People should leave home for one of only four reasons: first, to shop for basic necessities, for example food and medicine, which must be as infrequent as possible; secondly, to exercise once a day, for example a run, walk or cycle alone or with members of the same household; thirdly, for any medical need or to provide care or to help a vulnerable person; fourthly, to travel to and from work but only when it cannot be done from home. Employers should take every possible step to ensure that remote working can happen. These four reasons are exceptions to the rule.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, asked about the powers to enforce the PM’s instructions regarding essential travel and gatherings. For England and Wales, they will be introduced by regulations under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. The Coronavirus Bill will give Scotland and Northern Ireland similar regulation-making powers. As the Prime Minister indicated yesterday, these measures are intended to protect the NHS and our social care service, and to save lives. We have taken the right steps at the right time but the spread of coronavirus across the UK is accelerating more rapidly than was originally forecast. Therefore, it is right that this Bill gives all four UK Governments maximum legislative flexibility to reflect the unpredictable circumstances that we will face.
I was pleased to see widespread support in the Chamber from noble Lords for these measures; the measures will, first, increase the health and social care workface; secondly, they will ease the burden on front-line staff; thirdly, they will contain and slow the spread of coronavirus; fourthly, they will allow us to manage the deceased with respect and dignity; and, finally, they will support people in getting through the crisis. However, I assure all Members of this House that none of these powers is taken lightly. The powers that we take in this Bill are not powers that the Government planned to take, but they are absolutely necessary.
A number of noble Lords spoke about the “on and off” aspect of the powers. I want to reassure the Chamber that the Government will activate them only on the basis of scientific advice. Guided by the experts, we will look at the evidence and continually review the effect of these measures.
Many noble Lords pressed me on whether the necessary powers were in place to curtail the provisions in the Bill. To reiterate, such a power is already in the Bill. Most of the powers in the Bill can be suspended and revived by the Government as the science dictates. On top of this, we amended the Bill last night in the other place to allow us to terminate provisions at the six, 12 and 18-month points.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that the Bill achieves the right balance between the necessary powers alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the proportionality referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my noble friend Lord Robathan. I am grateful for the endorsement from my extremely learned friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who notes that the Bill is proportionate in the unparalleled circumstances that we face.
I thank those noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Oates, who raised the issue of the deprivation of liberty safeguards. We recognise that we have to strike a careful balance between the need to protect some of the most vulnerable in our society with preventing the spread of the virus. Therefore, we have decided not to alter deprivation of liberty safeguards in primary legislation. However, we think that we can achieve significant improvement to the process through emergency guidance. That will include making clearer when a deprivation of liberty safeguards authorisation is necessary, and the basis on which an assessment can be made, including, for example, phone or video calling for assessment. We are especially grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and other experts, who have worked with us on this. On that note, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who has given sage advice on a number of highly technical and detailed aspects of the arrangements for lord commissioners. I cannot answer those points from the Dispatch Box right now, but I shall certainly take them home and reply to him in time.
This brings me to the Government’s ongoing work to keep the country running. My noble friends Lord Robathan and Lord Naseby spoke movingly about this, as did the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Bennett. They have all raised important points about how we will need to fortify our economy and ensure that it bounces back. As I explained in opening, there is a direct connection between the effectiveness of our healthcare measures and our ability to ensure that people can pay their bills and are not driven back to work. The Chancellor has outlined an unprecedented package of measures to protect millions of people’s jobs and incomes as part of the national effort in response to coronavirus. This Government’s response includes strengthening the safety net for the self-employed, who will benefit from a relaxation of the earnings rules under universal credit and deferring income tax self-assessment payments due in July 2020. We have always said that we will go further where we can, and we are actively considering further steps.
The noble Lords, Lord Adonis, Lord Low, Lord Watson and Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, among others, raised the impact of the pandemic on schools and students. As a father of four children who are being home-schooled at the moment, I feel those questions personally. This Government have confirmed that exams will not go ahead this summer and that we will not publish performance tables. These decisions were not taken lightly. There will instead be a standardised grades process set by the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation which will take into account a range of evidence including, for example, non-exam assessments and mock results. Ofqual is working urgently with the exam boards to set out proposals for how this process will work. I assure noble Lords that they will talk to teachers’ representatives before finalising an approach to ensure that it is as fair to students as possible. Furthermore, the Government will issue a statement shortly on what we will do more broadly to ensure that the teaching workforce is maintained.
I turn next to social care and support for the disabled and carers, which was rightly highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Low, the noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone and Lady Grey-Thompson, who spoke incredibly movingly on her own behalf and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins. A number of noble Lords expressed serious concerns about the state of the adult social care market to deal with these profound pressures. I assure noble Lords that these concerns are felt very meaningfully at the Department of Health. My colleague Helen Whately is a tireless champion and an effective administrator, who is bringing both money and expertise to bear on this subject.
I completely accept and take on board the testimonies we heard in the Chamber today. The challenge to social care is profound, and many of the anecdotes told and circumstances alluded to in this House are of paramount concern. The challenges we face are enormous. We know that local authorities and providers will do everything they can to continue to meet all needs. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, spoke movingly and persuasively about that challenge. But we cannot rule out the possibility that, in the coming period, they will need to take difficult decisions and may need to be able to focus their resources on prioritising accordingly to meet the most urgent needs. The inclusion of the Human Rights Act in these provisions is intended to underscore that, where local authorities need to prioritise care during the coming period, there is an absolute and unavoidable obligation on them to meet everyone’s human rights as an absolute minimum. We are developing guidance on how councils can use these powers in the best possible way. The Secretary of State will have powers to direct councils to comply with this.
We also intend to make changes to the current rules regarding entitlement to carer’s allowance for those who have had to take a break in care, so that they can continue to receive carer’s allowance. During the period of Covid-19, emotional support can also count towards the carer’s allowance care threshold of 35 hours a week.
On protecting the most vulnerable, I want to update the House on shielding, which was introduced yesterday. We are writing to up to 1.5 million of the most vulnerable people in the UK to advise them that they will need to shield themselves from the virus in the coming months. We will provide targeted support for all those who will need it, so that they have the food, supplies and medical care to make it through.
I will say a few words about housing, which was touched on by a number of noble Lords. What we are setting out in this Bill delivers on our commitment to protect tenants during the crisis. These measures will mean that landlords cannot start possession proceedings in court for an initial period of three months, providing tenants with a clearly defined breathing space in which they will not have to leave their home because of a new eviction procedure. This is a proportionate response that mirrors the three-month mortgage relief we are giving to landlords with mortgages. We also have the power to extend both the three-month notice period and the date these powers will end, and we are clear that we will use these powers if necessary. This legislation is one part of our package of support; it should not be seen in isolation. We have sought to ensure that tenants will still have income coming in so that they can continue to pay their rent, and additional legal protections for tenants are being introduced.
However, let us not forget that the cold-weather period is a particularly tough time for those sleeping rough, as was quite rightly highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. Given the grave situation, they quite rightly asked about the steps that the Government are taking to protect and support those who are most vulnerable and living on the streets. Some £1.6 billion of additional funding will go to local authorities to enable them to respond to Covid-19 pressures across all the services they deliver, including stepping up support for the adult social care workforce and for services helping the most vulnerable, including homeless people.
There is much more that can and will be done. Our work is continuing, our funding is increasing and our determination is unfaltering. I welcome the opportunity to meet Social Enterprise UK, an organisation that I am familiar with, and I will ask my personal office to arrange that.
Many noble Lords have asked about the justice system, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lords, Lord Hastings, Lord Ramsbotham, Lord Blunkett and Lord Scriven, and rightly so; given the way that people are treated in the justice system, this experience may have a profound effect on helping them to recover. In response to why there is no mention of prisons and probation in the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, asks, the Secretary of State has advised that powers exist that are considered sufficient for the needs in prisons and for the probation service at this time. Any decision on the release of prisoners would need to be made by the Lord Chancellor in agreement with the Prime Minister and would need to balance public protection considerations. Any decision to release individuals would also need to take into consideration the shared pressures faced by probation services.
Regarding the extremely delicate and important question of pregnant women, governors have been provided with guidance issued by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives on supporting pregnant women, and we will continue to provide updates on this. In addition to this, the prison group director for the women’s estate has issued advice on measures that can be used to enable implementation.
I turn to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who has made some important and pertinent points about abortion. We completely recognise that continued access to safe abortion services has to be a priority, and in early meetings she bore testimony to the challenge and stresses for women in that situation. That will mean that doctors have to work flexibly to ensure that certification can still take place in a timely way, and not to delay women in any way from receiving treatment. There is no statutory requirement for either doctor to have seen and examined the patient. Assessment can take place via telemedicine or webcam or over the phone; DHSC guidance is clear on this point. We are also clear that the doctors can also rely on information gathered by other members of the multidisciplinary team in reaching their good-faith opinion. For these reasons, we do not consider that changes to certification treatment for abortions should form part of the Bill.
I am sincerely grateful for the important contributions made by my noble friend Lord Sheikh and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who asked what steps we have taken to ensure that there are no forced cremations for religious followers. This is a very delicate issue, and stakeholder engagement has been moving and persuasive. I reassure noble Lords that we are engaging with faith communities to make sure that contingency measures are designed with due consideration for different practices around managing the deceased.
Lord Sheikh
Is my noble friend able to give me the guarantees that the community is looking for with regard to burial and cremation? They are looking for assurances and guarantees.
Lord Bethell
My noble friend Lord Sheikh spoke very movingly. The amendment agreed to in the Commons is, I believe, an extremely important step in the right direction. A huge amount of discretion is given to local councils to make arrangements with the communities that they know best. This is a set of decision-making that is best made at a local level, and for that reason I would prefer to leave it in the hands of the amendment and in the hands of the local councils. However, I want to be clear that faith communities will be involved in the drawing up of statutory guidance that will be issued before any direction affecting burial or cremation is issued. It is of the utmost importance during this difficult time that we continue to respect people of faith and their beliefs.
People across the United Kingdom have already responded heroically to this threat, as we knew they would, and it is clear from the quality of discussion that this House will do the same. I am frustrated that there are several noble Lords whose questions I have not been able to tackle; my noble friend Lord Balfe and the noble Lords, Lord Bates and Lord Watson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, are on my mind, and there are others who may also wish to stay in touch.
I want to be clear that the Bill is a necessary weapon in the fight against coronavirus. The Bill is a vital tool in our efforts to protect lives and, as this debate has shown, it commands broad support.
Contingencies Fund Bill
Tuesday 24th March 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Contingencies Fund Act 2020 View all Contingencies Fund Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [HL]
Tuesday 24th March 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 View all Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 2-R-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Report - (16 Mar 2020)