Covid-19 Economic Support Package

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, and for having given me notice of her intention to raise this matter. I trust that the hon. Lady has informed the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras.

[Sara Britcliffe]

indicated assent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I see that she is nodding, so she has informed him. It is very important for good order in the Chamber that if a specific criticism is being made, the Member being criticised should be informed. That is perfectly in order.

The hon. Lady asks me how she might draw attention to—excuse me, please stay back there. I am addressing the hon. Lady; you have to sit down. [Interruption.] Yes, no matter what is going on in here, it is important that we keep social distance, and are seen to keep social distance, at all times.

The hon. Lady will be well aware that the Chair is not responsible for remarks made and points brought forward by right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber, nor is it for me to adjudicate as to whether what has been said is or is not accurate—which is fortunate, because that would be a full-time job. However, the hon. Lady has asked me how she might draw attention to the point that she has made, and I would say to her that she has already done so.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the spirit of making corrections, this morning during Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister suggested that 93% of the current income of people in pubs and the hospitality industry would be ring-fenced or supported, which is actually untrue and is very confusing for my constituents. I did not have the honour of informing him, but given that Twitter is awash with it, I am sure that he is well aware of this.

[Dame Eleanor Laing]

First, I must say to the hon. Lady that she heard my answer to the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe). This is a matter for debate, not a point of order for the Chair. I have to say to the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) that as she was criticising a Member—whoever that Member might be—she ought to have informed the hon. Member that she was intending to do so. Once again, it is a point of debate and it is not for me to adjudicate on the accuracy of statistics, but she has drawn her important point to the attention of the House and, indeed, to those on the Treasury Bench.

[Chris Bryant]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hear what you say, but my understanding was that you did not have to notify Ministers. Ministers are, as it were, fair game, because they are accountable to the whole House. That has never been the rule that has operated previously and, of course, there is a specific reason for that, because Ministers have an opportunity to correct the record. The Prime Minister, if he wanted to, could correct the record, but as you say, he might spend all day every day correcting the record.

[Dame Eleanor Laing]

And I might spend all day every day adjudicating between one side of the House and the other, and that is not what I am here for, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the point that he has made. I am very anxious not to eat into the time on the important motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, which we are about to debate.

Support for Self-employed and Freelance Workers

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I can see that several people are hoping to speak. We are running out of time, so I am afraid that I am going to take the time limit down to three minutes. I am sorry that that gives a little shock to the hon. Member for Stirling, but I know he can deal with it very well.

Protection of Jobs and Businesses

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

It absolutely is not fair. The scheme is being abused by businesses, and that should not be allowed to happen. I commend to the Government my hon. Friend’s Bill on fire and rehire. If they wanted to do anything at all to help, they would take on the recommendations in his Bill, because they would make a huge difference to people. People should not be expected to do the same job on vastly reduced terms and conditions, under pain of losing their job altogether. It is exploitation pure and simple, and the Government should not accept it.

The Chief Secretary talked about new opportunities for those in industries that could not continue, but that fails to recognise the reality that there might not be enough jobs for those who are laid off to go into, and that what jobs there are might not be at the same wage level as the jobs they are in now. The cost will be met by the UK Government in one way or another—in employment benefits if not in extending furlough.

The end of furlough coincides with the end of the period for which people have been granted bill payment holidays. The Standard Life Foundation report, “Emerging from lockdown”, highlights that

“of the 3.7 million households across the UK granted a bill ‘payment holiday’, over 6 in 10 are already facing financial difficulties and will struggle to repay their debts when these arrangements end. For many, these payment holidays will cease on 31 October 2020—the same date the government’s job retention schemes end, leaving many facing job losses and crippling financial strain.”

The effect could be devastating: people laid off because their employers cannot afford to keep them on, with debt mounting, and all this among people who are already finding life difficult. The drop in income if people move on to universal credit—if, indeed, they are eligible, which many people are not—will push many families over the brink. I fear that the UK Government are not looking at the bigger picture in the choices they are making.

The kickstart scheme is not available easily to small employers, which could have a disproportionate impact on the rural economy in places where there are not enough employers to club together to make up the minimum 30 employees. To return to a theme I have spoken about before, there is a risk of young workers being exploited and not being paid a living wage. Nobody in this House would want to live on the wages that young people are expected to work for in this country. I ask the Chief Secretary to reconsider and to pay a real living wage to the young people on the scheme. They deserve nothing less.

I also raise caution about relating the scheme to universal credit, because many people are not able to access universal credit, as I have said. If the scheme runs only through universal credit, many young people who might otherwise have benefited from the scheme, such as it is, will not be eligible.

Where the Scottish Government have the power, they have acted. The Scottish Government have spent £4 billion on covid, with over £2.3 billion for businesses. That is above the Barnett consequentials allocated to us. The Scottish Government published their response to the recommendations of the Advisory Group on Economic Recovery on 5 August. They are acting to protect jobs by developing and delivering sector-led recovery plans, working with industry leadership groups, trade unions and others, starting with the construction sector, which is coming back from its furlough period. They are supporting jobs through the covid-19 transition training fund. Through the programme for government, they are supporting a national mission to create new jobs, good jobs and green jobs, which includes investing £60 million to support up to 20,000 young people into jobs. There is the £100-million green jobs fund, investment in decarbonisation and the Unlocking Ambition programme. They are also using the national performance framework to promote equality and to respect, protect and fulfil human rights.

The Scottish Government have made an extra £330 million of funding available this financial year specifically to support Scotland’s economic recovery. That includes £230 million of economic recovery stimulus to invest in capital projects and a £100 million package of funding focused on protecting jobs and supporting those who have been made redundant or whose jobs are at risk.

I would dearly love the Scottish Government to do more, given the scale of the crisis, but their hands are tied. The Fraser of Allander Institute is clear that

“the Scottish Government can borrow up to £450m per annum for capital investment (a cap of £3bn). On resource spending, they can borrow up to £600m per annum (a cap of £1.75bn), but only for ‘forecast error’ and ‘cash management’. They cannot borrow to fund discretionary resource spending.”

That is the crucial point. We urgently need more financial powers in Scotland. If the UK Government will not act on the things we have asked them to act on, they should not stand in Scotland’s way when we have a desire to support our people and businesses. Powers must be devolved to let the Scottish Government get on with the job.

All of this stands in the context of the looming threat of a no-deal, chaotic and damaging Brexit, with the UK Government gleefully breaking international agreements they themselves signed up to and the outrageous proposals today in clause 46 of the Tories’ United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. The UK Government’s power grab over economic development and infrastructure plans cannot be allowed to stand. The Tories speak of a power surge, but the last time I checked, a power surge was a dangerous thing that usually lasts only a few seconds, but that results in serious damage to valuable appliances. For once, the Tories might be telling the truth when they say that that is what is coming to Scotland under their plans.

Westminster and the Tories cannot be trusted with our economy. What we see today is not “whatever it takes”. Winding up the furlough scheme and allowing so many people to fall through the support net will cause lasting harm to so many people with businesses and to the wider economy. We must have the full powers of a normal independent country to meet the needs of our economy and, most importantly, of the people of Scotland.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

It will be obvious to anyone who has looked at today’s call list that 90 Back Benchers are hoping to participate. I have to intimate that it is unlikely everybody will be called; indeed, it is impossible. I will leave it up to individual Members to do their own arithmetic, but I am afraid that I will have to impose an immediate time limit on Back-Bench speeches of three minutes. I call Caroline Nokes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne]

I will carry on.

We are at a time when we must look to the future, not try to preserve the past. The great Andrew Bailey, the new Governor of the Bank of England, said recently in an interview that the Chancellor is

“right to say we have to look forward now. I don’t think we should be locking the economy down in a state that it pre-existed in.”

The shape of the economy will change, as we have heard today. It will not be in the same shape in a few years as it is now. The companies and people working in the aviation sector face a very difficult time over the next few years. E-commerce, on the other hand, is thriving. We have seen airlines cutting jobs, but we have seen Amazon recruiting. Inner-city sandwich shops have been hit really hard and will be for some time as people carry on working from home. Supermarkets are thriving. Pret a Manger has cut 1,600 jobs, but Tesco has just announced that it is recruiting for 14,000 jobs.

The focus of Government should not be on “prolonging the inevitable”, as the chief economist of the Bank of England said. The focus of Government should be on helping with the transition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) said, by helping the people who are losing their jobs into the new jobs that are being created. We must ensure that short-term unemployment does not move into long-term unemployment and that when people come out of work, they have relevant skills, motivation and contacts in industry. As soon as people become long-term unemployed—after six months or one year—they lose motivation and contacts, and the likelihood that their unemployment will carry on for much longer increases. That is why the Government are right to focus on their plan for jobs, through measures such as the kick- start scheme, support for apprenticeships, increased training and advice from Jobcentre Plus. That is the right approach.

Finally, many Members have been praising the international comparisons. We heard earlier the list of countries that have already announced the ending of their furlough schemes. I like statistics, and I have been looking at the Eurostat website, which is very good but could be a bit more user-friendly. The UK’s employment figures from Q2 to Q1—the key employment figures—dropped by 0.7%. That is after a very long period, and every job lost is bad news. However, Germany’s employment figures in Q2 to Q1 this year dropped by 1.4%, twice as much as the UK. In Ireland, the employment rate dropped by 6.1%, nine times faster than in the UK. In France—there seems to be a liking for France on the Labour Benches—there was a 2.6% drop in employment from Q2 to Q1, four times the rate here. We do not have that much to learn from the French employment market ,and I really do not think we should start doing so now.

Finally—[Interruption]—I want to say that Treasury Ministers have made the right decisions at the right time and I am confident they will in the future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. There is no “finally”. “Finally” has to come before the end of three minutes—I am sorry.

Covid-19: Future UK-EU Relationship

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

There are many things that I could talk about, but one of the first meetings I held was to put together our negotiating position: we listened carefully to all the devolved Administrations on some of their concerns, particularly on programmes, and we changed our negotiating mandate accordingly. We do listen, and I have taken great pains. I gently point out—I am not going to repeat the vast number of meetings I have had, as I have done that frequently at the Dispatch Box—that as someone who has, in quite difficult circumstances, made sure that I could attend every single meeting that I had planned with the devolved Administrations and the Scottish Government, as I am happy to do, I was stood up by the Scottish Minister. I have shown up for every meeting—the Scottish Minister has not shown up for every meeting.

To conclude, I call on the SNP to adapt—to find common ground—for the sake of all our citizens and businesses, because that is what leadership looks like, and it is what Scotland deserves.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before I call the spokesman for the official Opposition, many people in the Chamber are making the serious mistake of calling other people “you”—even the Minister, whom I have never heard make such a mistake before today. I am anxious that people who are new to the House and have not really seen the Chamber operating properly should not be led astray by those who should know better. Throughout Prime Minister’s questions today, people called the Prime Minister “you”. In the Chamber, “you” means the Chair. One addresses other Members as “the hon. Gentleman”, “the hon. Lady” or something else, but not “you”. [Interruption.] Quite. I call Paul Blomfield.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely it cannot be allowed to stand that the hon. Gentleman effectively accuses SNP Members of stoking racism. The SNP condemns unreservedly any kind of anti-Englishness or any kind of racism directed at people from south of the border.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Gentleman knows—[Interruption.] Please do not talk so loudly while I am talking. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) can heckle other people, but he cannot heckle me. Well, he can try. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) knows that his point of order is not a point for the Chair, but a point of debate. The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) will give way when he is ready to give way, and I look forward to hearing the retort from the hon. Member for Glasgow North.

[John Lamont]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am going to take an intervention—don’t you worry—but I want to conclude this important point about the completely unacceptable behaviour towards our neighbours, friends and family members trying to cross the border between Scotland and England, coming into my constituency to work, to see family members and to visit friends. Nationalist protesters with “Yes” banners were shouting abuse at them. That is totally unacceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross]

I have been speaking for 25 minutes—the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber spoke for 35 minutes.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. That is a criticism of me, not of the right hon. Gentleman. It is obvious to me that some speeches—actually, all speeches bar one—have been long this afternoon. However, I have been counting the number of interventions, and this is a real debate, so I do not see any need to curtail it while it is flowing with equal force on both sides.

[Douglas Ross]

I am very glad, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my other role, I tend to ignore the heckling I get from the sidelines and focus only on the referee. I am glad to get that guidance from you.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hunt]

Thank you very much for giving way. You said at the start of your speech that this was not about stopping Brexit; it was just about extending the transition period. So why now are you making the case for why we should not leave, and don’t you think it is uncanny how everybody who is arguing—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I would be very grateful if the hon. Gentleman would rephrase his intervention, referring not to “you”, which would mean me in the Chair, but to the hon. Gentleman.

[Tom Hunt]

Following on from what I said, does the hon. Gentleman find it uncanny that everybody who seems to be arguing for an extension are those people who were previously on the barricades trying to block Brexit completely, full stop?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. As I said in reply to the point of order from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), I have let the debate run and put no restriction on time because it has been a very robust debate and I think it has benefited from everyone being able to take a lot of interventions rather than being constrained by a time limit. I hope not to have to introduce a time limit, because we have plenty of time for this extremely important debate, but I would appreciate it now if hon. Members would please hold the floor for around eight minutes. Eight minutes is quite a long time. That time will be reduced later in the debate, but if everybody takes around eight minutes for the time being, everyone who has indicated that they would like to speak will have an opportunity to do so, and that would be fair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. After the next speaker we will have to have a time limit of five minutes, but that does not apply to Wendy Chamberlain.

The Economy

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to this afternoon’s debate. I pay tribute to the measures that the Chancellor announced. My right hon. Friend has worked incredibly hard to ensure that we get the economy moving again. I do not see an economy that is stalling; I see some real efforts to put drive behind it and make sure that we can come out of the pandemic in good shape.

However, we do need to build the economy for women as well as men; for young, as well as old; for those from all parts of the United Kingdom, all ethnicities and all religions. Surely part of levelling up means that we must make it better for absolutely everyone. If covid has taught us one thing, let it be that when we pull together, we can get real action and the strength of community that all of us have seen in our constituencies.

I absolutely welcome the news on apprenticeships, which are such a key part of making sure that young people get into their first job and develop a trade, and are able to progress in their lives. I absolutely endorse the measures that the Chancellor has announced. But this has to be about reaching across the age range and across the gender divide, so we need more to help those women who might come out of this pandemic in worse shape than they went into it. We need to help them retrain, upskill and find new parts of the economy that they can work in. I pay tribute to the Government’s record. We went into the pandemic with female employment at a record higher—higher than it had ever been in my lifetime—but we must not see that go backwards. We already know from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that woman were more likely to be furloughed during covid and are more likely to be in parts of the economy that remain shut down.

It would be remiss of me, after a week of discussing this subject, if I did not draw the Minister’s attention to the beauty industry, a sector that remain shut down. It employs 370,000 people, the vast majority of whom are women. They have asked me to point out, time and again, that they are the entrepreneurs. They are the women who have learnt a trade, built their own businesses and gone on to employ others. They have taken risk by renting premises, and in some instances they are still having to pay rent while those premises remain shut down. I do not speak just for beauticians; I speak for those practising complementary therapies, and for yoga instructors, dance instructors and those working in sectors that help our wellbeing, ones that we may well want to turn to when lockdown is finally relaxed in its entirety. I was cheered by the comments of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister earlier today when he gave some indication that we might expect an announcement—we hope, fingers crossed—later this week. It is high time that these people were given something to work for—an opportunity to start building their client list back up and an opportunity to make appointments. If not, I respectfully ask the Minister that he make some representation asking for additional fiscal support for them, because they are really struggling and want some hope.

In the 45 seconds I have left, I wish to echo the comments of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on childcare. I lobbied Treasury Ministers before this statement to say that we needed help for that sector. I appreciate that the sector has had support from the 33 hours offer, but the sector goes into the relaxation of lockdown having to make social distancing changes in premises and possibly having to reduce the number of spaces that can be provided. That means women may well not be able to go back to work if they cannot find the childcare they need. With schools not open until September, this industry is close to crisis. I just leave that thought with the Economic Secretary.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

After the next speaker, I will reduce the time limit to three minutes, but Emma Hardy has four minutes.

Finance Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 18, page 53, line 28, leave out “before the end of 2025” and insert—

“within a year of Royal Assent and annually thereafter”

This amendment would require the Government to report on the DST annually.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 19, page 53, line 29, at end insert—

“(2) Any review made under (1) must include an assessment of the effect of the DST on tax revenues.”

This amendment would require any report on the DST to include an assessment of the effect of the DST on tax revenues.

New clause 5—Digital Services Tax: review of effect on tax revenues—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must make an assessment of the net effect on tax revenues of the introduction of the Digital Services Tax and lay a report of that assessment before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

2) This review must also include an assessment of the revenue effect of the Digital Services Tax on tax payable by the owners and employees of Scottish Limited Partnerships.”

This new clause would require a Government assessment of the effect on tax revenues of the DST, and in particular the change in revenues associated with Scottish Limited Partnerships.

New clause 33—Requirement on groups to publish a group tax strategy including a country-by-country report—

“(1) A group which is not required to publish a tax strategy in compliance with Schedule 19 of the Finance Act 2016 shall be deemed to be so required.

(2) Any tax strategy published by a group in compliance with that Schedule must include any relevant country-by-country report.

(3) “Country-by-country report” has the meaning given by the Taxes (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) (Country-by-Country Reporting) Regulations 2016.

(4) A country-by-country report is relevant if it—

(a) was filed or required to be filed by the group in compliance with those Regulations on or before the date of publication of the tax strategy, or would have been so required if the head of the group were resident in the United Kingdom for tax purposes, and

(b) has not already been included in a tax strategy published by the group.”

(5) The Treasury must make regulations to bring this section into operation no later than 1 April 2021.

This new clause would require all groups subject to the DST to publish a group tax strategy, including a country-by-country report. Such a report would include information about the group’s global activities, profits and taxes.

I should draw the attention of the House to the fact that a corrected text of new clause 33 has been published this morning. The version that was initially published inadvertently omitted the concluding subsection.

Covid-19

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Monday 11th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Covid-19.

We gather here today in the midst of a very great darkness that has descended upon our nation, and not just our nation—all nations. It has been by far the biggest challenge we have faced in a generation. We knew it was coming, but not when and not what its clinical characteristics would be. We trained to face it. How we have all responded to it has been a defining moment for us as individuals and as a nation. We have all been involved. We had no choice about dealing with it, but we had a choice about how we did so.

In the past few weeks, the darkness that has engulfed us all has been emotional, economic and extensive, but it has been illuminated by a million points of light: the response from the British people has been immense. People in all our communities have performed selfless, heroic acts—stoic, disciplined, kind—from now Colonel Tom to our health and care workers, our scientific and tech community, businesses, those who came out of retirement, critical workers, volunteers and the public who through their resolve have reduced the rate of infection and sent this virus into decline.

People have faced this crisis with personal courage and often good cheer, and I pay tribute to their resilience with pride. This virus called forth the question of who we are, and that question was answered—for families, for parents, for children, for communities, for the nation. It illuminated our values and our strengths: we chose to prioritise lives; we chose to support businesses and jobs; so many stepped up and volunteered; we pull together in times of crisis; we have seen the validation of a devolved but national health service that is free at the point of use and not linked to employment—our NHS. It has shown what we believe in and how much we value the actions of so many who are taking on a greater share of the risk to protect us all and defeat the virus, including, I am very proud to say, some Members of this House of Commons working in health or as first responders. When united in a national effort, the British people are a powerful force.

The virus has also shown a fragility: the structural and funding complexity of social care; the invisibility of some of those in care settings and mental health, of those with learning or behavioural disabilities, as well as older people; the lack of resilience in supplies of equipment when faced with a crisis of global proportions; the obstacles to providing support to some of our most entrepreneurial people; and the challenges of getting the world working together when nations are also focused at home.

This debate offers us parliamentarians the opportunity not just to scrutinise what has happened and the next steps in our response, but to discuss how we can continue to improve our resilience and adapt to what will be fundamental changes in the way we live our lives. This is, without doubt, an inflection point for our country and for the world, and we all need to rise to those challenges. We all have a role to play in finding solutions and answers.

This debate affords us the opportunity to remember and mourn all those who have lost their lives to this disease, and to think of those who are grieving without comfort—in some cases, without having said goodbye. The reported death toll stands at 31,855 souls. Our thoughts, too, must be with those who have survived covid but whose health has been impaired as a consequence, and to acknowledge those who have had to put their treatment and therapy for other conditions on hold because the NHS would not have been able to cope unless they did so. The full cost of that sacrifice has yet to be counted.

In particular, it is right that we acknowledge all those working in health and care who have succumbed to the disease. In full knowledge of the risks, they chose to work on the frontline to save lives, give comfort to others and provide care to those in their charge. The metaphor of this pandemic as a war against coronavirus has been used, and the courage and duty demonstrated by all those working with those who are infected is the same as going into battle. Many will have seen their friends fall ill. Some will have seen their colleagues die. And they will have headed back into the danger zone, day after day. I know that there will be disagreements during the course of this debate, but I also know that every Member of this House will want to express their gratitude and humility in the face of such service, and all will agree that, despite the difficulties, we must ensure that all frontline workers in this crisis have the equipment that they need to keep them safe. We are all aware of the challenges and of the efforts being made, but that is irrelevant. We must, and we will, do what is necessary.

I also want to thank the volunteers who have stood up to help care and health services. This include individuals who are facing the prospect of losing their job, financial hardship or worries about relatives. Instead of devoting themselves to their own needs or those of their families, they have gone into care homes, medical wards and Nightingale hospitals to serve their communities—often having to separate from their own loved ones to do so. Over 3 million additional volunteers stepped up.

We should also thank the critical workers who have carried on so that we could all be fed, protected and provided for: those in the supermarket and the store; the police and fire services; post office workers; public transport workers; cleaners; prison officers; refuse collectors; pharmacists; teachers; nursery workers; public servants, especially those in the resilience forums; and, of course, our armed forces, who have delivered aid to those being shielded, brought testing to communities, and provided planning expertise at every level of this response and in every local resilience forum in the land—all while carrying out their other duties to protect the nation. They have taken risks for all our sakes.

In the past few months we have seen so many people and organisations rally: from the businesses that adapted so swiftly to meet the needs of the nation, expanding services, altering their production lines and generously donating equipment and expertise; to the others who managed to keep their businesses going throughout this ordeal in order that they could provide for our families and support our public services. We must remember that without the wealth they generate, we cannot fund the services that we all rely on.

We have been right to provide an unprecedented level of support to retain jobs and help cash flow, with 25,000 loans, half a million firms furloughing workers, and 600,000 grants. We as a Government and all of us as citizens must do all that we can to get Britain back to work and start the recovery, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set out.

We have seen charities, faced with their fundraising plans in tatters, lead the local response and, of course, the public have followed the requests of the chief medical officer by staying at home. It has been tough, especially for those in cramped housing with no gardens, but they have done it, and thanks to them R is now below 1. In the next phase of the response, we must all continue to demonstrate that resolve.

In all the steps and all the issues that colleagues will raise in this debate, we will be more successful if we tackle them together, across party lines and across the Administrations of the United Kingdom, as we continue to do, with international co-operation, and across all sectors—public, private and the third sector—no longer deterred by dogma, just pulling together and focusing on what needs to be done.

In that spirit, opening this debate affords me an opportunity to thank all Members of this House who joined the Cabinet Office daily calls at the start of the pandemic. They were cross-party and they were constructive. We helped each other to help our constituents, shared our ideas, cut down workloads and supported each other. The information gathered on personal protective equipment, care homes, businesses and operational matters was incredibly helpful to every Department.

We should continue to work together not only to tackle the challenges but to seize the opportunities to tackle problems that were previously almost impossible. For example, since the start of this crisis, 90% of rough sleepers are now in accommodation. They are safe and secure. There will never be a better opportunity to wrap the services that those individuals need around them while we deal with the crisis, so we must.

These are dark times, but they are also illuminating times. We have reminded ourselves, as a country, what we can do when we are united in a mission. Millions of us chose not to curse the dark but to light a candle. The British people have given us a beacon of hope in the days ahead.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I now call Rachel Reeves, who is asked to speak for no more than 10 minutes.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that thoughtful opening speech. We all need the Government to get this right. Labour has been clear: we will always put the national interest first. We will support the Government when they get it right but challenge them to do more when that is needed.

We all know how hard lockdown has been, especially for those who fear for their jobs and their businesses; the elderly; the lonely; and those living with an abusive partner or carer. At the moment, most grandparents want nothing more than to be able to hug their grandchildren. Thousands of people are missing out on the chance to say goodbye or even to hold the hand of the person they love in a care home. The same applies to the ambiguous situation relating to funerals and cremations, which is causing enormous pain and distress to so many families. It is in depriving us of these poignant moments—opportunities to hug, to hold and to say goodbye—that the impact of the virus causes the most distress.

There are so many profound social costs, and it all has to be balanced with the huge challenges and risks faced by people working in health and social care. We all want the Government to get this right, but, frankly, the Government’s response in the past 24 hours has been a shambles. Last Thursday, the Government’s briefings to newspapers led to headlines proclaiming that we could look forward to “Happy Monday” and “Lockdown Freedom”, the day before a sunny bank holiday weekend. When I saw those headlines, I recalled the world war two poster in my history class at secondary school that said, “Careless talk costs lives”. I wonder sometimes whether the Government pause to contemplate the health impacts of some of their briefings and statements.

Last night’s statement by the Prime Minister was a chance to provide some clarity about the situation, but it obscured as much as it revealed. This morning, the Foreign Secretary told “Today” programme listeners that they were free to see both their parents at the same time. Almost immediately afterwards, it was clarified that people may see only one parent at a time. The Foreign Secretary then told Sky News that people should return to work from Wednesday, but the press release issued by Downing Street alongside the Prime Minister’s statement clearly stated that people should be encouraged to return to work from Monday. If senior members of the Cabinet struggle to follow the advice, what are the rest of us meant to do?

A four-nation strategy is essential to ensure a coherent and consistent message. It has served us well so far, so why is England now pursuing a different strategy from Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales? If someone lives in Bristol but works in Cardiff, should they be going to work? What about if someone lives in Berwick but works in Edinburgh?

When it comes to Northern Ireland, the Government must also consider cross-border co-operation. Northern Ireland is unique in that it shares a land border with the Republic, so close co-operation with the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly is vital to ensure a joined-up approach to effectively combating the virus, particularly with regard to contact tracing. The UK has the highest death toll in Europe. That calls for greater care, not greater risks.

The most substantive change in Government advice today is that workers who cannot work from home should return to work. We want workers to earn an income and businesses to thrive, but for that to happen, workers need to know that they and their families will be safe. Businesses want that knowledge and security as well.

Let us be clear that the biggest risk to our economic security and recovery would be decisions that led to a second peak of the virus, so it is deeply worrying that workers were asked last night to return to work today with no guidelines published with regard to safety in the workplace. If someone has been told to return to work, but lives with a partner with a pre-existing condition or an elderly parent, what are they meant to do?

What if someone has a school-age child but is now expected by the Government and their employer to return to work without the childcare to be able to do that? Can people still be furloughed? Is that at their employer’s discretion? If people cannot work through no fault of their own, will they be required to go on to statutory sick pay?

Who will assess whether a workplace is sufficiently safe? Is it up to the individual employee? I refer the Minister to section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which permits an individual employee not to return to work without risk of detriment if they reasonably believe that adequate safety measures are not in place. I hope that employers and Ministers will protect those rights.

Meanwhile, workers are told to avoid public transport if possible, but for millions of people in the UK, it is not possible to get to work any other way but by public transport. We have already seen bus drivers in London lose their lives to covid-19. People need to know that they can go to work without endangering themselves, or indeed others. If we are to balance concern for the economy with concern for public health, the Government should bring unions, business leaders and scientists together to develop a national safety standard. The safety of workers and their families is not, and can never be, an optional extra.

It is vital that the furlough scheme continues to support workers, including enabling people to work part time, particularly if businesses are unable to operate at full capacity. We need to hear more from Ministers about ongoing support until the time is right to operate at full capacity for some of the hardest-hit sectors, such as hospitality and travel. We need to support areas such as our coastal communities, which are so dependent on tourism.

The impact of the virus exposes deep inequalities in our society. The poorest areas of the country have been hardest hit. Lower earners are most exposed while the better-off are insulated from the biggest threats. Of the bottom 50% of earners, just one in 10 can work from home. At the top, it is five times that.

This crisis has shown who the real key workers are, from NHS staff to care workers, supermarket workers, cleaners, delivery drivers and bus drivers. They are often underpaid, under-appreciated and undervalued, and they have been asked to put their lives at risk while keeping others safe. Now, more working people who do manual jobs in manufacturing, food processing and construction are being asked to risk their health, and that of their family, while those doing office jobs, which are often better paid, can work from home and face fewer risks.

Black and minority ethnic Britons are disproportionately at risk. We know that black Britons are four times more likely to die from this virus compared with white people. We need a public inquiry into that, which Baroness Lawrence called for today, and we need urgent action to protect the most vulnerable from this virus. Coronavirus did not cause those inequalities, but it has thrown a sharp light on them. We must not let them deepen even further.

In our care homes the spread of the virus continues and the death toll is still too high. Half of workers in care homes earn less than a real living wage, and a quarter are on zero-hours contracts. Many have died. Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister reported that 29 care workers have died since the start of this crisis, but data from the Office for National Statistics show that there were 131 coronavirus-related deaths among social care workers up to 20 April. According to the National Care Forum, just one in five care workers with symptoms have been tested, and they still lack priority testing for coronavirus. Those who dedicate their lives to caring for others, and who care for the sick and the dying whose relatives cannot be with them, are being left without adequate protection, and we are only beginning to know the real cost.

One reason why the lockdown rules are causing so much worry is that new infections and deaths are still at higher levels than when we went into lockdown. The test and trace strategy is still a mess. MPs from across the House will have constituents who have been waiting for well over 48 hours to get their results, and some who have been waiting for more than a week. We see reports of tests having to be flown to the United States because we lack the capacity here. How did we get into that position? Without a test, trace, and isolate strategy it is almost impossible to identify a new spike in infections, or to do anything about it. The Government need to sort that out. Relaxing lockdown will work only if it is sorted out.

At some point we will come through to the other side of this virus, and we will go about rebuilding our lives, our communities, and our economy. The recovery will not be easy, and it will require boldness and imagination to build something better. The contribution of the British public and all our key workers has been immense, but the crisis has revealed huge injustices and inequalities. We deserve a fairer country—that will be Labour’s mission, and I hope it will be the Government’s mission too.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Thank you. There will now be a four-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches. As ever, I advise Members who are speaking from home and do not have the benefit of the clock in the Chamber to have some other method of ensuring that they do not exceed four minutes. It is amazing how many people cannot add on four, but I know that does not apply to Mr Mel Stride.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) [V]]

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. May I begin by associating myself with the very poignant and moving remarks made by those on both Front Benches about those who have sadly lost their lives to this devastating virus, and with the appreciation that they showed to those who have helped so much and are on the frontline? 

          I will address my remarks specifically to some of the economic issues around covid-19, not least the inevitable withdrawal of some of the Government’s support for businesses as we come out of lockdown. I do not say “inevitable” because the Government were not right to introduce the scheme in the first place—the Chancellor did entirely the right thing, and came in with the scale and pace to support business—but in the longer term, the amount of spend involved in such measures is simply unsustainable.

For example, the furlough scheme is costing as much on an ongoing basis as the funding of the national health service. Before coronavirus, Governments agonised over whether we could spend another 1%, 2% or 3% on the national health service, but here we are spending the equivalent of 100% on furloughing 25% of all workers in the United Kingdom.

I want to focus for a moment on how we might unwind the furlough scheme most productively and effectively. First, we should seek to taper it away, from 80% down to 60% and then to 40% and so on, to smooth our exit. Secondly, it is particularly important that employers should contribute to the cost of furlough beyond the end of June, because many of those with staff currently on furlough are not having to pay them and have no intention, in the medium term at least, of bringing them back in to their business. Thirdly, we need to encourage part-time working within the furlough scheme, where possible.

Finally, the Chancellor should look very closely at targeting support, not just in respect of the furlough but in respect of the other support that the Government are providing. There are at least three categories of businesses in our economy at the moment. There are those that will survive without any additional support through this crisis. Indeed, there is a small minority of businesses whose business model has actually thrived under our current circumstances. They clearly do not warrant support. Secondly, there are companies that, in the medium term, can be bridged out of the current crisis, through the provision of support. That is where a particular focus must lie. Thirdly, there are those businesses whose business model is such that, under the new economy of social distancing and before a vaccine arrives, they are, sadly, going to struggle to survive even if they are given support. I urge the Chancellor to take the courageous and difficult decisions on targeting at business and sector level, to make sure that the Treasury’s finite resources are used productively to support jobs and the economy as we emerge on the other side.

We also need to start talking about the plan beyond coronavirus, even though that may seem some way away. We need to talk about growth and how we are going to support consumer expenditure in particular, given that consumers do not feel like spending and may have increased their savings during this crisis. Temporary tax incentives, such as a time-limited VAT break, may be good in that regard. Finally, as I stick within my four minutes, business indebtedness will have increased. We need the Government to look at how some of that debt can be turned into equity, so that businesses can focus on investing and creating jobs.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Thank you. I now call, to speak on behalf of the Scottish National party, Dr Philippa Whitford, whom I ask to speak for no more than 10 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]]

I want to echo the many important points that have been made about the enormity of the situation that we are dealing with and our gratitude to those fighting it on all our behalves. Certainly, the crisis has underlined what is important, which is our sense of what it is to be human and a neighbour, and not just GDP, profit or many of the things that we discuss more regularly to measure those things.

I want to focus on some of the particular issues relating to Northern Ireland, which has to manage the challenges and the opportunities of devolution and our constitutional settlement, taking into account the fact that we have two jurisdictions on the island of Ireland. I am not sure that that principle of devolution was reflected in the Prime Minister’s statement last night. I understand that his comments were confusing to many in England, but they were certainly so to those in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, which have each correctly been choosing their own path through this crisis relating to their own circumstances. I am concerned that the devolved institutions were told about that messaging change last night rather than actively consulted on it, and I hope that the Government will look at how they can use existing structures to ensure that there is proper consultation with the devolved regions before making such a dramatic change.

Members presumably know about the meandering 310 mile border on the island of Ireland and the tens of thousands of people who cross it every day in the course of their life and work. I know that some Members, and certainly the Government, would like to give the impression that the issue of Brexit is done and dusted, but, unfortunately, we are still living with the sword of Damocles hanging over us in the form of either a border in the Irish sea or the spectre of a border on the island of Ireland if the Ireland protocol is not honoured. I am afraid that we see very few signs of good faith in work towards implementation of that, which was scheduled to be in place by next month. I want to remind Members what an enormous breach of good faith it would be if we end up with a border because of a no-deal scenario due to the growing pressures of the pandemic on an already very ambitious negotiating timeframe. I know of no business that wants to choose between its EU market and its market in Britain, but I do know of many who fear that ideological Brexiters in the Cabinet will use the cover of the disruption to the economy from covid to mask the damage of Brexit on the economy, and I am afraid that that would be a fatal blow in Northern Ireland.

I should also say that if we were worried about managing goods and services on the island of Ireland, I am afraid that that will be nothing to the challenge of managing an invisible virus on the island of Ireland, and it will be tragic if we do not put in place data sharing protocols that will allow us to manage that flow of people on that porous border, because we must treat the island as one epidemiological unit, and, certainly, an unresolved frontier between the EU and the UK in eight months will be devastating to that aim.

Members have spoken about the phenomenal effort of communities and many small businesses in the past eight weeks. I am sure that it is not lost on Members, even those on the Government Benches, that it was not the free market that was the saviour and protector of people during this pandemic. I hope that everyone has learned the lessons of the financial crash and know that austerity cannot be the answer as we recover from this. The past eight weeks have also laid out clearly how many people have been living precariously, how threadbare public services have been allowed to become and many of the systemic failures in our welfare system. I know that other Members will be receiving correspondence about those issues. 

I just want to finish by saying how—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady has exceeded her four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

More than 90 minutes having elapsed since the commencement of hybrid proceedings, the Deputy Speaker brought them to a conclusion (Order, this day).

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I suspend the House for 30 minutes, until 7.26 pm.

On resuming—

Finance Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution
Monday 27th April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I echo the Financial Secretary’s comments about the hard work that you and the parliamentary authorities have gone to, to ensure that these proceedings could go ahead? Of course, as the Opposition we are well aware of the need for Government to have a legal basis to continue levying taxes, and we approach this Bill very much in that spirit.

Many of the clauses in this Finance Bill were written many months ago, with a large number of them involving relatively minor fixes to existing tax legislation—not exactly the vegetable waste and pig swill that the Financial Secretary referred to in his colourful and wide-ranging perorations, but none the less in large part delivering technical aspects of already announced policies. In fact, overall, this Bill presents a picture of continuing the business as usual of the last 10 years.

However, it is unthinkable that we will go many months before additional fiscal measures will need to be brought in by this Government. There will be an urgent need to stimulate the economy as and when we move out of the lockdown, and when boosting consumption will not threaten to damage disease containment. Other measures may well be needed to help alleviate some of the numerous supply-side problems caused by the current dislocation.

Finally, of course, we will need to deal with the considerable burden created by the costs necessarily incurred in fighting coronavirus. Subsequent Finance Bills will need to be very different from this one, and I want to use the time I have available to spell out why. We will need new approaches to taxation generally, the social contract with business, funding public services, the climate crisis and tax reliefs. I will deal with each area briefly in turn.

First, we of course need a different and fairer approach to tax. The Bill largely continues the previous framework, with its reductions in the tax paid by the very best-off people, while support for the worst-off has been reduced. The Financial Secretary will, I am sure, be aware of the Institute for Fiscal Studies analysis of the distributional consequences of successive Budgets since 2010. As of 2019, for example, due to changes in tax and social security, the poorest 10% of households have seen losses of 11% of their income, on average, as a direct result of reforms. Among those with children, the losses amount to 20%: that is £1 out of every £5 being removed from low-income families with kids. Large numbers of frontline careworkers fall into that category. We know from recent research by the Resolution Foundation that half of careworkers are not paid the real living wage, and tens of thousands appear to be paid even below the national minimum wage. They deserve better. In contrast, the best off 10% of people have seen losses of only 2% in their incomes due to tax and social security changes since 2010.

As all in this House will remember, George Osborne maintained that, in his recovery, 80% of the reduction in debt should come from cuts to spending and only 20% from tax changes, yet the latter went alongside cuts in income tax, inheritance tax and capital gains tax for the very best-off people.

There is already a lively debate about how we should deal with the costs incurred by the coronavirus. The academic consensus is that decisions taken to load the cost of debt on to spending cuts in the 2010s made our recovery slower than it would have been otherwise, so it was the slowest not only in a generation but in eight generations, and slower than in many other countries. I am not saying that to castigate the Government; I am saying it because we will need to adopt a radically different approach to future Finance Bills from that seen over the last 10 years.

We are currently feeling the impact of that decade’s fiscal approach very keenly, especially when it comes to UK households’ resilience. A quarter of UK families entered this crisis with less than £100 in savings—making it impossible for them, for example, to buy a new cooker or get their car fixed—and almost 2 million households did not even have a cooker in their home in the first place. As and when we return to what will be a very different normality, we must have building up financial resilience at the core of future Finance Bills. That will mean instituting a more progressive tax system, with those with the broadest shoulders contributing to services that benefit us all.

Secondly, we will need a new social contract with business. As discussed at length during the statement, huge numbers of businesses are currently struggling like never before. We have already discussed the Government’s economic package today, and I must emphasise again that there is a very strong expectation from the public that public support must translate into protecting jobs, not the extraction of value into already deep private pockets.

We have called for the Government to consider the examples of other nations, such as France and Denmark, as well as that of the Labour Government in Wales, when approaching the bail-out of different large firms. Jobs must be retained, workforces must be supported, and we should expect and require good corporate behaviour going forward. That means a ban on public funds being passed into tax havens or doled out immediately in dividends, no share buy-backs on bailed out companies, and a commitment to improvements in environmental performance in future.

We also need a renewed focus on dealing with the enablers of tax avoidance and evasion. I regret that we still do not see that when it comes to those who facilitated disguised remuneration loan arrangements, while those who received such arrangements continue to be affected by the loan charge.

The Bill rightly rows back on the Government’s previous ill-advised commitment to cut corporation tax further to 17%, by maintaining it at 19%. The OBR estimated that a cut to the latter rate would reduce receipts by £5.4 billion a year in three years. Recent reductions in corporation tax have not boosted investment in the UK. It was clear that such a reduction simply could not be afforded in current circumstances, and we therefore welcome that element of the Bill. When we talk to businesses, as I am sure Government Members do regularly, rates of corporation tax are not the headline reason for locating in the UK. Other factors are far more important, such as workforce development and training, logistical factors such as transport, and—critically—business rates, which are a key issue for many companies in our nation.

There is, of course, an imbalance in the taxation of those businesses based in fiscal property compared with internet-based businesses—the division between bricks and clicks. The Bill details the digital services tax—a new 2% tax on the revenues of search engines, social media platforms and online marketplaces that derive value from UK users. We welcome that tax to the extent that it recognises the comparative under-taxation of many digitally provided services, but we are concerned about the restricted scope of the measure. It means, for example, that Amazon will continue to pay a lower rate of tax in relation to revenue than many high street bookstores and other retailers. In addition, it fails to fill the gulf in unpaid corporation tax from many of the largest technology firms. TaxWatch UK has suggested that the UK is losing £1.3 billion in corporation tax from just five of those firms, and the digital services tax would make up less than half of that.

The current crisis suggests that digitally based businesses will amount to an even larger part of our economy in the years to come, so we need to get this right. Above all, our Government need to be more explicit about their discussions with international partners about the move to a formula-based corporation tax system. Given the ability of those firms to shift profits between countries, we must work with other countries to apportion taxing rights better.

The OECD’s anti-base erosion and profit shifting project was a good start, but it failed sufficiently to inform countries in the global south. I hope Ministers will be more forthcoming in future about what they are doing to seek that international consensus, not least given current hostility from the US towards multilateral approaches in a number of areas. This topic is controversial, and we need to hear more than just that our nation is engaged in those discussions.

I hope Ministers will be more forthcoming in their approach when it comes to local government finance, which is crucial in providing public services—from social care, to helping the homeless, to providing areas for leisure and play. Local authorities will be crucial in helping to rebuild the economy after this period, through their work on economic development.

My third point concerns the need for the Government to commit to a proper, deep and wide review of local government finance that takes account of the full impact of the crisis in terms of extra expenditure and forgone income, and which considers business rates and council tax in the round. We still only have a commitment to yet another restricted review of business rates. Surely we can be more ambitious in that area, as the need for a deeper review is now very strong. The goal must be to provide certainty and stability about the provision of local public services.

An additional area where action is needed is tackling the climate crisis. Survey evidence, albeit tentative at this stage, suggests a renewed appetite from the public to grasp the challenges posed by the need to decarbonise. The Bill makes small moves in the right direction. It incrementally increases vehicle excise duty, using emissions as a benchmark—the Chief Secretary to the Treasury mentioned that—and it introduces the world- wide harmonised light-duty vehicles test procedure, a UN-established vehicle testing procedure, in an attempt to prevent the gaming of emissions standards by vehicle manufacturers. We encourage the Government to adopt a steady replacement of all testing procedures within that framework. More broadly, we need a far stronger shift in taxation to disincentivise carbon production. The previous Finance Bill continued implicitly to support fossil fuels in a number of areas, and this one only sets the scene for some elements of the promised new plastics tax and the new emissions controls that will be necessary. Given that we have declared a national climate emergency in this very House, we need far stronger action in subsequent Finance Bills.

Finally, we fail to see in the Bill any substantive change in the Government’s approach to tax reliefs. This is essential. Public funding will be under pressure, so we must choose very carefully what we subsidise through these reliefs.

The incidence of tax reliefs has increased over recent years, yet there is little thorough oversight of their impact. Labour has called repeatedly for a thorough review of tax reliefs, but this Bill does not deliver one. As public finances come under substantial pressure, that position is no longer sustainable.

The National Audit Office’s recent report on tax expenditure showed that the Government are not reporting costs of over two thirds of reliefs; that must change. Alterations are made in this legislation to entrepreneurs relief—that was right to state—but the Institute for Fiscal Studies has suggested that the £1 million limit is still too generous. Furthermore, it does not achieve its principal aim of boosting investment, with the IFS stating:

“If one of the aims of reduced capital gains tax rates on business assets is to incentivise individuals to invest more in their businesses, this evidence suggests they are not working.”

We must ensure that corporate tax reliefs are focused on employment retention and promotion, and the provision of public goods. That is as essential for entrepreneurs relief as for the hundreds of others that continue to receive little public scrutiny.

There are many measures in the Bill that are sensible, that tidy up anomalies and that make life easier for taxpayers and HMRC, and we welcome them. But, as I have said, in many ways this feels like a Finance Bill for a different age. Subsequent Budgets and Bills will need to recognise the need for a much more resilient household financial situation and much more resilient public services, and will need to move away from the demand-sapping, confidence-stripping approach that has characterised the response to the last crisis. We stand ready to work with the Government where we can to achieve that new approach.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We now have to introduce a formal time limit of five minutes. Members in the Chamber will be able to observe the clock, but I strongly advise Members who are participating virtually to have a timing device nearby that they can see, because, due to necessity, the five-minute time limit will be very thoroughly enforced.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) [V]]

The economic backdrop to this Finance Bill is among the most challenging that this country has ever faced. The Office for Budget Responsibility, for example, in the scenario that it put forward, suggested a 35% contraction in the economy followed by a rapid bounce back—the so-called V-shaped recovery. Whether that is realistic or not remains to be seen, but it is the case that the Government have some significant control over two areas of policy that will determine whether we come back with a V-shaped recovery or not: the timing and nature of our exit from the lockdown.

On timing, as the House will be aware, the Government have put forward five tests, one of the most important of which is the fifth test, which is that we should extract ourselves from lockdown but in a manner that does not cause a second flare-up of the virus, which happened with the flu pandemic of 1918. This is critical; if the Government get it wrong and we do have that second surge in the virus, it will be a catastrophe for our economy and we will have not a V-shaped recovery, but at best a double-dip recession of some magnitude. It is therefore very important that the Government be allowed the time and space to take those decisions, and that we are patient with them.

Secondly, on the nature of our withdrawal, it is important that we have transparency. As the Chair of the Treasury Committee, I urge the Government to engage with businesses on the broader elements of the plan, so that they can both input and adjust accordingly. The element of which the Government have control, of course, is the support they are providing to the economy, at considerable scale and pace. The Chancellor is to be congratulated on that, but with scale and pace come hard edges to policy and challenges in delivery. Examples of both that the Government should focus on are, first, making sure that, for the self-employed who work through their own companies, dividends that result from self-employment can count when it comes to assessing the furlough amount that they can qualify for. Secondly, on delivery, we heard from the Chancellor earlier about bounce-back loans. I welcome those a great deal, but we also need to ensure that the banks are on notice that we expect them to deliver on the coronavirus business interruption loans and the other loans concerned. Through the Treasury Committee, I have had conversations with the British Business Bank and also written to the banks on its lending panel to urge them to come forward transparently and provide us with data on how much money is going out the door relative to the number of applications on a daily basis. I call on the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Government to row in behind us and ensure that transparency, because what gets measured tends to get done.

Let me turn to two specific points in the Finance Bill. The first is the changes that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has just outlined in respect of entrepreneurs relief. He is right to make those changes; it is a relief that is not fit for purpose. However, there are £24 billion-worth of reliefs every year relating to businesses, and at a time when we need economic growth encouraged at every single turn, it is imperative that the Treasury examines all £24 billion-worth of those reliefs and makes sure that they are all fit for purpose.

Secondly, I was particularly pleased to see such a large number of clauses relating to the digital services tax. It is not right that search engines, online marketplaces and social media platforms should not be paying a fair level of tax in our country. It is not a case of evading tax; it is a case of the taxation system not being adequate for the 21st century. We cannot assess national taxation rights on property, on where people are, on where the management are or on where the intellectual property resides; we must do it on where value is created. These measures are a big step in the right direction. I urge the Financial Secretary to stick to his guns. He will face great pressure from the United States in particular, but in the absence of an international approach to this matter, it is vital that we take action.

I think my five minutes are now up, and I am very aware of your exhortation, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will conclude, except to say that I will be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Exactly five minutes; I commend the right hon. Gentleman. I call Alison Thewliss, who, as her party spokesperson, is asked to speak for no more than 10 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) [V]]

It is a real pleasure to be able to connect to you and to the House of Commons today, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to take part in the Second Reading debate on the Finance Bill. I wish to begin by echoing comments made by the Chair of the Treasury Committee in relation, first, to those who receive a significant part of their income through dividends. I believe that there must be the possibility for the furlough scheme to accommodate a calculation of income that is based on those dividend receipts—that is used for many other income calculations. The second point is that we need to ensure that the banks are playing their part. I receive a lot of emails from the banks telling me what a great job they are doing, but I receive even more emails from constituents about the bureaucracy and difficulty that the banks are putting their way in respect of securing not just the loan guarantees, but wider loans.

I wish to raise two specific points, one of which is access to cash. I raised that in my contribution to the Budget debate on 16 March, which seems like a lifetime ago. The second relates to the Roadchef employee benefits scheme, which the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) mentioned and which is particularly relevant in my constituency. We are seeing during this crisis that access to cash is even more important than it would be in so-called “normal” times. People need cash, often to get others to buy their weekly shop or to get them to do other tasks, or simply to have the reassurance of having cash at home in order to meet unforeseen circumstances. That is why this remains such an important issue.

As I highlighted when I spoke previously, the average cash transaction is £10 or £20. When someone is paying £3 to get £10, that creates a huge distortion in the ability to have cash. It impacts on the most vulnerable in our communities, and that is why I welcomed the fact that the Chancellor has said that he will legislate to ensure access to cash, but that has to be on a fair basis. It has to be on the basis that there are not disproportionate charges and that cash is accessible across the whole of the United Kingdom, particularly in rural areas.

I represent one of the largest rural constituencies in the UK, so I welcome the fact that LINK has made some announcements on how it might approach the issue. I also welcome the fact that NoteMachine, the second largest provider of cash machines—it does so on a charge basis—has indicated that it would go back to free charging if the significant change of a return to the previous interchange rate was put in place. I therefore urge the Chancellor and Treasury Ministers to actively consider making that change, which would make a real and significant difference to people’s ability to access cash machines and to do so on a free basis. The crisis has shown more than ever the need for people to be able to access cash.

I will move on to the issue of the Roadchef employee benefits trust. I will not give a detailed outline of the issue, because it has a long history. I know that the Financial Secretary was able to meet the chairman of the trustees and the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), who has done so much to pursue the issue. I have a service station in my constituency that you may have used yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is now called Annandale Water, but it was previously under the branding of Roadchef. Roadchef set up the first tax-exempt, all-employee share ownership scheme of its kind, but unfortunately the former chief executive of Roadchef plundered that trust, causing all sorts of difficulties, not least that it was not registered in—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is drawing to a close.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]]

The coronavirus pandemic is the greatest crisis that most of us have ever lived through, so the values of solidarity, co-operation and support for—[Inaudible.]—are more important than ever at this critical time. In his March Budget speech, the Chancellor said that we were entering this crisis from a position of economic strength; for millions of people, that could not be further from the truth, and nor was it the case for our public services. A decade of austerity and a 40-year period dominated—[Inaudible.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman—I do not know whether he can hear me—but the sound quality is very bad. Let us try again to see whether it improves; if not, I will have to move on to the next speaker and come back to the hon. Gentleman.

[Richard Burgon]

A decade of austerity and a 40-year period dominated by marketisation, deregulation and privatisation has left us less prepared to deal with this crisis—[Inaudible.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, I am going to interrupt him, because the House cannot properly hear what he is saying. I judge it would be better if we could come back to him later in the proceedings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) [V]]

Today’s economic crisis is the worst and most alarming of our lifetimes. Never since the second world war has Britain’s economy faced such damage and uncertainty. I recognise just how difficult it is for Treasury Ministers, the Bank of England and other policy makers trying to tackle this crisis, but the Liberal Democrats agree with the Leader of the Opposition that we need a public debate about how the lockdown can be phased out in due course. I would add to that that we need a really mature debate about how economic policy will help in the economic recovery. Indeed, whether it is in the immediate solutions, the emergency packages or the preparations for that recovery, Liberal Democrats believe that economic policy must be guided by three key objectives: producing a fairer society; building a more sustainable economy; and restoring our reputation as a country that is outward-looking and internationalist.

Economic policy must tackle Britain’s unequal society, so exposed in this crisis, including the poor pay of people in the care sector, the problems with the universal credit system and the low levels of statutory sick pay. All these problems show that we must do far more to increase social justice in our country, and I believe that they show that we should look more seriously at proposals for a universal basic income.

Alongside greater fairness, we must move our economy much faster towards net zero so that we address the climate emergency in the recovery. I am pleased that the Government are talking about this, but we need urgently to debate specific policy proposals to make sure that the new economy that we must build is genuinely low carbon. We are seeing how fast the Government can move in a crisis; well, there is a climate crisis and we need to move just as fast to tackle that, too.

We must also work with other countries to ensure that the recovery is as strong as possible, and deepen international co-operation, especially with our closest allies. We cannot allow this crisis to move us back from support for free and fair trade, even where we adapt trade to secure an improvement in our biosecurity. We must remember how the recovery from the second world war was driven so much by agreements such as Bretton Woods and by growth in international trade.

I have already commented widely elsewhere on the Chancellor’s emergency packages. The business loan scheme has just been too slow and although today’s micro-business loan scheme is welcome, it is very late. I urge the Chancellor to go further and look at the Liberal Democrat plan for new online marketplaces for these Government-backed business loans. Using existing platforms such as Funding Xchange, Funding Options and Alternative Business Funding, businesses could fill in just one form and those applications would be sent immediately to lenders whose lending policies show that they are much more likely to say yes, so the businesses could get the cash more quickly. If we do not see businesses getting the cash quickly, we will see more businesses fail.

The element of the Government’s emergency package that I would most like to talk about today is the challenge facing local authorities. The Government’s help so far just is not sufficient to help councils on the frontline of this crisis, which are so crucial to helping vulnerable people and businesses. Councils are having to increase spending dramatically just at the time when their income is also being slashed—from a huge loss in income from parking and services such as leisure centres, to real concerns that council tax income will fall significantly too.

May I ask the Treasury today to commit to the principle that for councils across the country it will not just fund extra crisis-related spending in full but provide grant funding to cover these dramatic losses in revenue? Just as the Chancellor wrote off the debts of NHS trusts as part of his emergency assistance, will he now look at reducing or writing off councils’ debts? Writing off housing debts could help stimulate a council house building boom in the recovery. Writing off debts linked to spending on special educational needs and disabilities would help our schools recover, too.

When it comes to planning the recovery, may I ask Treasury Ministers to consider three key issues? The first is how the furlough scheme is wound down to make sure that we protect jobs. We must prevent staff who are furloughed today from becoming staff who are laid off tomorrow. The second is that in the recovery we must achieve a historic and dramatic rise in both private and public investment in green technology and climate-friendly infrastructure. After solving the current international crisis, let us solve the next global crisis—the climate crisis—that we all know is facing us.

Finally, over the thorny issue of Brexit and the transition period, I once again urge the Minister to recognise that this crisis and its immediate aftermath is exactly the wrong time to add to the uncertainty, the cost and the loss of markets that businesses are already facing. Surely suspending the Brexit talks and seeking an extension to the transition period is just economic common sense.

This Finance Bill will pass its Second Reading, but the Chancellor must do far more to ensure that Britain’s economy after this crisis is fairer, greener and more outward-looking to the world.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) is still having some technical difficulties. Although we are not able to see him in action, we have his photograph and are able to hear him.

Financial and Social Emergency Support Package

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chi Onwurah]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Without wishing to go into the financial crisis and the, in my opinion, very well deserved backlash against the financial sector, which continued to make profits while so many people felt the impact of that crisis, it now has the opportunity to demonstrate the social value and support it can provide in times of crisis and emergency, especially, as my hon. Friend says, for those who have taken out loans or credit cards and those who need loans. Many businesses are still saying to me that they are not getting the loans that they are promised, particularly the tech sector start-ups, which rarely have the assets that banks feel are necessary to offer such loans. We want greater corporate citizenship from the financial sector and from other businesses, too.

I applaud and echo what many of my colleagues have said about those who are suffering the most in this crisis, but my focus is on the impact of the digital divide in our country in relation to coronavirus. We know that access to and ability to use the internet is not evenly spread across our society. In the UK, data from the Office for National Statistics indicates that in 2018, 10% of adults said they did not have access to the internet at home, while 4.3 million had no demonstrable digital skills. That data also showed that 12% of those aged between 11 and 18 years reported having no internet access at home from a computer or tablet.

Since 2011, adults over the age of 65 have consistently made up the largest proportion of adult non-users of the internet. More than half of all adult internet non-users were over the age of 75. Across all age groups, disabled adults make up a large proportion of adult internet non-users.

In normal times, access to the internet improves hugely the chances of, for example, finding work. It also, as we have heard, makes it easier to access universal credit—in fact, it is essential to access universal credit—and it enables people to connect and communicate better with family, friends and the community. These are not normal times, however, and for the next few weeks and perhaps the next few months, social distancing is going to be the norm. Social distancing must be accompanied by digital coming-together, and for that we need digital skills and digital access. We have heard about the implications for mental health of isolation without the ability to communicate. I want the Minister to think about what that means for the 11% who have no access to the internet.

What I want to see from the Government in the next few days is first, digital skills. There are those who have access to the internet but do not have the real digital skills to use it. They need to be able to take advantage of the many different courses and means of entertainment and so on, which are all fantastically being developed at the moment. They need the digital skills to be able to access that. In that respect, I recommend the work of Sue Black with the #techmums initiative, which is still rolling out during coronavirus, and also the work of many other charities.

Secondly, there is the question of capacity. Here I am really concerned, because all we have had from the internet service providers and network operators is general vague promises that there will be the capacity and it will all be fine and all right. To be frank—I have been known to mention this, but I will say it again—as someone who worked designing telecom networks as an engineer for 20 years, that does not reflect at all my experience. Capacity needs to be dimensioned and built in. There will be capacity now that is dedicated to business networks that may need to be moved over to support home networks with the huge increase we are seeing in working from home.

Moreover, we need to be able to secure capacity for our essential services. I am already hearing that in Newcastle, for example, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust cannot provide the capacity for administrative workers to work from home. If those essential services can be delivered from home, it frees up space and hospitals and car parks and so on.

Just as with personal protective equipment—we had a lot of time to prepare that was perhaps not best used, and there was a lot of talk about everything being okay, which has turned out not to be the case—I fear that over the next few weeks, when we are all confined to our homes with only the internet to serve as a social medium that we can take advantage of, we will find that there is not enough capacity. Networks will fall over. There will be delays and, as always, it will be the most vulnerable and the poorest who will suffer most. I would like to see modelling of the traffic impact on our networks. I would also like to see a commitment to digital access for all, particularly for young people and schoolchildren who will be expected to be learning from home. They need to have free access to the internet to enable them to do that.

Moving on, I want to say a little bit about where we need to go from here. In economics classes, we were taught that the virtue of a capitalist market economy is that it ensures the efficient allocation of capital, as market competition drives inefficiencies out of the system, ensuring the cheapest, most innovative products and services possible. The best the state can do, we were told, is to get out of the way. But the capacity to deal with a major health or economic shock is, by definition, inefficient when that shock is not there, so extra ventilators and stocks of masks or toilet paper are inefficiencies that the free market system drives out. They can only be provided and stocked by the state, and the problem with the lean, mean state machine that the Conservatives advocate and have done their best to create over the 10 years of austerity is that the state is then no longer equipped to provide the resilience, the stock and the inefficiencies that are necessary to support our population in a time of crisis as we have now.

This is a war, and as a war it has real heroes—NHS workers, care workers, teachers, transport workers and cleaners. Not all of them are in the public sector: we have heroes in the private sector too, in supermarkets with our retail workers, and those isolating at home, which is something we have never asked people to do before. As a woman of colour, I know that there is despair at the realisation that natural hair may no longer be a choice, but the only option for us. There are many sacrifices, large and small, which are expected to be made over the next few weeks. Obviously, not everybody faces the particular challenge I just mentioned.

The heroes of this war must be rewarded. After the second world war, we had the national health service, homes fit for heroes and the welfare state. After this battle, we need an economy fit for heroes. We who have the privilege of walking in these corridors of power are insulated from some of the worst impacts—the desperation, the fear and the confusion that I know is going on in homes across Newcastle. I want the Minister’s reassurance that we will build a better and fairer economy out of this desperate crisis in order to be an economy fit for the heroes who are now helping us to drive out coronavirus.

I want to end on a note of hope and optimism, because in Newcastle and across the country we have vibrant, active people who want to do the right thing and want to support and look after others. We have great communities across our country, such as in Newcastle with the Newcastle City Council city lifeline, which allows people to volunteer their time to support community organisations and projects. We have already heard that the national Government scheme for national health service volunteers has been inundated.

Newcastle upon Tyne Central has 11 active community Facebook groups that residents can post their needs and volunteers commit their time to. Slatyford tenants association in my constituency, which offers bingo and tea once a week, has closed down for the duration of the coronavirus crisis, but is looking forward to opening again. Mrs T’s Café in Blakelaw, which supports the local community through excellent nutritious food, is looking forward to getting back.

Of course, we also have our food banks. Newcastle United Supporters Trust is one of the most impressive organisations I have ever seen. As a Newcastle United supporter, one of the most inspiring sights on a Saturday when walking past St James’ Park is the Newcastle United Supporters Trust stall, where those shaking the buckets, as I have done, will find people putting in £1, £5, £10 or £20. We should not need food banks, but when we do, such generosity from Geordies and people across the country is inspiring. Although we cannot have stalls on the streets—we have no more football matches for a while—we still get fantastic support online. Food is being donated by businesses such as Fenwick, TK Maxx and Thorntons. Geordies from Newcastle, but also from Brighton, London and, I understand, the Falkland Islands have donated money online. We also have Newcastle United Foundation, which is delivering hot meals to schoolchildren. They all need our support, as do our theatres, cinemas and charities.

Much of the real world is going online and we need to ensure that we have a real-world community, as well as real employment and a real support and welfare sector for when the crisis is over, when we can build an economy fit for the heroes we will create.

Royal Assent

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Contingencies Fund Act 2020

Coronavirus Act 2020.

Coronavirus Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 23rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dame Eleanor Laing in the Chair]

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I have a few things to explain before we begin Committee stage. For understandable reasons, a large number of manuscript amendments have been tabled by the Government today, and in fact a large number of other manuscript amendments have, unusually, been allowed today as well. Members therefore need to make sure that they are working from the right version of the notice paper and that they have the latest version of the grouping and selection list, although I should explain that there is one group.

Government amendments 79 to 82 on extradition are on a separate supplementary notice paper, and a revised grouping and selection list will be issued shortly. The late appearance of these amendments is due not to Government action but to a mistake on the part of the Public Bill Office, but, lest anybody complain, I will defend the Public Bill Office, because they have done a marvellous job today. I have seen it over the last few days, and the people who work here have worked miracles to get us to this stage in such good order.

The Business of the House motion, which the House agreed before Second Reading, allows the Chair discretion at the end of the time allowed for Committee—in this case, that falls at exactly 10 pm—to call non-Government amendments and new clauses to be moved formally at that stage for separate decision. I have to tell the Committee that my sense of where we are at this stage is 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 simply informing the Committee now that today the bar is a high one—no one will be surprised to hear that—and that arguments in favour of going through the Division Lobbies tonight will need to be very persuasive.

Clause 1

Meaning of “coronavirus” and related terminology

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 2 to 7 stand part.

Amendment 74, in clause 8, page 2, line 29, leave out “loss of”.

Amendment 75, page 2, line 34, leave out subsection (3).

Amendment 76, page 3, leave out from “care” in line 27 to the end of line 31.

Clauses 8 to 10 stand part.

Government amendment 20.

Clauses 11 to 30 stand part.

Government amendments 21 and 22.

Clauses 31 to 36 stand part.

Government amendment 40.

Clause 37 stand part.

Amendment 78, in clause 38, page 25, line 43, at end insert—

“(8) Section 153(9) is repealed.”

This amendment would abolish the lower earnings limit (currently £118pw) below which a worker is not entitled to statutory sick pay.

Clause 38 stand part.

Amendment 77, in clause 39, page 26, line 12, at end insert

“and, in particular such regulations shall deem ‘a day of incapacity’ in this part of the Act to include—

“(i) a day of self-isolation in accordance with the aforesaid guidance or published document of the aforesaid bodies;

(ii) a day reasonably necessitated to care for a person needing such care who—

(a) is suffering from severe respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 or other communicable disease; or

(b) is self-isolating in accordance with the aforesaid guidance or published document of the aforesaid bodies; or

(c) is unable sufficiently to care for themselves and who is unable to attend an establishment or a carer who would otherwise provide care but is unable to do so by reason that the establishment or the carer is acting in accordance with the aforesaid guidance or published document of the aforesaid bodies or is unable to provide that care because others are acting in accordance with the aforesaid guidance or published document of the aforesaid bodies;

(d) qualifies for time off pursuant to s.57A Employment Rights Act 1996 (time off for dependants).”

Clause 39 stand part.

Government amendment 41.

Clauses 40 to 51 stand part.

Government amendment 79.

Clauses 52 to 57 stand part.

Government amendment 26.

Clauses 58 and 59 stand part.

Government amendments 27 to 29.

Clauses 60 to 62 stand part.

Government amendment 30.

Clause 63 stand part.

Government amendments 31 and 32.

Clauses 64 to 73 stand part.

Government amendments 33 and 23.

Clause 74 stand part.

Amendment 1, in clause 75, page 45, line 25, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) This Act expires at the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the date on which it is passed (subject to subsection (1A)).

(1A) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for this Act (or specified provisions) to continue to have effect for an additional period not exceeding 6 months.

(1B) Regulations under subsection (1A)—

(a) shall be made by statutory instrument, and

(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

(1C) If this Act (or specified provisions) would expire on a day on which either House of Parliament is not expected to be sitting—

(a) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision of a kind that could be made by regulations under subsection (1A); and

(b) an Order in Council may not be made unless the Secretary of State has consulted—

(i) such members of the House of Commons Liaison Committee (or any Select Committee replacing that Committee) as are available, or

(ii) at a time when there is no such Committee, any available Chairs of the Committees previously represented on that Committee.”

Amendment 2, page 45, line 25, after “expires”, insert

“in accordance with subsection (1A) or”.

This is a paving amendment for amendment 4 which provides for the Bill’s emergency powers to be renewed at 6 month intervals.

Amendment 6, page 45, line 25, leave out “2 years” and insert “12 months”.

This amendment would “sunset” the provisions of the Bill after one year rather than after two years.

Amendment 3, page 45, line 26, after “subject” insert “in either case”.

This is a paving amendment for amendment 4 which provides for the Bill’s emergency powers to be renewed at 6 month intervals.

Amendment 7, page 45, line 26, leave out “and section 76”.

This amendment is linked to amendment 8 to leave out Clause 76.

Amendment 4, page 45, line 26, at end insert—

“(1A) No more than 14 sitting days before the end of the periods of 6, 12 and 18 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed each House of Parliament shall consider, on a motion moved by a minister of the Crown, whether it wishes this Act to continue to have effect after the expiry of that period; and this Act shall expire at the end of that period unless, no less than 7 sitting days before the end of that period, each House of Parliament has resolved that it wishes this Act to continue to have effect.”

This amendment provides for the Bill’s emergency powers to be renewed at 6 month intervals.

Government amendments 34, 24 and 47.

Clauses 75 to 78 stand part.

Government amendment 37.

Clauses 79 to 82 stand part.

Government amendment 18.

Clauses 83 and 84 stand part.

Government amendments 44, 48, 80, 25, 48 to 50, 38, 39, 81, 35, 36, 42, 45, 72, 43 and 73.

Clauses 85 to 87 stand part.

Government new clause 15—Emergency arrangements concerning medical practitioners: Wales.

Government new clause 16—Disapplication of limit under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982.

Government new clause 17—Elections and referendums due to be held in England in period after 15 March 2020.

Government new clause 18—Elections due to be held in Wales in period after 15 March 2020.

Government new clause 19—Six-monthly parliamentary review.

Government new clause 20—Local authority meetings.

Government new clause 21—Extension of BID arrangements: England.

Government new clause 22—Extension of BID arrangements: Northern Ireland.

Government new clause 23—Extension of time limits for retention of fingerprints and DNA profiles.

Government new clause 24—Residential tenancies: protection from eviction.

Government new clause 25—HMRC functions.

Government new clause 26—Up-rating of working tax credit etc

Government new clause 30—Business tenancies in England and Wales: protection from forfeiture etc.

Government new clause 31—Business tenancies in Northern Ireland: protection from forfeiture etc.

New clause 1—Postponement of General Synod elections—

‘(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council, at the joint request of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, postpone to the date specified in the Order the date on which the Convocations of Canterbury and York stand dissolved for the purposes of the Church of England Convocations Act 1966.

(2) Section 1 of that Act is, accordingly, to be read subject to provision made by an Order under this section.

(3) If either of the Archbishops is unable to exercise the power to join in making a request under subsection (1), or if the see of either of the Archbishops is vacant, the power may be exercised by the senior bishop of the province, with seniority for that purpose being determined in accordance with section 10(4) of the Bishops (Retirement) Measure 1986.

(4) An Order under this section may make consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision.’

The new clause would enable elections to the General Synod of the Church of England that are due to take place this summer to be postponed.

New clause 2—Parliamentary consideration of status of specified provisions of this Act—

‘(1) The specified provisions for the purposes of this section are—

(a) sections 17 to 20 (on registration of births and still-births etc),

(b) sections 23 to 27 (on food supply),

(c) sections 28 to 30 (on inquests),

(d) section 48 (on powers to direct suspension of port operations),

(e) section 49 (powers relating to potentially infectious persons),

(f) section 50 (powers relating to events, gatherings and premises), and

(g) section 56 (on powers in relation to bodies).

(2) A Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for—

(a) a motion to the effect that the House of Commons has approved the status report in respect of the provisions of this Act mentioned in each of the paragraphs in subsection (1), to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of 14 Commons sitting days beginning with the day after the end of the first reporting period, and

(b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of each status report to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of 14 Lords sitting days beginning with the day after the end of the first reporting period.

(3) If the House of Commons decides not to approve a status report in respect of any of the sections mentioned in one or more paragraphs of subsection (1), then the sections in respect of which a status report has not been approved shall cease to have effect at the end of 7 days beginning with the day on which the House of Commons made that decision.

(4) The “status report” is the report required to be prepared by the Secretary of State under section 83 in respect of each 2 month reporting period, as modified by this section.

(5) In this section—

“Commons sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Commons is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day);

“Lords sitting day” means a day on which the House of Lords is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Lords is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day);

“reporting period” has the same meaning as in section 83.’

This new clause provides for debates to be held promptly on amendable motions on the status reports laid every 2 months in relation to provisions of the Bill impinging most directly on civil liberties, with the possibility of the House of Commons terminating the exercise of powers under those provisions.

New clause 3—Parliamentary scrutiny: status report on specified matters—

‘(1) If when a status report to which section [Parliamentary consideration of status of specified provisions of this Act] applies is made under section 83 Parliament stands prorogued to a day after the end of the period of 5 days beginning with the date on which the status report is laid before Parliament, Her Majesty shall by proclamation under the Meeting of Parliament Act 1797 (c. 127) require Parliament to meet on a specified day within that period.

(2) If when a status report to which section [Parliamentary consideration of status of specified provisions of this Act] applies is made under section 83 the House of Commons stands adjourned to a day after the end of the period of 5 days beginning with the date on which the regulations are made, the Speaker of the House of Commons shall arrange for the House to meet on a day during that period.

(3) If when a status report to which section [Parliamentary consideration of status of specified provisions of this Act] applies is made under section 83 the House of Lords stands adjourned to a day after the end of the period of 5 days beginning with the date on which the regulations are made, the Speaker of the House of Lords shall arrange for the House to meet on a day during that period.

(4) In subsections (2) and (3) a reference to the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Speaker of the House of Lords includes a reference to a person authorised by Standing Orders of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords to act in place of the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Speaker of the House of Lords in respect of the recall of the House during adjournment.’

This new clause provides for Parliament to be recalled from adjournment or prorogation to debate status reports which must be made every 2 months under Clause 83 of the Bill.

New clause 4—Duty to support basic means of living—

‘The Prime Minister must make, and lay before Parliament, arrangements to ensure that everyone in the United Kingdom has access to the basic means of living including food, water, fuel, clothing, income and housing, employing all available statutory and prerogative powers.’

This new clause sets an overarching responsibility for the Government to use all its powers to ensure that everyone in the United Kingdom has access to the basic means of living throughout the present coronavirus emergency.

New clause 5—Guidance on identification, support and assistance for victims of slavery or human trafficking during the coronavirus emergency—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to such public authorities and other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate about continuing the process for identifying persons in the United Kingdom who may be a victim of slavery or human trafficking during the coronavirus emergency.

(2) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to such public authorities and other persons in England and Wales as the Secretary of State considers appropriate about continuing arrangements for providing assistance and support to persons during the coronavirus emergency where there—

(a) are reasonable grounds to believe the person may be a victim of slavery or human trafficking; and

(b) is a conclusive determination that the person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking.

(3) The guidance in subsection (2) must include—

(a) whether a victim who is on immigration bail must remain at an address where another occupant is experiencing the coronavirus disease;

(b) on-going provision of a support worker to victims and the ability of the victim to receive financial support, where either a support worker or a victim has the coronavirus disease or has had to self-isolate;

(c) provision of accommodation for victims who may need to leave current accommodation because of concerns about the coronavirus disease; and

(d) provision of accommodation for victims who have the coronavirus disease.

(4) The Secretary of State must liaise with the Northern Ireland Executive and Scottish Ministers about how the guidance issued under subsection (2) may have relevance for the support and assistance of victims in those jurisdictions.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (2)—

(a) there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking if a competent authority has determined for the purposes of Article 10 of the Trafficking Convention (identification of victims) that there are such grounds;

(b) there is a conclusive determination that a person is or is not a victim of slavery or human trafficking when, on completion of the identification process required by Article 10 of the Trafficking Convention, a competent authority concludes that the person is or is not such a victim.

(c) “competent authority” means a person who is a competent authority of the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.’

This new clause requires the Government to set out its plans for continuing to identify and support victims of modern slavery during the coronavirus emergency.

New clause 6—Powers relating to transport for isolated and island communities—

‘(1) The Secretary of State, or relevant Minister in the devolved Administrations, may issue a direction to such ferry, bus and rail operators as the Secretary of State or relevant Minister thinks fit to—

(a) work together to produce a plan for the continuing provision of a resilient transport service to isolated and island communities; and

(b) implement the plan to a timescale specified by the Secretary of State or relevant Minister.

(2) The plan in subsection (1)(a) must cover—

(a) the provision of food, medicines and other essential goods; and

(b) the provision of passenger transportation to enable people to travel for essential purposes, including medical purposes.

(3) The direction in subsection (1) supersedes all existing legislation, including but not limited to the Competition Act 1998, that would otherwise prevent operators from working together in the ways set out in subsections (1) and (2).

(4) The direction in subsection (1) must be given in writing to the ferry, bus and rail operators concerned.

(5) In this section “isolated communities” means:

(a) islands that are part of the United Kingdom but are not connected to the mainland by a bridge or tunnel, or

(b) communities with a population density of less than 100 people per kilometre.’

New clause 7—Immigration and Asylum—

‘Schedule ( ) contains temporary changes to immigration and asylum laws and procedures for the purposes of preventing, protecting against, controlling or providing a public health response to the incidence or spread of infection or contamination.’

This new clause is linked to NS1.

New clause 8—Provision of education to pupils no longer attending school—

‘(1) A school or provider of 16 to 18 education that closes because of the coronavirus outbreak, whether because of a temporary closure direction issued under Schedule 15 or otherwise, has a duty to ensure that its pupils continue to receive educational provision.

(2) The educational provision in subsection (1) may include—

(a) lessons set by a teacher, such as via videoconferencing or the setting of assignments, or

(b) teaching resources, including but not limited to textbooks or software.

(3) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, indemnify the school or provider of 16 to 18 education for all reasonable purchases of teaching resources for pupils and staff that the head of the school or provider of 16 to 18 education considers necessary for it to fulfil the duty in subsection (1).

(4) In this section, “provider of 16 to 18 education” means

(a) a 16 to 19 Academy, within the meaning of section 1B of the Academies Act 2010;

(b) an institution within the further education sector, within the meaning of section 91(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992;

(c) a provider of post-16 education or training—

(i) to which Chapter 3 of Part 8 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 applies, and

(ii) in respect of which funding is provided by, or under, arrangements made by the Secretary of State, a local authority or a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009,

but does not include an employer who is a provider by reason only of the employer providing such education or training to its employees.’

New clause 9—Social security—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations —

(a) increase the value of the benefits specified in subsection (2) so that, for the tax year beginning on 6 April 2020—

(i) an individual not in work will be awarded at least £150 per week, and

(ii) a couple who are both not in work will be awarded at least £260 a week.

(b) disapply the minimum income floor of universal credit for the tax year beginning on 6 April 2020;

(c) provide that, for the tax year beginning on 6 April 2020—

(i) households newly claiming universal credit receive an advance of their first payment by default, and

(ii) households in sub-paragraph (i) are not required to repay any part of this advance for a period of at least six months beginning with the date on which they received the advance; and

(d) make provision to ensure that claimants of universal credit, jobseeker’s allowance and Employment and Support Allowance are not subject to sanctions in the tax year beginning on 6 April 2020.

(2) The benefits to be increased under subsection (1)(a) are—

(a) the standard allowances of universal credit,

(b) jobseeker’s allowance, and

(c) employment and support allowance.

(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.’

New clause 10—Expiry—

‘(1) Except so far as otherwise provided under this section, the provisions of this Act expire at the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that any provisions of this Act do not expire at the time when it would otherwise expire under subsection (1) but is to continue in force after that time for a period not exceeding 3 months.

(3) The power under subsection (2) may not be used to continue any of the provisions of this Act in force any later than a period of 2 years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (2) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.’

The new clause would set an expiry date on the provisions of the Act at the end of a period of 3 months beginning on the day when the Act is passed unless they are continued in force by means of affirmative regulations. Provisions could continue in force for no longer than 3 months at a time, up to a period of 2 years from when the Act was initially passed.

New clause 11—Statutory sick pay: rate of payment—

‘The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 is amended as follows:

“In section 157, subsection (1), leave out “£94.25” and insert “£220”.”’

This new clause would increase the weekly rate of Statutory Sick Pay from £94.25 to £220.

New clause 12—European Union: extension of implementation period etc—

‘(1) Section 33 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 is repealed.

(2) It shall be an objective of the Government to secure a decision by the UK-EU Joint Committee to extend the transition period for up to 1 or 2 years as per Article 132 of the Withdrawal Agreement.

(3) It shall be an objective of the Government to secure an agreement within the framework of the future relationship of the UK and EU to maintain continued and full membership of the EU Early Warning System.

(4) A Minister of the Crown shall lay before each House of Parliament a progress report on the objective in subsection (1) and subsection (2) within 2 months of this Act being passed, and subsequently at intervals of no more than 2 months.’

This new clause would require the Government to (i) repeal Section 33 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, (ii) seek an extension of the negotiation period for the UK-EU future relationship, and (iii) seek to maintain continued and full membership of the EU Early Warning System, in order to respond effectively to the global COVID-19 pandemic.

New clause 13—Statutory self-employment pay—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, introduce a scheme of Statutory Self-Employment Pay.

(2) The scheme must make provision for payments to be made out of public funds to individuals who are

(a) self-employed, or

(b) freelancers.

(3) The payments to be made in subsection (2) are to be set so that the net monthly earnings of an individual specified in subsection (2) do not fall below—

(i) 80 per cent of their monthly net earnings, averaged over the last three years, or

(ii) £2,917

whichever is lower.

(4) No payment to be made under subsection (2) shall exceed £2,917 per month.

(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.’

The purpose of this amendment is to make the Government ‘top up’ self-employed workers’ earnings to the lower of 80% of their net monthly earnings averaged over three years, or £2,917 a month.

New clause 14—Social care provisions—

‘(1) Within 10 days of the date on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a comprehensive report outlining how the Government will guarantee provisions for social care while this Act is in force.

(2) The reports must make reference to but are not limited to—

(a) an outline of the funding available to social care providers, and

(b) any other provisions in place or to be introduced to ensure that social care standards are maintained to as high a level as possible.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an updated proposal in the same terms every three months from the date on which this Act is passed.’

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish a comprehensive proposal outlining how the Government will guarantee provisions for social care while this Act is in force.

New clause 27—Universal access to healthcare—

‘(1) Section 39 of the Immigration Act 2014 is omitted.

(2) A reference in the NHS charging provisions to persons not ordinarily resident in Great Britain shall not include a reference to a person who is physically present in Great Britain.

(3) A reference in the NHS charging provisions to persons not ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland shall not include a reference to a person who is physically present in Northern Ireland.

(4) The “NHS charging provisions” are—

(a) section 175 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (charges in respect of persons not ordinarily resident in Great Britain),

(b) section 124 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 (charges in respect of persons not ordinarily resident in Great Britain),

(c) section 98 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 (charges in respect of persons not ordinarily resident in Great Britain),

(d) article 42 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (S.I. 1972/1265 (N.I. 14)) (provision of services to persons not ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland).

(5) The Secretary of State shall cease all data sharing between the Home Office and NHS Digital, any NHS Trust, or any other part of the National Health Service where it takes place in connection with—

(a) NHS charging,

(b) the compliant environment, or

(c) any other immigration function.

(6) The Secretary of State shall take appropriate steps to communicate the effect of this section to people who, but for the provisions of this section, would have been considered under the NHS charging provisions to be persons not ordinarily resident in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland.

(7) In taking the steps in subsection (5) the Secretary of State shall have regard to the following—

(a) the public interest in and public health benefits of all persons physically present in the United Kingdom feeling safe in presenting to medical officials if they fall ill, and

(b) the particular needs and vulnerability of the groups in question.’

This new clause is intended to safeguard public health by ensuring every person in the United Kingdom is able to access NHS care without incurring a financial penalty or immigration sanction.

New clause 28—Power to cap prices—

‘(1) An appropriate authority may declare a state of disruption to the food supply chain.

(2) A state of disruption may not last longer than 180 days from the date of the declaration.

(3) During a declared state of disruption it is prohibited to charge a price that exceeds an amount equal to or in excess of 10 per cent of the average price at which the same or similar consumer goods or services were obtainable during the seven days prior to the declared state of disruption.

(4) The provisions of this section shall not apply if the increase in price is substantially attributable to additional costs that arose within the food supply chain in connection with the sale of consumer goods and services.

(5) The appropriate authority may direct trading standards officers to investigate apparent breaches of this section.

(6) If the appropriate authority is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that a person has, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with this section, the appropriate authority may impose a financial penalty on that person in accordance with Schedule 14.’

New clause 29—Monitoring body: effect of Schedule 11 to this Act—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall, within seven days of the date on which this Act is passed, appoint by order a body (‘the relevant body) to monitor the effect of Schedule 11 to this Act.

(2) The relevant body must—

(a) advise central government about the effect of Schedule 11 to this Act;

(b) recommend to central government the amendment, suspension or repeal of Schedule 11 to this Act.

(3) The relevant body must publish a report in respect of subparagraphs (1) and (2) at least once every 8 weeks during any period in which Schedule 11 is operation.

(4) In this section “central government” means Her Majesty‘s Government.’

The purpose of this new clause is to ensure that the impact of Schedule 11 is subject to appropriate monitoring and review by an appropriate body such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

New clause 32—Statutory sick pay: extension of entitlement—

‘The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 has effect as if in section 163 (Interpretation of Part XI and supplementary provisions) after subsection (1) there were inserted—

“(1A) Regulations shall provide that in relation to those specified in section 151(4A)—

(a) the expression ‘employee’ shall for the purposes of Part XI of this Act mean a human person who—

(i) seeks to be engaged by another to provide labour,

(ii) is engaged by another to provide labour, or

(iii) where the employment has ceased was engaged by another to provide labour, and is not, in the provision of that labour, genuinely operating a business on his or her own account.

(b) An ‘employer’ in relation to an employee is—

(i) any person or entity who engages or engaged the employee, and

(ii) any person or entity who substantially determines terms on which the employee is engaged at any material time.

(c) ‘contract of service shall mean any contract by which the employee is engaged by another to provide labour and ‘employed’ ‘employment’ mean engaged as an ‘employee’.

(d) For the purposes of the regulations, an agency worker shall be treated as an employee of both the employment agency or employment business which arranged for him to provide labour to another and the end user of his labour; and ‘employment agency ‘ and employment business’ shall have the meanings set out in section 13 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973.

(e) It shall be for the person who is claimed to be the employer and contests that claim to show in any legal proceedings that he or she is not the employer.’

New clause 33—Statutory sick pay: self-employed people—

‘A person who is self-employed and genuinely operating a business on his or her account and who suffers losses directly attributable to the coronavirus outbreak shall be entitled to reimbursement of those losses by the Secretary of State under regulations which the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament for approval.’

New clause 34—Statutory sick pay uprating—

‘The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 has effect as if in section 157 (rates of payment) after subsection (2) there were inserted—

“(2A) The Secretary of State shall by Order substitute the following rate of statutory sick pay for all those to whom the regulations under section 151(4A) may apply: 90 per cent of a week’s pay calculated in accordance with the provisions of sections 220 to 229 Employment Rights Act 1996, save that the maximum provided for in section 227(1) shall be for the purposes of section 2A of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 the sum of £577 per week and the minimum shall be the rate of the Real Living Wage multiplied by the worker’s working hours which number of hours shall be calculated in accordance with sections 220 to 229 Employment Rights Act 1996.

(2B) An employer who is entitled to reimbursement from the Secretary of State in respect of statutory sick pay or any payment under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme or any other grant or loan from the Secretary of State in relation to coronavirus must—

(a) not dismiss any employee for a reason which includes redundancy related to the coronavirus outbreak of 2020 and any such dismissal shall be regarded for the purposes of Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as an unfair dismissal,

(b) pay, in accordance with subsection 2A or in accordance with the scheme of the Job Retention Scheme if more beneficial to the employee, an employee who would otherwise be at risk of redundancy or is put on fewer hours work than normal for a reason related to the coronavirus outbreak of 2020,

(c) at the discretion of the Secretary of State, cease to be entitled to any further reimbursement from the Secretary of State in respect of statutory sick pay or any payment under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme or any other grant or loan from the Secretary of State in relation to coronavirus, and may be required to pay back some or all of any such sum received if the employer has failed to pay, in accordance with subsection 2A, an employee who would otherwise be at risk of redundancy or has dismissed an employee for a reason which includes redundancy related to the coronavirus outbreak of 2020.”’

This amendment uprates statutory sick pay to the level of 90 per cent of the worker’s normal earnings and makes provision for maximum and minimum rates.

New clause 35—Provision of personal protective equipment—

‘Without prejudice to the duties of employers pursuant to sections 2,3 and 4 of the Health and Safety etc Act 1974 and pursuant to the regulations made thereunder and their duties in common law, the Secretary of State has a duty to ensure the provision of suitable and adequate personal protective equipment to all health, care and emergency service workers who are exposed to the risk of contracting coronavirus in the normal course of their work.’

This amendment would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure the provision of personal protective equipment as part of their ministerial role.

Schedules 1 to 6.

Amendment 64, in schedule 7, page 90, line 9, leave out

“is impractical or would involve undesirable delay”

and replace with “would involve unreasonable delay”.

The purpose of this amendment is to restrict the use of single practitioner recommendations to situations where this would cause unreasonable delay in the recommendation being made. This will protect patients in a way that a broader power to use single practitioner recommendations where obtaining two recommendations was said to be ‘impractical’ or involve ‘undesirable delay’ would not.

Amendment 65, in page 90, line 31, at end insert—

“(10) A single recommendation may not be made by a practitioner employed by a private sector body, if it is being contemplated that the patient may be detained in a hospital run by the relevant private sector body.”

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that patients cannot be detained solely on the recommendation of a doctor employed by a private hospital where it is envisaged that they will or may be detained at that hospital.

Government amendments 15 and 16.

Schedules 7 to 10.

Amendment 57, in schedule 11, page 111, line 19, at end insert—

“(3) In this Part of this Schedule, the phrase “does not have to comply with any duties” means that a local authority does not have to comply with the relevant duty only if it would not be reasonably practicable to do so.”

The purpose of this amendment, along with amendments 58 and 59, is to require local authorities to discharge their Care Act duties and in particular meet needs for care and support which would currently be ‘eligible’ needs where it is reasonably practicable for them to do so. This will provide a measure of protection to disabled people while permitting local authorities to take account of all relevant circumstances in the commissioning and delivery of adult social care.

Amendment 14, in schedule 11, page 112, line 33, at end, insert—

“(d) the local authority has the necessary resources to meet those needs or can make funding available in advance or arrears to meet those needs.”

This amendment would make the duty on a local authority to meet an adult’s needs for care and support conditional upon the local authority having available resources or the ability to access additional resources to fulfil that duty.

Amendment 59, page 113, line 8, after “Convention rights” insert

“or the local authority considers, on the information available to it, that it is likely the adult’s needs would have met the eligibility criteria previously established by the Care and Support (Eligibility Criteria) Regulations 2014 and that it would be reasonably practicable to meet those needs”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 57.

Amendment 58, page 113, line 30, after “Convention rights” insert

“or the local authority considers, on the information available to it, that it is likely the adult’s needs would have met the eligibility criteria previously established by the Care and Support (Eligibility Criteria) Regulations 2014 and that it would be reasonably practicable to meet those needs”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 57.

Amendment 60, page 117, line 18, at end insert—

“(3) In this Part of this Schedule, the phrase “does not have to comply with any duties” means that a local authority does not have to comply with the relevant duty only if it would not be reasonably practicable to do so.”

This amendment and Amendments 61 to 63 have the same objectives in relation to the Welsh legislation as the amendments 57 to 59 above have in relation to the Care Act in England.

Amendment 62, page 119, leave out lines 2 to 4 and insert—

“(3) Condition 2 is that the local authority considers, on the information available to it, that it is likely the carer’s needs would have met the eligibility criteria previously in force and it is reasonably practicable to meet those needs.”, and”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 60.

Amendment 63, page 119, leave out lines 7 to 10 and insert—

“(3) Amod 2 yw bod yr awdurdod yn ystyried, o’r wybodaeth sydd ar gael ar y pryd, ei fod yn debygol bod anghenion y gofalwr eisoes wedi cyrraedd meini prawf cymhwysedd mewn rheolaeth, a’i fod yn rhesymol y gellid cyflawni’r anghenion ymarferol hynny.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 60.

Amendment 61, page 119, line 40, at end insert

“and replaced with “the local authority considers, on the information available to it, that it is likely the adult’s needs would have met the eligibility criteria previously in force and it is reasonably practicable to meet those needs”.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 60.

Schedules 11 to 13.

Amendment 53, in schedule 14, page 136, line 2, after “chains” insert

“and power to cap prices”.

Amendment 54, page 136, line 5, after “section 26” insert “or [Power to cap prices]”.

Schedules 14 and 15.

Amendment 71, in schedule 16, page 165, line 20, at end insert—

“(1A) Before making any notice in accordance with subparagraph (1), the Secretary of State shall consult with such persons as appear to him to be appropriate, unless they consider that in the particular circumstances it is not reasonably practicable to undertake any such consultation. The Secretary of State shall in particular consider whether they can discharge their duty in sub-section (a) by consultations with representative bodies for pupils, students, parents, teachers, other professionals and local authorities, as they consider appropriate.”

This amendment is linked to amendment 68.

Amendment 68, page 167, line 26, leave out ‘used reasonable endeavours’ and insert ‘taken all practicable steps’.

This amendment and amendments 69 and 70 are intended to be to the modifications to section 19 Education Act 1996, sections 508A-508F Education Act 1996 and section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014 plus the new sub-paragraph on consultation added in after para 5(1) of schedule 16.

Amendment 69, page 167, line 36, leave out ‘used reasonable endeavours’ and insert ‘taken all practicable steps’.

This amendment is linked to amendment 68.

Amendment 70, page 170, line 33, leave out ‘used reasonable endeavours’ and insert ‘taken all practicable steps’.

This amendment is linked to amendment 68.

Schedules 16 and 17.

Government amendment 19.

Schedules 18 and 19.

Government amendments 9 to 13.

Schedule 20.

Government amendments 55 and 56.

Schedules 21 and 22.

Government amendment 82.

Schedules 23 and 24.

Government amendment 5.

Schedules 25 to 26.

Government amendment 51.

Amendment 66, in schedule 27, page 317, line 6, at end insert—

“5A In respect of sub-paragraphs 5 (a), (b) and (c), where a deceased is to be cremated and it goes against their religious belief, the designated authority must consult the next of kin or designated Power of Attorney or the relevant local faith institution in so far as reasonably possible, to find a suitable alternative before proceeding with the cremation.”

This amendment and linked Amendment 67 would require a local authority to consult the next of kin, designated Power of Attorney or local faith institutions (such as a church, mosque or synagogue) for support in order to respect an individual’s wishes.

Amendment 67, page 317, line 8, at beginning insert

“Having had due regard to paragraph 5A of this Part,”.

Government amendment 52.

Schedule 27.

Government new schedule 2—Emergency arrangements concerning medical practitioners: Wales.

Government new schedule 3—Residential tenancies: protection from eviction.

New schedule 1—Measures in relation to immigration and asylum—

Part 1

rules in relation to no recourse to public funds

20 The Secretary of State must consult the Chief Medical Officer or any of the Deputy Chief Medical Officers of the Department of Health and Social Care on the impact of no recourse to public funds rules on preventing, protecting against, controlling or providing a public health response to the incidence or spread of infection or contamination.

21 The Secretary of State must, by regulation, make such amendments to no recourse to public funds rules as considered necessary in light of the consultation referred to in paragraph 1.

22 In this schedule, “no recourse to public funds rules” includes any provision prohibiting access to public funds or other forms of publicly financed support by those who require leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, including, but not limited to, section 115 of the Immigration Act 1999.

Part 2

immigration detention

23 The Secretary of State must consult the Chief Medical Officer or any of the Deputy Chief Medical Officers of the Department of Health and Social Care on the impact of immigration detention on preventing, protecting against, controlling or providing a public health response to the incidence or spread of infection or contamination.

24 (1) Within seven days of the date on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must review the list of countries to which imminent removal of immigration detainees is possible.

(2) In light of that review, the Secretary of State must make arrangements to end the detention of any individual who cannot be removed imminently, consistent with preventing, protecting against, controlling and providing a public health response to the incidence or spread of infection or contamination.

Part 3

asylum processes

25 (1) The Secretary of State must consult the Chief Medical Officer or any of the Deputy Chief Medical Officers of the Department of Health and Social Care on the impact of asylum processes on preventing, protecting against, controlling or providing a public health response to the incidence or spread of infection or contamination.

(2) The matters to be consulted on under sub-paragraph (1) include, but are not restricted to—

(a) requirements for individuals to report or attend interviews as part of the asylum process;

(b) the nature and extent of asylum accommodation and rules in relation to eviction from asylum accommodation;

(c) the nature and extent of financial support for asylum seekers;

(d) the nature and extent of financial support for local authorities in asylum dispersal areas.

Part 4

extension of leave to remain

26 7. The Secretary of State must make provision, by statement of changes to the immigration rules, to allow for leave to remain for individuals whose previous leave expires during the period in which this Act is in force, or whose leave expired in the 14 days prior to the date on which this Act is passed.

This new schedule contains temporary changes to immigration and asylum laws and procedures for the purposes of preventing, protecting against, controlling or providing a public health response to the incidence or spread of infection or contamination.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I rise merely to refer to the issue of the timing and the length of the Bill. As Members will know, the Minister said in the previous debate that the Government were tabling a new clause that would allow the Bill to be on the statute book for two years but with an opportunity after six months to vote on whether the temporary measures in it should remain. I urge the Minister to look carefully at that new clause, because I think it is defective. New clause 19 states clearly:

“‘relevant temporary provision’” means any provision of this Act—

(a) which is not listed in section (2) (provisions not subject to expiry)”

I cannot find that section anywhere, so I do not think that the new clause works in law. I may be completely wrong—I may have missed something—and if so, I hope the Minister can enlighten me. I do not think there is any conspiracy here; it may just be that something has been missed.

Like the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), my anxiety from the start has been that two years is a long time to have such draconian measures on the statute book and that to have them on the statute book without a moment when the House, rather than Ministers, can decide to switch individual measures on or off is quite problematic. The Government have already used the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to table statutory instruments to close pubs, restaurants, casino, spas, gyms and so on. That secondary legislation still has to go through the House under the 1984 Act, and the Commons and the Lords have to vote in favour of it within 28 days of it being tabled.

Likewise, if the Government had gone down the route of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, they would have needed to come back to Parliament every 30 days for each of the individual powers that they presented under that Act, and if the House chose not to allow those powers to remain, the Government would not be able to continue using them. In addition, the 2004 Act makes it clear that if Parliament is adjourned for more than four days, or even if it is prorogued, the Speaker and the monarch have to summon Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the challenges faced by the 4.7 million self-employed people, as quoted by the Federation of Small Businesses. I was sent a screenshot of a claim being made by somebody self-employed this afternoon, and it said that there were 33,383 people ahead of them in the queue to use the claim section of the website. I am sure he will agree that that is a very worrying sign of the ability of the system to cope—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman is making a very important point, and every Member of Parliament has received similar emails from their constituents to the one that he has just described. I am very concerned that we have only an hour and a bit to go—[Interruption.] No, I make no criticism of the hon. Gentleman: it is very important in emergency legislation that the official Opposition have a full say in what happens at this point of the Bill, but I implore Members to move a little bit faster. If everybody makes short points, we will get all those points in, which we must do.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I say to my hon. Friend that he is right. One of the issues about making announcements is that people actually have to be able to access what they are being offered.

I have already set out that statutory sick pay is too low at £94.25 a week. Amendments regarding that have been tabled, as well as on people who do not qualify for it, and I urge the Government to look at that again. We must also speak of the businesses laying off workers and not applying for the 80% coverage of wages, which is what they should be doing. There are people who have lost their jobs, and who need help fast. It is a concern that the 80% wages support applies in the April payroll, not the March payroll, and what that will mean is that money will not be available until the end of next month. I appreciate the scale of this and I appreciate that Treasury officials have done a lot of work on it, but as the days pass more and more people are losing their jobs. Every day matters in bringing that help forward.

I have already spoken about renters and mentioned help for homeowners. On businesses, I say to the Government that grants are better than loans. We do not want to build up a stack of debt, and where the Government are relying upon the universal credit system, they must look at the fundamental structural problems in the system and at the five-week waits. Surely we cannot continue with face-to-face assessments in the next few months, with the scale of this crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that profiteering is affecting people now. We have heard some examples from across the House and, clearly, that issue needs to be seriously considered.

I turn now to what all this means taken together—I will draw my remarks to a close, Dame Eleanor, because I know that you wish other people to come in. This is an unprecedented change in the relationship between Government and Parliament, and Government and people. First, I say to the Minister that the imperative is to protect everyone and support them in this time of peril. We ask people to make sacrifices and we must support them, too. Secondly, the need for safeguards in this legislation is paramount. I hope that the Minister will look in particular at the suggestion that I made on the six-month review and that being amendable.

We are not seeking to divide the House, but we hope very much that the Government will heed what has been said, and we, of course, reserve the right to pursue these matters further in the other place.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

If everyone takes around three to four minutes, they will all get a chance to come in.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I will not detain the House long. I rise to speak to new clause 1, which I understand has been agreed in advance with the Government, and I will move it at the end of this evening’s proceedings.

New clause 1 is very straightforward. It enables the elections to the General Synod of the Church of England to be postponed. Quite recently, we postponed all the elections that we in the House are involved in—the mayoral, local government and police and crime commissioner elections—but the General Synod is the National Assembly of the Church of England, and it is a Church that is episcopally led and synodically governed. The General Synod is a devolved body of this Parliament. It is the first devolved body of the Westminster Parliament and has been since 1919. Synods last five years, just as Westminster Parliaments do. The last one was elected in summer 2015 and therefore would expire this summer. There is no legal power to extend the current General Synod. New clause 1 provides that power by allowing the Archbishops of Canterbury and of York to ask Her Majesty to postpone the date of dissolution by an Order in Council. That order postpones the date of the dissolution of the current Synod for as long as would be necessary by dissolving the convocations of Canterbury and of York. The dissolution of those convocations triggers the dissolution of Synod.

Hon. Members may not know what I mean by convocations, but they are the historical assemblies of bishops and clergy. They go back to the time of Archbishop Theodore of Canterbury, who was enthroned in 668, so convocations give this Parliament a run for its money in terms of historical precedent. That may sound a bit dry, but it is important. This will enable the Synod to deal with important matters, such as the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. The Church takes that very seriously, and it will need to react to that body’s findings. This will also enable the Synod to move forward with the important work on cathedral finances and governance, which also need to be addressed urgently.

The Church is fulfilling an important role today. It is caring for the vulnerable, and it is reaching out in helping with the delivery of food, such as working with food banks and with night shelters. I commend new clause 1 to the Government and to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

I will, but I am just going briefly to go through the amendments—[Interruption.] I know, but hon. Members have tabled amendments and I wish to tell them why we have not accepted them. [Interruption.]

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We are getting through this and we are not having interruptions from Members who are sitting down.

[Penny Mordaunt]

Thank you, Dame Eleanor. The first such reason is that in the event that Parliament is not sitting, we think that the made affirmative procedure would impede our ability to manage efficiently the use of these powers. It may be difficult to make an Order in Council during a pandemic. It may be difficult safely to convene the necessary Privy Council meeting. A made affirmative instrument can be made more, and ensures that there is a vote on the extension of the Act when Parliament returns. Secondly, it is not clear from the proposed amendment whether the Act can be extended more than once. It is the unfortunate situation that with this pandemic possibly lasting longer than a year it is essential that we have the flexibility to keep the important measures in this Bill in force for longer than a year where they are needed.

I am aware of the real policy concerns behind the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden. I should also point out that without clause 76 we would have no mechanism for extending the life of the Bill, should that be needed, other than by making further primary legislation, so we could be left without vital measures for protecting public health and supporting essential public services while in the middle of the outbreak. Similarly, without clause 76 we would have no simple means of sunsetting the legislation at an earlier date if it proves to be no longer necessary.

Finally, colleagues will wish to note that the amendment would impact on the devolved Administrations without their consent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

Can I just answer that point, because my hon. Friend made it on Second Reading, and I have checked the issue? The Department of Health and NHS England are looking at precisely the issue of being able to authorise healthcare professionals to administer other opiates. I can also assure my hon. Friend that he will shortly get a letter from the relevant Secretary of State with regard to the Isle of Wight ferry issue. I do not know its contents—I am not briefed on that—but his lobbying has worked.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before I call Jeffrey Donaldson, I should say that we really have to be quick now. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do three minutes.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

Thank you Dame Eleanor. I will be brief.

I want to speak to new clause 5, in my name. As we have heard, there have been calls from across the UK to look out for the members of our society who are elderly and vulnerable. I wish to add my voice and to say that the victims of modern slavery must be addressed urgently. I spoke to the Minister’s colleague earlier today, and I have received assurances from the Minister. I welcome the fact that the Department is working closely with the Salvation Army, which is the contractor dealing with these issues. I have faith that it will do the right thing and look after these people, but it is important to issue guidance on this issue when possible.

I recognise that the Department is pressed and that officials are working hard on this issue, but I really hope the Government will be able to address my concerns, particularly to ensure that the victims of modern slavery continue to receive special payments; that where their key worker is off ill due to the virus, someone else will liaise with them and keep in contact; that there are arrangements to address the need to protect them when they are in shared or cramped accommodation, as is often the case; and that the Government will look into these matters and ensure that these vulnerable people, who are already victims, are not further victimised or isolated as a result of a lack of capacity to deal with these issues and concerns at the moment. I am looking for that assurance, and I hope the Government will be able to issue guidance along the lines I have suggested in new clause 5.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Lady raises a perfectly reasonable point of order. The House will understand why, while we were undertaking the proceedings that we have just concluded, the Prime Minister spoke to the nation in a forum other than this Chamber, but Mr Speaker has made it very clear to the Prime Minister that when announcements are made outside this House, they must be made, as soon as is practicable, within this House to this Chamber, to the duly elected representatives of the people here gathered.