Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Rishi Sunak

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

Fishing is at the heart of many of our coastal communities, and I pay tribute to Mr Chapman and my hon. Friend for their commitment to the sector. I am happy that the Government are also championing and committed to the sector, and we have announced a £100 million fund to modernise our fleet and infrastructure. That is on top of £32 million that will replace EU funding this year, and £23 million that was made available earlier to support the sector, while adjusting to new export requirements.

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

A year ago, the Chancellor personally announced the coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme, or “our loan scheme for large companies”, as his Department put it. Allowing Greensill Capital access to that scheme put hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and thousands of jobs at risk. The Prime Minister said he would publish every personal exchange related to covid contracts. Has the Chancellor published his every communication relating to Government business on Greensill, including with David Cameron—yes or no?

[Rishi Sunak]

We have actually responded to all the requests that I have been asked and, indeed, gone above and beyond in providing disclosure. I would say a couple of things to the hon. Lady. First of all, I am very happy to co-operate fully and constructively with both the independent Boardman review and the Treasury Committee inquiry, and those processes have begun. Secondly, on the substance, it is important to remember what was going on. We were in the midst of a financial crisis and we were keen to explore all avenues to support small and medium-sized businesses. We have heard in the House today that there are still challenges, so it was right to examine all avenues to do that. This was just one of many strands of work that the Treasury and I conducted, rightly and appropriately. It is important to notice that, in the end, we rejected the taking forward of any proposals on supply chain finance.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I will take that as a no. It appears that the Chancellor is less committed than the Prime Minister himself to transparency. That is not what I would call levelling with the British public. Let us see if he can level on another significant Government failure: the delay to imposing restrictions last autumn, which cost lives and our economy dear. In late October, when I asked the Chancellor if he was blocking a circuit breaker, he said,

“I agree with the Prime Minister”—[Official Report, 20 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 889.]

Now it is being suggested that he sided with others against the Prime Minister. We have grown used to the Chancellor chopping and changing his mind, but can he explain whether this change of heart is driven by science and the needs of our economy, or by the internal politics of the Conservative party?

[Rishi Sunak]

The hon. Lady is confusing multiple things. She has asked me previously about circuit breakers. At the time there was a debate, appropriately, about whether a national intervention was right at a time when the epidemiology across this country was incredibly varied. That is something that the deputy chief medical officer himself spoke about at a press conference, and he said it would be inappropriate at that time to take forward national interventions. That is what I was referring to.

To go back to the shadow Chancellor’s previous comment about transparency, in fact I voluntarily published extra messages to aid the transparency of this process for people. I am fully committed to working constructively with the inquiry, both the Boardman review and the Treasury Committee inquiry. It is worth reminding the shadow Chancellor of something she herself wrote last April in The Daily Mirror:

“The ‘Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme’ seems to be stuck in the banks, and not getting to small businesses in particular, where cash flow is desperately needed.”

Well, the Government were also looking at how to get cash flow to small businesses, and I am sad and disappointed about what a conveniently short memory she has.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Rishi Sunak

Tuesday 9th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

My right hon. Friend has raised this industry with me multiple times, and he is right to do so. Although some food and drink wholesalers have been significantly impacted, others—for example, those that predominately serve the public sector—have not been, so I do not think it would be fair to provide blanket support. He talked about a postcode lottery. The other side of that coin is empowering local government and local decision making, and I believe that is the right approach. We have announced £425 million of additional discretionary support to local authorities, but I am sure that his raising the issue in the House in this way will give his local council and others the steer they need to direct support to this important industry.

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

In 2017 the Chancellor asked a Member of this House whether Labour’s proposed increase in corporation tax

“would make it more or less likely that international investors would want to invest here in the UK?”—[Official Report, 12 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 218WH.]

What’s the answer, Chancellor?

[Rishi Sunak]

I am delighted that the hon. Lady is raising the topic of corporation tax at this Budget. I feel that we have had various different versions of the Labour party policy on this topic over the past couple of weeks. What I can say is that we are honest with the British people about the challenges facing our public finances, and we have set out a fair and honest way to address those challenges. This will remain one of the most internationally competitive places anywhere in the world to invest, to grow a business and to create jobs, and this Government will always deliver on that promise.

[Anneliese Dodds]

Last week, the Chancellor said he wanted to “level with” the public. He mentioned a moment ago that he wanted to take an honest approach. Well, the head of the NHS just confirmed that he budgeted for the 2.1% pay rise that nurses expected, so we need a straight answer now from the Chancellor: why do the Conservatives believe that our nurses are worth less now than they were before the pandemic?

[Rishi Sunak]

I pay tribute to all those working on the frontline of our NHS and other public services. They are doing a fantastic job, and that is why this Government have supported the NHS with tens of billions of pounds of extra funding through this pandemic and will continue to do so. With regard to public sector pay, we set out a policy in November, but, given the situation, we were taking a more targeted approach to public sector pay to balance fairness and to protect as many jobs as possible. The hon. Lady will know that the NHS was exempted from that policy and NHS workers will receive a pay rise next year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Rishi Sunak

Tuesday 26th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is right about needing the private sector to drive growth and create jobs. I am pleased to tell him that the Prime Minister and I chaired the first meeting of the Build Back Better Business Council, where we outlined our plans to invest in infrastructure, innovation and skills alongside businesses. We have also established a new Office for Investment, led by Lord Grimstone, which is charged with securing high-value investment opportunities, and I look forward to hearing from him ideas that we can productively take forward.

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

In recent days, the Treasury has been at loggerheads with the Department for Work and Pensions, insisting on taking £20 a week from the pockets of 6 million families. It has also been at loggerheads with the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, by claiming that financial hardship is not inhibiting self-isolation. Why is the Treasury putting our economic and health recovery at risk in this way?

[Rishi Sunak]

The hon. Lady should not believe everything she reads in the newspapers. The Treasury and this Government have put in place a comprehensive and generous set of support to help people get through this crisis, and the results show that we have protected those on the lowest incomes the most.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I was actually following the words of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and of SAGE, but I appreciate the Chancellor’s response. The kickstart scheme was much heralded, but yesterday we learned that it appears to be missing out around 99 of every 100 young jobseekers. What does the Chancellor say to them today?

[Rishi Sunak]

I am not entirely sure I know the figures that the hon. Lady is referring to. What I can say is that, since this scheme was announced at the beginning of July and opened for applications in September, it has created over 120,000 jobs for young people. That is, I think, an extraordinary achievement. I pay tribute to the team at the DWP for doing that. I am grateful to the thousands of businesses that are taking part in the scheme. They are working with us to provide hope and opportunity to a generation of young people so that they are not scarred by coronavirus, but can look forward to a brighter future.

Economic Update

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Rishi Sunak

Monday 11th January 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I start by joining the Chancellor in sending my very best wishes to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire). I know I speak for everyone on the Opposition side of the House in wishing him a speedy recovery.

Six weeks have passed since the Chancellor last addressed this House. In that time, the Prime Minister scrapped his proposed relaxation of public health rules, introduced a new tier 4 level of restrictions for London and large parts of the south-east, and then superseded all of that with the imposition of a third national lockdown. After the Prime Minister’s most recent announcement, Parliament was, of course, recalled, and Members were given the opportunity to ask questions of the Prime Minister, the Health Secretary and the Education Secretary—but the Chancellor was nowhere to be seen. His sole contribution to a set of announcements that had profound implications for our economy was a 90-second video on Twitter, which begged as many questions as it answered.

There was no indication of how long the new grants are expected to cover and no clarity on how the discretionary funding for local councils has been calculated, nor of how it will be allocated. Funds being provided to the devolved nations were badged as new money, before the Treasury hastily amended its website to reflect that that money had already been committed to in December. We heard nothing about what would happen to those people who had started a new job since the beginning of November and are now ineligible for furlough. We heard nothing about what level the fourth grant for self-employed people would be set at, nor when that grant would be made available. We heard nothing for those people who have been excluded from Government schemes right from the very start, and we heard nothing about what the Chancellor would do to fix the broken system of support for self-isolation.

I was relieved to hear this morning that the Chancellor had undertaken to address the House today, but I deeply regret that, having last year blocked measures that would have helped to protect the NHS and secure our economy, today he appears to be out of ideas, urging us to look towards the sunny uplands but providing nothing new. The purpose of an update is to provide us with new information, not to repeat what we already know.

In addition, the Chancellor just now gave a highly partial picture of the state of our economy, talking of a rise in savings but not mentioning that over 5 million people are estimated to have taken on over £10 billion in debt just to get through the last year. He talked of corporate cash buffers, but did not mention that City experts have predicted that there will be over £100 billion in unsustainable corporate debt by the end of March.

The Chancellor needs to acknowledge the reality of the crisis we face—a crisis made worse by his Government’s irresponsibility, with our economy having suffered the worst recession of any major economy. He needs to act accordingly. I therefore ask him to respond to the questions that businesses and workers desperately need answered. Will he update the furlough scheme to reflect the dates of the current lockdown? When will he set out the new incentive scheme he promised to provide for businesses that will now not receive the job retention bonus? When will he provide details on the next self-employment income support scheme? What does he say to people who have been excluded from Government support schemes from the very beginning and who still are not helped by today’s announcement? How long will businesses have to make the new one-off grants last for? When will councils find out how the new discretionary funding will be allocated and on what basis it has been calculated?

Does the Chancellor believe that those who are classified as clinically extremely vulnerable should be automatically eligible for furlough if they cannot work from home? When will he fix support for those self-isolating, when the evidence for change is overwhelming? When will his much vaunted Project Birch actually start to deliver for struggling manufacturers? Will we have to wait until the Budget for recognition of all these problems and solutions to them, as was suggested by his social media account?

We had all hoped for a more optimistic start to 2021 than a new national lockdown and yet more uncertainty about the future, but the people of Britain understand that they have to make sacrifices. They are doing their bit for the national effort while the vaccine is rolled out. They are fulfilling their side of the bargain. The Chancellor must fulfil his.

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank the hon. Member for her response, and in particular for her comments about my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), which I appreciate.

I think that it is right, where possible in this House, that we acknowledge those areas—many areas, in fact—where there is agreement on both sides of the House: for example, on wage support, on business support, on loan guarantees, on funding for critical public services, on tax deferrals and tax cuts, on support for renters and homeowners, on support for job creation, retraining and skills, on support for children learning at home, on support for the self-employed, on support for the NHS, on support for the vaccination roll-out, and on testing. I could go on. The truth is that, politics aside, there is in fact significant unity of purpose in this place: to protect the most vulnerable; to vaccinate our people as quickly as possible; to reopen our country; and, finally, to rebuild and begin the process of recovery. Given this agreement, while it is right to acknowledge the difference in degrees and emphasis that the hon. Member poses, it is clear that on the fundamentals there is, in fact, little disagreement.

Let me turn to the shadow Chancellor’s specific areas of concern. With regard to the formula for the local authority grants, I can tell her—as was, I think, published—that the formula for the additional half a billion pounds will be the same as that for the £1.1 billion that was issued shortly before the end of last year. With regard to the furlough dates, she will be pleased to know that the change in date from the original spring date through to the new date at the end of October, before the announcement of the new scheme and the extension, will bring an additional 3 million people into coverage for the furlough scheme. I am sure that she will join me in welcoming that the scheme has protected more than 9 million jobs over the past several months. It is, of course, already possible for people to be furloughed if they are clinically extremely vulnerable or have childcare difficulties, but those decisions are, of course, to be made by individual employers and their employees. It would not be right for the Government to put a blanket mandate in place. The hon. Member is right that the Budget is the appropriate place to consider her various other questions, given the scale of the response and the fact that all our major avenues of support have been extended through to the spring.

The hon. Member made a comment about this country having experienced the worst recession out of anyone. It is important in this place that people have the right facts, particularly when those facts impact people’s confidence and understanding of what is happening. I must gently point out some facts, which I am sure the hon. Member knows, because she will have studied this carefully. She will know that, when making international comparisons between the performance of our economy and others, it is important that we are careful because everybody calculates things in very different ways. Indeed, as the Office for Budget Responsibility mentioned in its latest report—which I am sure she will be able to read—and as the Office for National Statistics has highlighted, in this country we calculate public sector output very differently from almost any other country. It is very clear that the way in which we calculate that output flatters other countries and disadvantages us when it comes to making such comparisons. As those independent forecasters have pointed out, when corrected for that difference, we find that our economic performance is actually very much in line with comparable countries. It is not the worst, and I do not think that it is good for confidence or for people’s understanding of the situation for that to be propagated.

Throughout this crisis the Government have always been pragmatic. When changes must be made, we have made them, and when help has been justified, we have always provided it. We are now so close to the end of this difficult period for so many people that I would ask the hon. Member at this time to recognise that the national interest is best served by our co-operation, not partisanship. The vaccine roll-out is the most important priority of this Government and provides us with the path to getting out of this situation, protecting people’s health and releasing the restrictions that are hampering our economic recovery. That should be our focus—I know she will agree with me on that—and it is in that spirit, in the best traditions of this House, that I hope we will be able to see out this crisis in the coming months.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Rishi Sunak

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is right to champion his local businesses, something he knows well from his own experience. I can give him that reassurance. I know it has been a very difficult time for his small and medium-sized companies. They have my assurance that I will keep working hard to support them. He knows, better than most, that they will drive our recovery.

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

Last week, the Chancellor said that public sector workers on less than £24,000 would be guaranteed a pay rise, but then said that they would receive a fixed increase of £250. Will he correct the record to confirm he is delivering a real-terms pay cut for many teaching assistants, prison officers and police constables?

[Rishi Sunak]

I stand by what I said. Those earning less than £24,000 in the public sector, 2.1 million people, or 38% of all people working in the public sector, will receive a guaranteed fixed increase of at least £250.

[Anneliese Dodds]

Even if no deal is avoided, we appear to be headed for a thin-as-gruel deal with the EU. The Office for Budget Responsibility says that that would lead to a long-run loss of output of about 4%. That is on top of the slowest recovery from covid in the G7, as predicted by the OECD today. The Chancellor previously said that his Government’s deal would reduce costs for ordinary working families and promised its impact would be modelled. Will he provide that modelling and is he confident that it will show that positive impact?

[Rishi Sunak]

I would not want to pre-empt the outcome of the ongoing talks, which I can say are constructive and proceeding with full intensity. I am very hopeful that they can reach a positive conclusion. More broadly, regardless of the exact nature of our trading relationship with our European friends and allies, I remain very confident in the economic future of our country and the opportunities that will come our way.

Spending Review 2020 and OBR Forecast

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Rishi Sunak

Wednesday 25th November 2020 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This spending review was a moment for the Chancellor to take the responsible choices that our country needs. It was an opportunity to protect key workers, secure the economy and recover jobs in every part of our country.

During this crisis, we have seen who has taken responsibility: community health workers working round the clock to keep us all safe; the teachers who kept working so that key workers could too; the delivery drivers and shop staff who made sure that we had critical food supplies. Earlier this year, the Chancellor stood on his doorstep and clapped for key workers. Today, his Government institute a pay freeze for many of them. This takes a sledgehammer to consumer confidence. Firefighters, police officers and teachers will know that their spending power is going down, so they will spend less in our small businesses and on our high streets; they will spend less in our private sector. Many key workers, who willingly took on so much responsibility during this crisis, are now being forced to tighten their belts now; not in the medium term to which the Chancellor refers, but now.

In contrast, there has been a bonanza for those who have won contracts from this Government. Companies with political connections have been 10 times more likely to win Government contracts. So many businesses have worked tirelessly through the pandemic to support local communities, to keep critical supplies going and to produce drugs and vaccines—at cost price in AstraZeneca’s case—working with some of our country’s best scientists. But in their response to this pandemic, the Conservative Government have wasted and mismanaged public finances on an industrial scale: £130 million to a Conservative donor for testing kits that were unsafe; £150 million for face masks and £700 million on coveralls that could not be used; a £12 billion hit to our economy because the more effective, shorter, circuit breaker was blocked and a lengthier, more expensive lockdown put in place instead; £12 billion so far spent on a test and trace system that is still not working; and, today, news of £10 billion in additional costs for personal protective equipment, which was at least partly down to the Conservatives’ lack of pre-pandemic planning.

This waste and mismanagement is part of a longer-term pattern, showing that claims today around levelling up simply do not match the evidence: hospitals in Liverpool and Sandwell left unbuilt, over deadline by years and over budget by hundreds of millions of pounds; not a single starter home built, despite almost £200 million being spent; Northern Powerhouse Rail still not even approved six years after being announced; the courts modernisation programme three years behind schedule, letting victims down up and down the country; and people in the north more likely to have been made redundant during this crisis holding everything else equal.

Photo calls are not enough. We need delivery like the promotion of green manufacturing in the west midlands by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and the work of Labour Mayors and councils across the country. We need a Government in Westminster who take their responsibility towards all four nations seriously. That means informing the Finance Minister of Northern Ireland about the shorter timescale for this spending review ahead of time and fulfilling the “New Decade, New Approach” commitments. It means doing the right thing by the people of Wales to repair flood damage and make safe legacy coal tips. It means ending the barney between Westminster and Holyrood and instead working together in partnership to protect jobs and livelihoods.

It means a shared prosperity fund that is effective because it is delivered not on the whim of Conservative Ministers but from our devolved Governments and our regions. The levelling-up fund that the Chancellor just announced—his rabbit out of the hat—yet again, just as with the Beeching reopening programme, involves MPs going to Ministers and begging for support for their areas, rather than that change being driven from local communities. So much for taking back control! This is about the centre handing over support in a very top-down manner.

Labour has been clear about the responsible choices that we wanted the Chancellor to make today to recover jobs, retrain workers and rebuild businesses. To recover jobs, Labour called for £30 billion of capital spending accelerated over the next 18 months, focused on green initiatives, supporting 400,000 jobs and bringing us in line with countries such as France and Germany. This Government’s ambition is for half that number of new jobs. To retrain workers, we needed an emergency programme to support people back into work, but kick- start has been slow to get started, and the skills offer for those over 25 will not start until April. The Chancellor said at the beginning of his speech that our economic emergency “has only just begun”—try telling that to people who have been out of work since March.

Restart, announced today, must meet three key tests to be effective. It should help people who need it most, not cherry-pick. It should be up and running as soon as possible, yet it appears that only a fraction of Restart funding will be available next year. And it must involve local actors who know their communities, not be imposed from Whitehall. Of course, job search support ultimately only works if sufficient new jobs actually exist. That is why we needed ambitious action to boost our economy and to support our businesses.

To rebuild business, we called for a national investment bank. I welcome the announcement of a new UK infrastructure bank, given that valuable years have been lost since the Green Investment Bank was sold off. Now the Chancellor must boost its firepower, and he must deliver on his Department’s responsibility for the drive to net zero. We have known since the Stern report that the climate crisis is the biggest long-term threat to our economy, yet far too often, this spending review locks us into a path that will make the transition to net zero harder, not easier, locking our economy out of the green jobs of the future.

To rebuild business, the Chancellor also needs to listen to business. We are less than a week from the end of the lockdown, yet we have heard nothing about whether extra support will be provided through the additional restrictions support grant for areas subject once again to tough restrictions. The Chancellor is still threatening employers with an increased contribution to furlough in January, at the worst possible time for increasing and building confidence.

In fewer than 40 days, we are due to leave the transition period, yet the Chancellor did not even mention that in his speech. There is still no trade deal, so does the Chancellor truly believe that his Government are prepared and that he has done enough to help those businesses that will be heavily affected? Will he take responsible action to help those excluded from Government support? Why is he still refusing to make the speedy fixes to universal credit that Labour has advocated, which would aid the self-employed, and why will he not provide families with certainty by ensuring that the increase in universal credit continues beyond April?

The IMF has made it clear time and again that now would be the worst time to slam on the brakes and put the car into reverse. It has called for a “meaningful additional push” from our Government to maintain fiscal support until the recovery is on a sound footing. The UK’s GDP is 10% smaller now than it was at the end of last year. We have seen the worst downturn in the G7. We needed ambitious action today to stimulate growth and maintain demand, and we needed the Government to take responsibility for the real reasons why people and communities up and down our country are being held back.

Over the past 10 years, child poverty has risen by 600,000. We have had the worst decade for pay growth in eight generations. The cost of childcare has risen twice as fast as wages. The number of young apprentices has plummeted. Last quarter, we saw the highest level of redundancies on record. Social care is in increasing crisis and, despite the Conservative party’s manifesto having promised a long-term solution, we are still waiting.

It was trailed in the press that the Chancellor would be moving 20,000 jobs out of London, yet cuts to local authorities over the past 10 years have seen 240,000 jobs lost—12 times that figure of 20,000—with the hardest-hit communities often those in the north, midlands and south-west. Today, the Chancellor could have matched his Government’s promise to do whatever is necessary to support local authorities through this crisis; he did not. And yet again he showed his Government’s lack of confidence in their own measures by failing to provide an equality impact assessment.

The measure of this Government will not be the number of press releases issued during this crisis or the number of pictures it published on Instagram; it will be the responsible action that they took, or did not take, for the sake of our country.

Next year, the eyes of the world will be on the UK as we assume the presidencies of the G7 and the UN Security Council and host the COP26 summit, yet now is the time that the Chancellor has turned his back on the world’s poorest by cutting international aid. It is in Britain’s national interest to lay the foundations for economic growth around the world—no wonder many British businesses have condemned his move.

Businesses have been more and more vocal about the problems with this Government’s last-minute approach, always one step behind when we need to plan responsibly for the future. We must learn the lessons from previous failures and ensure that the next challenge—the roll-out of the vaccine—is dealt with as efficiently, effectively and speedily as possible.

Next time, we need a comprehensive spending review that takes responsible choices—to build a future for our country as the best place in the world to grow up in and the best place to grow old in. People should have opportunities on their doorstep, not at the other end of the country. Everywhere in the UK should feel like a good place to set up home. That is what the Chancellor must deliver.

[Rishi Sunak]

I will address all the points made by the hon. Lady in turn, but it is important to note, up front, that despite her criticisms, there is actually a lot that she and her Opposition colleagues should welcome: more funding for public services; a pay increase for NHS workers; support for those on the lowest incomes; a once-in-a-generation investment in infrastructure; a multi-billion pound commitment to support those looking for work; a new schools building programme; and the Prime Minister’s 10- point plan. I could go on, Mr Speaker.

It is right that the hon. Lady should provide challenge, but I think, even if she does not, that the British people will judge this spending review as a reflection of their priorities: protecting jobs, defeating coronavirus, strengthening our public services and upgrading our infrastructure. If there is any politics here at all, surely it is unifying, and I think that, deep down, she will recognise that.

Let me address the specific points. The hon. Lady asked about pay and the importance of consumption, and I agree that of course there is an impact on consumption from pay. She will know that the marginal propensity to consume is obviously greater the lower down the income spectrum you go, which is why, in particular, we have protected the incomes of those on lower incomes.

Anyone in the public sector earning less than the UK median salary of £24,000 will receive a pay rise of £250 or more. Taken together with all the other things we have done, including giving a pay rise for those who work in the NHS, this will mean that the majority of public sector workers will see an increase in their pay next year. Also, pay progression and promotions—all of that—will carry on. We have increased wages for those on the national living wage: an extra £345 a year, as the wage rate goes up to £8.91. That, again, will help to drive consumption.

The hon. Lady rightly talked about delivery. We believe very firmly in making sure we can deliver the change we promised the British people. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) and I chair something called project speed, which is already delivering benefits, with plans for the landmark A66 upgrade shortened in time and reduced in cost, so we can get on with delivering what the people want on time and on budget, making a difference in their communities.

The hon. Lady asked about the levelling up fund and, I thought rather bizarrely, seemed to suggest that local Members of Parliament were not a good reflection on their local communities and able to articulate the local needs of their communities. I say to colleagues on the Opposition Benches that I am more than happy to hear from them and their local areas about the needs that they want met, because this Government will meet the needs of local communities up and down the country.

The hon. Lady talked about support for businesses during coronavirus. We have already put in place support through this winter period. The local restrictions grants we announced a while ago are paid monthly and they work. If your business has been closed, you will receive a grant of up to £3,000 per month depending on your rateable value. If you are a hospitality, leisure or accommodation business in a tier 2 area, where obviously the restrictions have an impact on your ability, you will receive a grant of 70% of that value up to £2,100. Those amounts mean that the business can help to cover the fixed costs of rent. They, of course, have access to the furlough scheme right the way through winter.

That comes on top of the other recent support announced for businesses. Today, I announced major reforms to the way the apprenticeship system works, giving businesses what they have long asked for: the flexibility to spend unused apprenticeship levy funds down the supply chain with small and medium-sized enterprises, and the ability to frontload payments for training. We are also looking at ways to introduce even more flexibility for some professions. We also recently announced an extension of the annual investment allowance for a further year up to £1 million, giving 98% of small and medium-sized businesses the ability to write off investments in full next year, which will help to drive their recovery.

The hon. Lady talked about welfare. Again, I stand proud of this Government’s and previous Conservative Governments’ record on this issue since 2010: hundreds of thousands fewer people in absolute poverty; several hundred thousand fewer children living in workless households; and income inequality lower coming into this crisis than when we first came into office.

This Government care greatly about those who are most vulnerable. We have demonstrated that during this crisis by the support we have put in place. The evidence shows that those on the lowest incomes have been protected the most by this Conservative Government. And that does not stop. The temporary uplift in universal credit runs all the way through to next spring, providing security for those families. Of course we will look, when we come to next spring, at the best way to support people and their families when we have a better sense of where the economy is and where we are with the virus, but we are providing extra support for next year: £670 million to help struggling families meet their council tax bills, worth about £150 each for families up and down the country. We also said we will maintain the £1 billion increase in the local housing allowance that we instituted this year into next year, providing support for many millions of families. We are also making available further funds, as the House knows, to provide extra support for food and meals for children throughout the holidays next year.

The hon. Lady talked about support for local authorities. Perhaps she has not seen it yet in the document—that is fair enough—but we announced over £3.5 billion of extra support for local authorities next year specifically to deal with coronavirus. That comes on top of their core spending power increasing at decade-level highs of 4.5%. That £3.5 billion is there to help to meet the shortfall in sales fees and charges, and the unrecoverable losses in business rates and council tax that they have experienced this year, as well as £1.5 billion for general pressures. Let no one say that we are not standing behind our local authorities at this difficult time.



Finally, the hon. Lady asked about green issues. I think she compared us with France and Germany and questioned this Government’s and the Prime Minister’s ambition. Let me say this about our plans. They are, I believe, among the most comprehensive and ambitious of any developed economy. She talked about France and Germany, but in this country we are phasing out certain vehicles in 2030; in France, it is 2040. In this country, we are phasing out coal in 2025; in Germany, it is 2038. She talked about the billions of pounds being spent by our friends, but it is important when we make these international comparisons that we understand the detail of what the other countries promise. The German numbers include the subsidies for renewables; ours do not. That happens separately outside our plan and is worth £44 billion, supporting renewable energy in this country through the tariff system, which is what Germany alluded to. The German numbers also include support for public transport, which ours of course do not, because that is something we do just in the ordinary course of business. I am proud of this Conservative Government’s record. We are the first major economy in the world to legislate for net zero, and our economy has decarbonised faster than any other in the last 20 years. This Conservative Government will deliver the Prime Minister’s plans to get us to net zero, and that is something that I hope the whole House can welcome and support.

In conclusion, this spending review puts the full force of the Government behind the priorities of the British people, and while we may have many disagreements with the Opposition, I am confident that, in private at least, they will recognise the significant investment we are making to protect jobs, strengthen our public services and improve our infrastructure. We in this House are all answerable to the people we represent, and it is in their interests that we serve. Today, we have made some difficult choices to fulfil that responsibility, but with the positive news about the development of vaccines, the winter covid plan being announced by the Prime Minister and the very real hope that we are finally entering the final stages of our fight against coronavirus, now is the time for us to come together. The British people have been through so much this year, as have right hon. and hon. Members, and it is my belief that, with this spending review and the fresh hope given by medical advances, we can finally begin our recovery. Now, difficult decisions and all, we must deliver on the priorities of the British people.

Future of Financial Services

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Rishi Sunak

Monday 9th November 2020 Commons Chamber

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

We have become used to disjointed, last-minute policy making recently in this House. Today’s events—with a statement entitled “the Future of Financial Services” on the very day that the Financial Services Bill is being debated—surely takes this to new heights.

The UK produces 1% of global emissions, but companies and financial institutions based here produce 15% of those emissions. Action from the Government to match the green ambitions of many in financial services cannot come too soon. Recent developments have unfortunately gone in the wrong direction. Over the last decade, the UK has pumped £6 billion into overseas fossil fuel projects via UK Export Finance, so will the Chancellor do as Labour has demanded and immediately ban the financing of fossil fuel projects through UK Export Finance?

Labour supports the move to greater disclosure of climate-related information. Two months ago, we called on the Government to show leadership and introduce mandatory reporting ahead of COP26. The Chancellor’s announcement and that of the Financial Conduct Authority this morning are positive, but they only relate to a “comply or explain” basis, with full implementation not set for many years—until 2025. The climate crisis demands bolder action. Will the Chancellor move to mandatory reporting in the 2021-22 reporting year?

Again, the introduction of green gilts is welcome, but they are mechanisms, not ends in themselves; they obviously depend on where the money raised is then invested. So far this year, the UK Government have announced around £5 billion in green investment. That compares with £36 billion in Germany and £27 billion in France. Where is this Government’s ambition for a green recovery from the coronavirus crisis, and where is the replacement for the green investment bank that the Conservatives sold off?

As the Chancellor rightly said, the financial sector is of course critical in ensuring that start-ups and scale-ups can access the capital that they need to grow and succeed, and that is so important right now. But that must go hand in hand with oversight and protection. The drive to encourage more tech companies to list on our stock exchange cannot come at the expense of corporate responsibility, so what will he do to ensure the long-term health of British companies and the protection of British investors? And where is the action here to protect people’s access to local bank branches and to cash on their high streets? There is more in this statement about stablecoins—hardly the talk of living rooms up and down the land—than there is about people’s access to cash.

While we debate these often welcome measures, we must not forget the elephant in the room: this Government’s mishandling—I am calling it that because that is what it is—of ensuring market access for our firms to our largest trading partner. One in every 14 UK workers is employed in financial and related professional services, yet the City of London Corporation has recently said that the approach to negotiations makes them feel like the

“neglected child of an acrimonious divorce”.

With weeks to go until we leave the transition period, we still do not know whether the EU will determine that our rules are equivalent to its own. The Chancellor’s predecessor said that

“achieving equivalence on day one should not be complicated.”

The deadline for achieving equivalence was June of this year. By that date, the UK had filled in just four of the 28 forms that it needed to complete. This Government cannot even complete the paperwork on time to secure market access to our largest export industry. The Chancellor said that today he was setting out our approach to equivalence. That should have been done months ago; it is such a critical aspect of the UK’s economy.

We have already seen damage being done. EY research suggests that over 7,000 jobs have already gone and that £1.2 trillion in assets are set to be relocated from the UK, with potentially worse to come as firms making plans decide not to locate those plans and jobs within our borders. It is too late now to strike a deal that would preserve market access securely; too late now—a phrase, sadly, that we are coming to associate with this Chancellor. Let me ask him, when did one of our most important sectors fall so far down his list of priorities?

[Rishi Sunak]

I was hoping that this would be a rather more technical discussion. It was telling that we had all those questions from the hon. Lady but not really, until the last sentence, any word of praise or recognition for this industry. [Interruption.] Absolutely, it was about trying to score political points, sneering and sniding, with no recognition of the importance of this industry up and down the country and all the people who are employed in it—no recognition whatsoever. When I talked about the hard-working people in this industry who were making sure that customers had access to their branches and access to loans during the coronavirus, all I heard was muttering. That is not the right praise for the people in this industry because they have been working very hard and it is appropriate that they get the recognition that they deserve for that—and they will get it from this Government.

The hon. Lady asked about the TCFD disclosures and comply or explain. Comply or explain is the approach that others have taken. We will be the first major economy—the first in the G20—to mandate disclosures by 2025. A road map has been published today. It is the most ambitious timetable that any major economy has done to date. In fact, it goes far beyond what was recommended by the taskforce. I think that is something that Government Members at least will very proud of.

The hon. Lady asked about access to cash. She should know that, in the middle of October, on about the 15th, we published our access-to-cash call for evidence, which I announced back at Budget in March. The responses to that will inform our future legislative strategy. We laid out clearly that we believe it is important that everyone has access to cash. Depending on the responses to that consultation, we will decide on the appropriate next steps.

The hon. Lady commented on our response to the equivalence process from our EU partners. I think she was trying to accuse us of being slow in replying, or not quite replying sufficiently. That will be news to the team that has spent months producing 2,500 pages of responses to the Commission responses. I might add, as she seems more willing to defend the EU in its conduct of this process, that we have not had a single question back from the European Union after sending 2,500 pages of responses over to it. I might also add that we did not feel it necessary to send it thousands and thousands of pages—we adopted a constructive approach that required very little answers, given that we know its current regulatory arrangements because we all share the same ones.

We have chosen to take an approach that prioritises financial services. Rather than wait, we have acted unilaterally to provide certainty to our financial services firms and to enshrine our reputation as a place where global firms can come and do business, because this will always be the most open, the most competitive and the most innovative place to do financial services anywhere in the world.

Covid-19: Economy Update

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Rishi Sunak

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

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

For months, we have urged the Chancellor to get ahead of the looming unemployment crisis and act to save jobs. Instead we have had a patchwork of poor ideas rushed out at the last minute: a bonus scheme that will pay £2.6 billion to businesses that do not need it; a job support scheme that simply was not going to work for the majority of businesses under pressure and that we said at the beginning did not do enough to incentivise employers to keep staff on; and an approach to support for areas entering tier 3 that has been nothing short of shambolic.

This has had real consequences. The deadline for large-scale redundancies came and went before the Chancellor announced the job support scheme, the deadline for small business redundancies passed before he realised that he needed to amend it, and many parts of our country have spent months under tier 2 restrictions without adequate support. How many jobs have been lost because of that inaction? Over a million have already gone. In the last quarter, we saw a record rise in redundancies. The Chancellor could have done much more if he had acted sooner.

Now we see yet another last-minute move. Let me ask the Chancellor. What has changed that means that this is the right thing to do now but it was not when parts of the north and midlands entered tier 2 many weeks ago? Does he agree with his own Mayor for the west midlands who said that

“this particular point was just one that was completely missed”.

Completely missed was the need for support for tier 2 areas. The Chancellor has only caught up and listened to the anxiety of workers and businesses when it looks like these restrictions will be affecting London and the west midlands. Will he apologise to those who have already lost their jobs and seen their businesses slip through their fingers in those areas that have not had that support until now?

The Chancellor referred to £1 billion of generous up-front grants for businesses and jobs provided in a “fair and transparent way”. There has not been a system of up-front grants for those in the north and midlands, and the process has not been fair and transparent for businesses and workers. To be honest, it is nothing short of insulting to describe what we have seen over the past few weeks as fair and transparent. The Government still have not published the formula that has been used for business support in tier 3 areas, and they still seem addicted to the approach where they say they are in negotiations with different areas but the reality is something completely different. When will he come clean about that support and the formula that is being used?

Will the Chancellor also make good on his Government’s claim that the JSS extension will be topped up to at least 80% for workers facing hardship? I know this is difficult for the Government. I see that the Prime Minister is sitting next to the Chancellor; he thought it would be topped up for everyone to 93%. I think that is what he said. Clearly the Government are not very sure on this, so maybe I can spell it out for them. That support does not amount to 80% for huge numbers of workers facing hardship—for example, those who have modest savings or who are excluded for other reasons, as so many are—and they have to wait five weeks anyway before they get that help. That could be fixed speedily by the Government, but they are refusing to do so. Does the Chancellor also recognise that those fixes for social security must apply to the self-employed, for whom an increase to just 40% of their previous income will not stave off hardship—and that is not to mention those who have been excluded throughout.

This is becoming like a long-running television show: the winter economy plan, series 3. But the twist is that it did not last the winter, it did not do enough to help the economy and it was not a plan. We have to get ahead of this crisis instead of always running to keep up. That is why Labour has called for a national circuit breaker to give us a chance to reset and to fix the broken test, trace and isolate system, but time is running out to implement that circuit breaker so that it includes half term and maximises the opportunity it brings. Will the Chancellor change course?

[Rishi Sunak]

This is the third time I have come to this House in several weeks to outline additional support for the economy, jobs and livelihoods. It is a sign of the seriousness of the economic situation we face, and I will never make any apology for acting fast as the moment demands and as the health situation evolves. But at the heart of this debate is a more fundamental difference on the right approach for protecting livelihoods and lives. We on this side of the House believe it is right to be honest about the hard choices we confront and about the fact that there is no easy cost-free answer. With every restriction comes difficulty, and that is why we are doing everything we can to strike that balance between saving lives and protecting livelihoods.

We have made progress, and that is why we are now able to operate a localised, tiered approach. That is why, even now, in the most affected areas we are striving to keep businesses open, and that is why the support I have announced today is as generous as it is, to give as many businesses and employers as possible the opportunity to keep working and keep trading. All this progress and all this hope are being put at risk by Labour Members’ repeated calls for a damaging, blunt, national lockdown. They will not say for how long, but they have already admitted that it would roll on with no clear end in sight. They will not say how many jobs would be lost through such a national lockdown. They claim that their approach—an indefinite series of national on-off lockdowns—would be better for the economy. I am afraid the facts simply do not support that conclusion.

The policies we have outlined today strike that balance. They support our approach—a localised, regional approach that is striving to get that balance between protecting jobs and protecting livelihoods. They will support people in every region and nation of this United Kingdom. They will protect people’s jobs. They will support their incomes and provide their families with security and with hope for the future.

Throughout this crisis, I have always stood ready to work with all hon. Members in every business group, industry group and trade union to work through solutions and deal with this crisis. While the situation evolves and the challenges change, my approach will not—to build consensus, to reach out to those with different views, to work past tribal political point scoring and to support our country through this moment of immense challenge so that we come out on the other side a stronger, more United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Rishi Sunak

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

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

[Rishi Sunak]

[Anneliese Dodds]

[Rishi Sunak]

Covid-19 Economic Support Package

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Rishi Sunak

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

As ever, my hon. Friend is spot on. It is not leadership to shy away from the hard choices and real trade-offs that these decisions take. She is absolutely right.

The second part of our winter plan is to support businesses that are legally required to close, and we heard about that previously. Those businesses will now be able to claim a cash grant of up to £3,000 per month depending on the value of their property. Those grants can be used for any business cost and will not need to be repaid. I have also guaranteed £1.3 billion of funding for the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Administrations so that they can choose to do something similar. The hon. Member for Oxford East asked whether other areas had received that support, and was under the impression that none other had. I can correct the facts. Bolton is the only other area that has faced hospitality restrictions in that way and Bolton Council has received, at the last count, I believe almost £200,000 of support to compensate its businesses because they have been closed in a similar way.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I fear that the Chancellor is confused. I was not talking about the much-trumpeted local restriction support grant. He is right; it has been applied so far only to that one area of Bolton. I was talking about the business support that was delivered to Leicester, Oadby and Wigston, which I believe has not been provided to any other part of the country.

[Rishi Sunak]

It is the same type of support—support provided to the local authority to help their businesses. That was the question the hon. Lady asked my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), and I am happy to answer it.

The third part of our plan is to provide additional funding for local authorities. Again, I am happy to correct what may be a misunderstanding of the situation for the hon. Member for Oxford East. It is not the case that that support is only for local authorities in tier 3. There is a scaled structure. All local authorities placed into different tiers will receive extra financial support on a per capita basis, using the funding formula that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is implementing. That funding will be worth up to almost half a billion pounds on a national basis, to support local areas and their public health teams with their local response, whether that is more enforcement, compliance or contact tracing. That comes on top of the almost £1 billion announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that we will provide to all local authorities, as we talk to them about their needs over this difficult period, to ensure that they can provide the services they need to. That also comes on top of the £3.7 billion already provided to local authorities.

This Government are dealing with the world as it is. While the hon. Member for Oxford East may not wish to confront that reality, I do not have that luxury. We cannot just let the virus take hold, but nor can we blithely fall into another national spring-style lockdown, as the Labour party wants to, rather than following our regional, tiered and localised approach. We are dealing with a once-in-a-century event, and I can assure Members on both sides of the House that the Government are doing all they can to support the country through this crisis.

We need a balanced approach, we need a consistent approach, and—as you will have seen, Mr Speaker—we also want a co-operative approach. But any responsible party calling for a shutdown of our entire country should be honest about the potential economic and social costs of such a dramatic measure. At the very least, they should have the integrity to acknowledge that what they are proposing will cause significant damage to people’s lives and livelihoods. I have never said that there are easy choices or cost-free answers. This is the reality we face, and it would be dishonest to ignore that truth. So no more political games and cheap shots from the sidelines. The Labour party can either be part of this solution or part of the problem. It is called leadership, but from them, I am not holding my breath.

The Economy

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Rishi Sunak

Thursday 24th September 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Chancellor for his statement and for advance sight of this announcement. I have called for the introduction of a system of targeted wage support 40 times. That call has been rebuffed by the Government 20 times. It is a relief that the Government have U-turned now, but we must be open and honest: that delay in introducing this new scheme will have impacted on businesses’ confidence. I know that from talking to them, and I am sure that Government Members know that from talking to businesses in their constituencies.

The deadline for redundancy consultations by large firms before the end of the furlough scheme came and went last week without a word from the Government. If the package of measures announced today can help people keep their jobs and help businesses through hard times, Labour will of course support it. There is much in the statement that we do support—as I just said, we have repeatedly called for a system of targeted wage support, and we have called for help for indebted, cash-strapped businesses over and over again—but we must ensure that these measures are as effective as possible at keeping workers in employment, getting unemployed people back into work and keeping viable businesses in operation.

As with many previous announcements by the Government, we must wait for the detail to be revealed—presumably following the press conference scheduled for later on today. Workers and businesses are hanging on the Chancellor’s every word right now, and they need to know what is promised here. So can the Chancellor be clear: will the wage support scheme actually keep more people in work? For that to happen, the scheme must make it more attractive for employers to retain more staff on reduced hours than to retain some full time and make others redundant. Does his scheme actually incentivise short-hours working?

What conditions, if any, will be applied to ensure value for public money? Will the scheme require commitments to continuing employment, unlike the existing furlough scheme, where there have been abuses? Will it require those participating to provide decent, sustainable work?

Will the scheme incentivise training and retraining? The German scheme does, and Labour has called for a UK version to include incentives for training, but that is missing here. Indeed, while, as I said, we welcome many of the elements that the Chancellor has announced, the lack of action on training and skills is worrying. I was waiting and waiting for the Chancellor to talk about training. He mentioned the word once, in passing. That is not enough. His Government have already allocated funding for a national skills strategy, but it is not being delivered on the ground. When will the Chancellor get serious about training so that people can be ready for the jobs of the future? He mentioned the fact that our economy is changing. Let us make sure that our population is ready for that change.

Labour has called repeatedly for continued, targeted support for the self-employed, so I am pleased that that is referred to here, but will these measures avoid the gaps in coverage that have bedevilled existing schemes? Why is there no forward plan for the needs of those who are extremely clinically vulnerable to the disease? Belatedly, will the Chancellor do more to demand that his colleagues get a grip on the UK’s public health crisis? Our country is suffering from a double tragedy: the highest excess death rate in Europe and the deepest recession in the G7.

Labour supports the Government in their announcement of additional restrictions this week. The Government’s messaging has been confused enough already, so the last thing we want to do is add to that confusion, but we are concerned that these restrictions are necessary only because of continuing problems with test, trace and isolate. The Chancellor referred to the money put into test, trace and isolate. As I said earlier this week, enormous sums have been devoted to that task, but those sums are not delivering the system that we need. We are still not at the stage of many other countries. The Chancellor must work on that, as well as his other colleagues in Government.

Finally, before the summer recess, Labour called for a back to work Budget focused on jobs, jobs, jobs. We did not get one. We expected a Budget this autumn. It appears, again, that we are not getting one. That is despite the challenges it poses for devolved Governments, and despite the fact that the Government have actually referred to provisions in a future Finance Bill as necessary for their approach to Brexit. The Chancellor announced that he would make a statement to Parliament today only after I had called for him to come here to answer an urgent question; I am very grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting that.

This Government have lagged behind on test, trace and isolate. They have lagged behind on wage support. They have lagged behind on support for those having to self-isolate. They are lagging behind on green investment. For these and for other reasons, it looks like our recovery will be lagging behind that of many other countries. So, finally, when will the Chancellor provide the back to work Budget that this country needs?

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. On the question of continued support for jobs, however, I had hoped that she would have welcomed strongly today’s measures, if for no other reason than that she has previously asked for something similar. However, her position on this matter has been somewhat changeable. At different points in the last few weeks and months, she has said that furlough should not go on for ever, and then changed her mind and said that we should extend it. Then she changed her mind and said it should be replaced, and then only yesterday the Leader of the Opposition said it should be extended again. That is not the kind of certainty that British businesses or British workers need.

To address the specific questions, this scheme absolutely does incentivise shorter time working. The company will pay its workers for the time that they are in work, and the Government and the employer jointly will subsidise the time the worker is not working. The conditions will be set out in guidance, which will be published shortly, and then over the next few weeks the further details will be worked through with businesses and unions, as we did with the furlough scheme.

I can reassure the hon. Lady that the new scheme does indeed have the conditionality that is appropriate for this stage of our response. Notably, this scheme will be available only for larger companies that are seeing a decline in their revenues as a result of coronavirus, ensuring that our support is targeted where it is most needed. Similarly, there will be restrictions on larger companies in capital distributions to shareholders while they are in receipt of money for their workers under this scheme. Indeed, they will not be able to give redundancy notices to those workers who are on this scheme throughout its duration.

We have increased training both for post-16 at the Budget and, indeed, in the recent plan for jobs, providing increased access for school leavers to level 2 qualifications across the board. Notably, one of the hallmarks of our skills system is our successful apprenticeship programme. What we announced in July was a significant increase in the incentive payment to businesses for taking on a new apprentice: a £2,000 cash incentive to businesses to take on an apprentice and provide that valuable in-work training that we know makes such a difference to young people’s futures. So we are committed to providing especially our young people with the opportunities that they need to succeed in the future.

The hon. Lady talked about jobs. In July, we outlined a £30 billion plan for jobs—to support, create and protect jobs across every part of our United Kingdom. Chief among the initiatives was the kickstart scheme, where right now employers—small, medium-sized and large—are rushing to put in applications to take on a young kickstarter later this autumn, to provide them with the opportunities that they need at an incredibly difficult time. I can assure this House and the country that my No. 1 economic priority is to protect people’s jobs, and that is what this Government will continue to do.

In conclusion, the Opposition wanted the furlough extended, but they never said for how long. Then they wanted the furlough replaced, but they would not say what with. Then they wanted the furlough targeted, but they would not say on whom. I do stand ready to work with the hon. Lady, if she knew exactly what she wanted. Today, the Government stand with the British people and British business, with the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce and the Trades Union Congress, in bringing much-needed support to the economy. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition called for a plan B for the economy. The Labour party does not even have a plan A.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Rishi Sunak

Tuesday 15th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Manufacturing and exports, especially from the west midlands and the Black Country, will play a key part in driving our recovery. I am pleased to tell him that the Exchequer Secretary is shortly meeting with the Mayor, Andy Street. That comes on top of our plans to provide £1 billion to develop the UK supply chain for electric automotive vehicles over the next five years, and £850 million of allocations from the local growth fund for his region.

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

The Chancellor will be aware of concerns that the UK risks a slower recovery than comparable economies for self-inflicted reasons. Despite the devastating impact on jobs, the Treasury Front Benchers have yet again today—six times—rejected targeted wage support. Economists are concerned about this Government’s inability to get a grip on the public health crisis, which evidence from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies suggests stems in part from a failure to adequately support people who have to self-isolate. Rumour has it that the Chancellor is blocking attempts to improve sick pay, so I put it to him: can he put himself in the shoes of those low-paid workers who often have to choose between paying their rent and bills, and putting food on the table for their kids? If these workers are advised to self-isolate, they get £95.85 a week—and that is if they are even eligible for statutory sick pay. Surely the Chancellor must agree with the Secretary of State for Health that statutory sick pay is not enough to live on.

[Rishi Sunak]

From the beginning of this pandemic, we have made changes to the operation of statutory sick pay and our welfare system to ensure that those who are isolating in any circumstance receive support from day one, and that we improve flexibility, particularly for the self-employed, through the removal of the minimum income floor. As the hon. Lady knows, we are also trialling incentive payments in local lockdown areas.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I did not ask the Chancellor about the precise details of delivery and I did not ask about the scope; I asked him about the value of statutory sick pay. He needs to get a grip on this issue. If he fails to do so—and the blockage appears to be his responsibility—then we will see additional localised re-impositions of lockdown, with all the implications that has for jobs and businesses. Please, Chancellor, get a grip on this issue.

There are two other reasons why economists are worried about the UK’s recovery. First, of course, there is concern about our future as a trading nation. Both of the Chancellor’s predecessors warn that the threat to override the withdrawal agreement could damage our country’s reputation and prosperity. Why do those former Chancellors appear to be more concerned about our country’s economic prospects than the current one? The second reason for concern stems from the prospect of premature spending cuts or tax rises. According to the Financial Times, it is politics that could drive the Chancellor towards early tax rises, so will he rule them out for the rest of this year?

Economic Update

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Rishi Sunak

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Commons Chamber

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

Our country has been through a great deal over these past few months. Hundreds of thousands have wrestled with this terrible disease. For many months, people have had to go without being able to embrace their loved ones or even to say goodbye. Tens of thousands have died. Our NHS, social care and other workers had made extraordinary sacrifices. We owe them so much.

The Government have had to take big decisions, too—we acknowledge that—but today should have been the day when our Government chose to build a bridge between what has been done so far and what needs to be done to get our economy moving again. It should have been the day when the millions of British people worried about their jobs and future prospects had a load taken off their shoulders. It should have been the day when we got the UK economy firing again. Today, Britain should have had a back-to-work Budget; but instead we got this summer statement, with many of the big decisions put off until later, as those on the Government Benches know full well.

Labour is a constructive Opposition during this time of crisis. We will not criticise for criticism’s sake. But when the Government fall short we will speak up, and the blunt truth is that we have one of the highest death rates in the world and among the deepest economic damage in the industrialised world from coronavirus. So the very first thing the Chancellor must do is prevent additional economic damage due to the slow public health response of his Government.

As we have seen throughout this crisis, the failure to match soaring rhetoric with meaningful action has consequences for people across our country. Despite all their talk, the Government have failed to create a fully functioning test, track and isolate system. That has damaged public confidence and, in turn, harmed consumer demand. Despite all their talk, the Government have failed to produce a clear system for local lockdowns. The lack of timely information sharing has led, as we all know, to the imposition of an additional wide-scale lockdown in Leicester.

The Government’s contracts with outsourcing firms amount to almost £3 billion, but we still have not got test, track and isolate working properly in the UK, as it is in many other countries, and the Government still have not got a grip on the low value and limited scope of sick pay, risking people’s ability to self-isolate. Fear is corrosive. Fear is hurting our economy. The Government have got to get this right.

Of course, we welcome the Government’s announcement today of targeted VAT cuts on hospitality and tourism and of vouchers to be used in restaurants. Local businesses desperately need that support, and so many low and middle-income people in particular really need help right now. That is why we have repeatedly called for social security to better meet their needs and prevent people risking losing their homes. If delivered properly, these measures should help.

But the Chancellor himself said, when interviewed on “The Andrew Marr Show”, that the best the Government can do to boost demand is to give consumers and workers the confidence and psychological security that they can go out to work, to shop and to socialise in safety. So please, Chancellor, work with your colleagues so our public health response catches up with that operating in other countries. The Prime Minister asked, what have I been doing about that? My party has been repeatedly suggesting solutions to the public health problems facing our country, and we need to adopt them in the UK before this crisis becomes even more severe.

Now the Government must act not just to deal with unemployment as a symptom, but also with its cause. Research reported this week in the “Telegraph” indicates that British workers have already been the biggest casualty in the global jobs cuts. It showed that while jobs markets in many other countries have already fully recovered, in Britain it could take comparatively much, much longer for vacancy levels to return to normal. The levels of unemployment that this country saw in the past were not just an economic waste; they ruined lives. We are seeing the same impacts again—the same devastated high streets and communities robbed of their pride and purpose.

Of course the re-employment bonus announced by the Chancellor is necessary, not least because his Government refused to put conditions on the use of those funds related to employment. But, first, how can he ensure that that money will not just go to those employers who were already planning to bring people back into work and, secondly, what will he do for those firms that lack the cash flow to be able to operate even with that bonus? Related to that, the Chancellor still needs to abandon his one-size-fits-all approach to withdrawing the job retention and self-employed schemes. No one is saying that those schemes should stay as they are indefinitely; the Opposition have never said that, but we have said that the money spent on the job retention scheme must not serve merely to postpone unemployment. The scheme must live up to its name, supporting employment in industries that are viable in the long term. We also need a strategy for the scheme to become more flexible so that it can support those businesses forced to close again because of additional localised lockdowns. There is still time to avoid additional floods of redundancy notices. It is the Government’s duty to help Britain through this and stop employment reaching mass levels again.

We need action to ensure the support needed for key sectors of our economy—for our small and medium-sized enterprises and our manufacturers. While we of course welcome the long-overdue arts and culture package, we still have not heard the Government’s plans for other sectors. Many of us expected to hear them today, but we have not. The Project Birch process has been slow, tortuous and opaque. Large parts of industrial Britain need help to get through this—to keep their employees in jobs and keep their suppliers in jobs. Meanwhile, it appears that there will be no solutions for SMEs who cannot take on additional debt until the autumn. This risks many SMEs going to the wall.

Until now, the Chancellor has described a targeted, sectoral approach as the Treasury “picking winners”, but the necessary public health measures have created losers. As the Chancellor himself said just now, the Government required many businesses to shut down to prevent the spread of this disease. Supporting businesses that are viable in the long run but currently starved of cash flow is not a matter of “picking winners”: it is about protecting our country’s economic capacity for the future. Failure to do so—to make the job retention and self-employed schemes more targeted and focused and to support viable businesses—is driving up unemployment in this country. The claimant count is on course to top 3 million people in June—the highest number since the previous record in 1986. This is the Chancellor’s record, and one that cannot and must not be worsened.

Where unemployment arises as a symptom of economic damage, more must be done to help. Labour repeatedly called for the Government to match the ambitions of Labour’s future jobs fund and Welsh Labour’s Jobs Growth Wales programme, and finally the Government have come forward with a scheme apparently modelled on them—the kick-start scheme. The Conservatives cancelled the future jobs fund, of course, and it has taken almost 10 years for them to catch up. As with their belated adoption of our call for “jobs, jobs, jobs”, perhaps this gives a new meaning to the phrase “Project Speed”. We now need to make sure that the kick-start scheme provides genuinely additional opportunities for young unemployed people. The Government must also recognise the specific challenges faced by older jobseekers, many of whom are becoming unemployed for the first time, and those based in especially hard-hit places. Reimposing sanctions now is punitive and counter- productive when jobseekers need support.

We must be ambitious for the future of our country’s economy. Our ambition should not just be to build our way out of this but to do so in a greener and cleaner way. For this, we need more than the reheated announcements by the Prime Minister last week. Of course the investment announced was welcome, not least because much of it was already committed to by the Government. However, core elements are missing. For example, £50 million to support retrofitting in social homes is just a seventh of what the Conservatives said they would be spending every year. The muddled confusions over stamp duty over the past 48 hours reflect a broader lack of strategy when it comes to house building, particularly for genuinely affordable and social homes. Overall, the UK’s green investment package barely touches the sides of other countries’ commitments. Even with what was announced today, it only equates to just over the value of Germany’s investment in one green technology alone—hydrogen. The Committee on Climate Change has indicated how far behind the UK is in the race to decarbonise. Failure to heed its recommendations is not only damaging to our planet, but it also cuts us out of leading the development of the key technologies of the future. The Conservatives are still refusing to impose conditions on investment to ensure that it contributes to the goal of net zero and that it supports local jobs, uses local firms, leads to sustainable skilled employment in local areas and prevents the use of tax havens and other forms of asset stripping.

If the Chancellor really wants to “build back better”, he must prevent a rerun of the past. From 2010 onwards, we have seen how families’ resilience has been eroded. We entered this crisis with a quarter of families lacking even £100 in savings. In a typical classroom of 30, nine children are growing up in poverty, and our economy is the most regionally unequal in Europe. Our local authorities continue to be cut to the bone, with many standing on the brink of bankruptcy as we speak, and rather than the promise that our NHS and social care services would get whatever they needed this winter—to weather a potential second wave—those words were conspicuously absent from the Chancellor’s speech just now.

Politicians in this House have gone out on our doorsteps to clap key workers, while the lowest paid have struggled to keep a roof over their heads. We must have a new settlement for the future: an end to poverty pay for our social care workers and those who clean our hospitals and deliver our groceries. We want a recognition of the value of the work of those who have been taken for granted for far too long.

There were some initial press reports that the Government were due to announce generalised tax increases or cuts to services this autumn, which were contradicted by the Prime Minister, who rejected whatever had apparently been briefed out by the Treasury—that has happened quite a few times. I say to the Government that, if they do increase taxes during the recovery and cut back on the public services that we all rely on, it will damage demand and inhibit our recovery. Labour is not calling for tax rises. We are calling for growth.

The Tory manifesto committed to no rises in income tax, national insurance or VAT, and therefore it is for the Conservatives to set out how any additional spending will be paid for. It is the Chancellor’s job to ensure that the economy bounces back from this crisis, so that there is money in the coffers to protect the public finances.

Last week, the Chancellor’s colleague, the Prime Minister, tried to claim the mantle of FDR—as we all know. Perhaps now we know why he went for Roosevelt. It is because this week the Prime Minister blamed carers for the failings in the system that his Government had underfunded for the past decades. Now we know why he went for Roosevelt. It is because the last thing that his Government would have wanted was the sign on the desk of Harry Truman, the successor to Roosevelt, which said, “The buck stops here.” If this Government had a sign, it would probably say, “The buck stops anywhere but here”. But they cannot escape their responsibilities: to govern is to choose. It is to choose to finally sort out test, track and isolate, to prevent unnecessary additional unemployment and to build the green jobs of the future. This is a moment when our country needs its Government to help Britain through.

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank the hon. Lady for that contribution. Throughout this crisis, she and I have spoken and, where possible, I have tried to find common ground for our measures with as broad a coalition as possible, including with members of the Opposition. I do feel that it is necessary, however, to reiterate just a few points. She talked about vulnerable people, but, as I said, the analysis published today shows that our interventions have helped the poorest in our society the most. Those are the values of this Conservative Government. We will make sure that no one is left behind during this time of national crisis, and we will ensure that those who are most vulnerable get the support and protection that they deserve

The hon. Lady also talked about jobs and the difference in different countries’ reactions to the labour market. She is right: our economy is more reliant on consumption than other economies. It is also more reliant on social consumption than other economies. That is why the acute difficulty of social distancing and the shutdowns have affected our economy more than others. That is why, to help protect those 2 million jobs in the 150,000 businesses in those sectors and the people who are, on average, lower paid—women, black and minority ethnic communities, and rural and coastal communities—we have put in place what I believe to be bold and decisive measures to help protect employment in those sectors.

The hon. Lady talked about conditionality on funds that we provided. Here, she has to choose. It cannot be that you can develop significant interventions to provide liquidity and cash support to businesses at scale and speed, while at the same time having an incredibly targeted approach, imposing conditions on individual businesses. You have to choose one or the other. We unashamedly chose the former. The speed of what was happening to our economy and the scale of what was happening demanded an approach that required us to take a broad-brush approach, and that was the way we could get help to as many people as possible as quickly as possible. But where individual businesses come to the taxpayer and require bespoke support, it is right that we impose conditions on those businesses. I have been very clear that that is what I would do and, indeed, that is what we have done. Without going into the details, as that would be inappropriate, such interventions will come with conditions: conditions on executive pay, protecting employment, climate change obligations, how supply chains and small businesses are treated, and obligations around tax. Those are all commitments and conditions that the taxpayer would expect us to make and that is what we have done in the one instance where the support has been provided thus far. It is what we will do for any future support.

The hon. Lady talked about a green recovery. This Government are proud of their record on our environment. She talks about Germany and other countries. When I stood here in March, we outlined one of the most ambitious and far-reaching investment programmes for our environment and tackling net zero from any Government this country has ever seen. Carbon capture and storage, the nature for climate fund, investing to further the support for electric vehicles, new charging stations, tackling air quality, taxes on polluters—those are all measures we have already taken. I am glad that other countries are catching up. We have decarbonised faster than almost every other European country. It is a record that those of us on the Government Benches are proud of.

The measures we have announced today represent some of the most far-reaching measures any country has taken to tackle energy efficiency. They will provide thousands of pounds of grants for homeowners up and down the country to create local jobs and ensure we can reduce carbon emissions from our housing stock, which today account for almost a fifth of all our emissions. The Committee on Climate Change has said we must address that. In our manifesto, we committed to addressing it. Rather than waiting to get started and rather than the five-year plan outlined in our manifesto, we are getting on with it today.

The hon. Lady spoke about furlough. Here again, I make no apology for the fact that we must and should wind down this scheme. I am glad that today the OECD made it clear that it also believes wage support schemes must be carefully wound down in order to get people back to work, protect jobs and return to growth. I see the hon. Lady has moved around on this issue. She said at the end of May that a targeted approach would “pose challenges” and force “hard choices”. I have not heard from the hon. Lady how she would solve those challenges and hard choices, but we remain committed to protecting people in their jobs. We understand that businesses that have had to furlough employees have been through a difficult time, which is why today we outlined a £9 billion policy—the job retention bonus—to support workers and to support businesses who bring those furloughed workers back.

Lastly, the hon. Lady talked about the future jobs fund. I am guided by the evidence. Parts of that scheme did work well and I am not dogmatic—I will do what works—but there are major differences to the kick-starter scheme. The kick-starter scheme will be bigger. It will help more young people. It will be broader, involving the private sector. It will be better value for the taxpayer, ensuring less money is spent on administration fees and more money is in the pockets of young people working.

We have questions from the hon. Lady, We have opinions from the hon. Lady, and last week, we even had tests from the hon. Lady. The one thing we do not have from her is a plan. I closed my statement by saying that this Government were making an unambiguous choice to make this moment meaningful for our country. Now, Labour Members must choose. Do they believe, as we do, that Britain has the energy and power to bounce back? Do they have confidence, as we do, in our incredible public services? Do they believe, as we do, in the enterprising spirit of British business? If they do, then they should do what is right and back our plan for jobs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Rishi Sunak

Tuesday 7th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend, as always, is a champion for the industry, and he knows how important it is to the UK economy. I can tell him that, at the Budget, we committed to a consultation on aviation tax reform. We remain committed to that, and will bring forward the timing in due course.

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

The Chancellor stated earlier that the job retention scheme is being wound down from the autumn. It is actually being wound down from the start of next month across all sectors at the same time, and we are already seeing the impact of that in very substantial redundancies. The Resolution Foundation called this week for a targeted continuation of the scheme for the hardest hit industries and those areas affected by additional lockdowns. The Chancellor has said he does not want to pick winners, but this health crisis has involved Governments designating losers, quite rightly, for public health reasons, so why is he persisting with the one-size-fits-all removal of the job retention scheme, when this will inevitably lead to additional redundancies?

[Rishi Sunak]

This is not about picking winners or losers. This is about protecting people’s health, and where it is incumbent on the Government to step in and make sure that we can protect people’s health through targeted intervention, that will remain the right thing to do. With regard to economic support, my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has made it clear that support has been provided to the local council when this has been the place to do so. With regard to the furlough scheme, we are of the belief, rightly, that this is a universal scheme, it is generous, it has been extended to October and it is winding down in a gradual and temperate manner.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I have to say that it is disappointing to hear that the Chancellor is not budging from this position. As mentioned, it is already leading to additional waves of redundancies—avoidable redundancies in many cases. Labour has repeatedly called on the Government to match the ambitions of Labour’s previous future jobs fund in developing support for unemployed young people, so may I ask the Chancellor why, put together, the traineeship fund and green jobs challenge fund—just announced—amount to less than a quarter of the size of the future jobs fund? That hardly reflects a focus on jobs, jobs, jobs.

[Rishi Sunak]

I am not quite sure that is right. In reality, the future jobs fund was around £1 billion. We announced yesterday the £2 billion green home grant to provide home efficiency upgrades for hundreds of thousands of homes and create tens of thousands of jobs up and down the country. Not only will households save money on their electricity bills and save carbon, but we will create good local jobs in the process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Rishi Sunak

Monday 18th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

As my right hon. Friend will know well, EIS is a notified EU state aid, and that is what presents the challenge to providing EIS relief for convertible loan instruments into the future fund. That said, guidance was published today, and the fund will be open for applications on Wednesday. I have been crystal clear that should applications exceed the initial £250 million provided, I will be more than happy to expand the scheme. I think this will be a vital part of fuelling our recovery, because, as he said, these companies provide the growth of tomorrow and they deserve our support.

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

Labour supported the introduction of the furlough scheme, and we have consistently called for it to become more flexible. We recognise that it cannot persist forever. However, according to press reports, the Treasury is considering asking all employers to pay 40% of employee wages on the JRS from 1 August, which risks a massive spike in job losses.

[Rishi Sunak]

As I think the shadow Chancellor has acknowledged previously, we are in deep consultation with both unions and business groups to ensure that we get the design right for the second part of this scheme. It is right both for the economy and, indeed, for the taxpayer to ask employers to make a contribution to paying the wages of their employees. They will have the benefit of flexibility in furloughing to help offset that. I cannot comment now on this, but I did say that details will be provided by the end of the month.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I appreciate the Chancellor’s comments, but we really need clarity around whether he is considering evidence from other countries, which, in many cases, are calibrating changes to their salary backfill schemes with the lifting of the lockdown. Is he looking at that evidence, particularly on the potential impact of unemployment, or is he only looking at potentially the introduction of a uniform contribution from 1 August?

Covid-19: Economic Package

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Rishi Sunak

Tuesday 12th May 2020 Commons Chamber

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

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government’s economic package in response to the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your warm wishes.

This Government’s plan is one of the most comprehensive anywhere in the world. We have provided billions of pounds of cash grants, tax cuts and loans for over 1 million businesses, tens of billions of pounds of deferred taxes, income protection for millions of the self-employed, and a strengthened safety net to protect millions of our most vulnerable people. These schemes speak to my and this Conservative Government’s values. We believe in the dignity of work, and we are doing everything we can to protect people currently unable to work.

Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out our plan for the next phase of the public health response, and today I can confirm the next stage of our job retention scheme. This scheme has been a world-leading economic intervention, supporting livelihoods and protecting futures. Seven and a half million jobs have been furloughed—jobs we could have lost if we had not acted—and nearly 1 million businesses supported who could have closed shop for good.

As we reopen the economy, we will need to support people back to work. We will do so in a measured way. I can announce today that the job retention scheme will be extended for four months, until the end of October. By that point, we will have provided eight months of support to British people and businesses. Until the end of July, there will be no changes whatsoever, from August to October the scheme will continue for all sectors and regions of the UK, but with greater flexibility to support the transition back to work. Employers currently using the scheme will be able to bring furloughed employees back part time. We will ask employers to start sharing with the Government the cost of paying people’s salaries.

Full details will follow by the end of May, but I want to assure people today of one thing that will not change: workers will, through the combined efforts of the Government and employers, continue to receive the same level of overall support as they do now, at 80% of their current salary, up to £2,500 a month.

I am extending the scheme because I will not give up on the people who rely on it. Our message today is simple. We stood behind Britain’s workers and businesses as we came into this crisis and we will stand behind them as we come through the other side.

[Mr Speaker]

I now call Anneliese Dodds, who is speaking virtually. I ask her to speak for no more than two minutes.

[Anneliese Dodds]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I would also like to wish the Chancellor many happy returns.

As a constructive Opposition, we want to work with the Government to ensure that people’s jobs and incomes are protected and the furlough scheme is a critical element of that. Many of the more than 6 million people who are currently furloughed were taken aback by comments made in the media by Government spokespeople suggesting that, for example, people needed to be weaned off an addiction to the scheme. There were many intimations that changes might have been announced to that scheme by the Chancellor, potentially in the media, without the opportunity for proper scrutiny.

I have only heard about these changes in the last few seconds. We will look at them very carefully, but there are some critical principles that the Chancellor surely must follow as he redesigns the scheme.

First, we must acknowledge that people did not want to be furloughed. It occurred through no choice of their own and through following the Government’s advice about the closure of sectors. It is critically important that they are not penalised for that choice.

I welcome the flexibility mentioned. We have asked for that repeatedly; it applies in many other countries. It has been a long time coming, but I welcome the fact that it is occurring now.

That flexibility includes an employer contribution, so the Chancellor needs to provide more information about that employer contribution now. He also surely needs to provide more information about alternatives to the scheme. Other countries have job creation, training schemes and redeployment schemes. We do not have those yet. Will the Chancellor work with me, trade unions, businesses, local authorities and further and higher education institutions to create the support that is so desperately needed?

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank the shadow Chancellor for her warm wishes and for the constructive support for today’s announcement. I will address two specific points that she raised. First, the word addiction is not one that I have ever used and it is not one that I agree with. Nobody who is on the furlough scheme wants to be on the scheme. People up and down the country believe in the dignity of their work, of going to work and providing for their families. It is not their fault that their business has been asked to close. It is not their fault that they have been asked to stay at home. That is why I established the scheme to support those people and their livelihoods at this critical time. I wholeheartedly agree with the shadow Chancellor in that regard.

On the next steps, I am pleased to tell her that I have already been talking to the TUC and, indeed, the CBI about the future; helping those people to get back into work who, unfortunately, may lose their jobs through this period. That issue weighs heavily on my mind. Every person who loses their job through this difficult period is a person the Government are determined to stand behind, whether that is with new skills, new training or indeed through supporting businesses to create new jobs. We are determined to make sure that that happens. I look forward to continuing my conversations with Opposition Members and with the trade unions, the CBI and other business groups as we look forward to a brighter future. As we get through this crisis, people can come back to work and we can create the jobs and opportunities, and a brighter future for tomorrow.

The Economy

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Rishi Sunak

Monday 27th April 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to the Chancellor for advance sight of his statement, and to all the Treasury civil servants, and those in HMRC and the Department for Work and Pensions, who have been working incredibly hard to get these schemes running. I fully appreciate that the Chancellor’s job has not been an easy one, but it is our job as a constructive Opposition to point to problems that we are hearing from the frontline, and to indicate solutions. It appears that at least some of those problems are more acute in our country than in many others.

The Purchasing Managers’ Index figures that came out last week indicated a sharp fall in business confidence. Sadly, that was not a surprise. It has been clear for some time that the economic slowdown we are currently experiencing is sharp and deep. It was, however, unsettling that those figures suggested that business confidence has taken a stronger hit in the UK than across the eurozone. I have heard from small business owners who put their life and soul into their firms, but have less than two weeks of cashflow left, and they are devastated. We all need to work together to get the different support schemes working for our country. We must fix this.

I am well aware that many of the conditions for shifting out of lockdown are not within the Chancellor’s grasp. However, his Government need to be open about blocks on progress and how they will remove them. That applies to the test, track and trace regime, which must be in place before key sectors can open again. It also applies to the creation of a national tripartite system to ensure that workers and employers have confidence that they can return to work safely when the right time comes.





The Chancellor is directly responsible for the economic package, and he knows that we supported him in creating the furlough scheme; indeed, we called for it. But the evidence is that some other key elements of the economic package are failing, so, in a constructive spirit, I want to ask the Chancellor whether he would countenance solutions in three areas—first, on CBILS. It is a relief to hear from the Chancellor that he has listened to calls from the Opposition, business and others that we need a full guarantee for at least some loans—he has stated those of up to £50,000—but we need to be clear that the UK has an enormous mountain to climb. Switzerland has a population of under 9 million, yet it approved four times as many loans in its first week as the UK has done in a month. We are running out of time, so how will the Chancellor ensure that the bounce-back loans get to the businesses that need them? How will they get out of the door, and what plans does he have to ensure that the banks will have the capacity to provide those loans?

Secondly, recent figures suggest that one in 10 in our workforce looks set to be unemployed as a result of this crisis, with all that that entails for people’s future prospects, incomes, and their and their families’ health. Again, I say to the Chancellor that we will work with him. We have indicated many of the gaps in existing schemes to protect incomes, and will continue to push for them to be filled. However, we must be clear: the reason that those gaps are such an income-crushing, insecurity-producing crisis for so many is that, in most cases, the only alternative to coverage by these schemes is universal credit, which pushes people right down to an average of 10% of the income of the rest of the workforce. The DWP has made some welcome changes, but failure to change the initial loan into a grant threatens to create even more of a debt crisis among households. Apparently the Government are sympathetic to changing the loan into a grant, but we are told that the computer system just will not allow it, so my second question is: will the Chancellor knock heads together and get the computers to say yes to switching UC loans into grants?

Finally, as the Chancellor knows, before this crisis we had an economy that simply did not work for so many. Around a quarter of all families lacked just £100 in savings, even before the crisis began. The UK is the most regionally unequal country in Europe, and we have just had the longest squeeze on living standards—not just in a generation, but in eight generations. The recovery from this crisis must be faster and wider to ensure that as many people as possible have a job to come back to. We need a flexible furlough scheme. The Chancellor told me previously that it cannot currently be made more flexible, but other countries have done so. Will he work to amend the furlough scheme to allow workers to come back on a part-time basis, and will he do as so many other countries are doing, from Germany to New Zealand, and talk about how those hit hard by the crisis can be supported not just now, but in the future, with employment-boosting redeploying retraining schemes? The aftermath of the pit closures tells us that an approach where the Government shrug their shoulders will scar our economy for generations to come, so my last question is: will the Chancellor work together with me, trade unions, businesses and local authorities to develop a plan to offer the hope of work to those who have already become unemployed, and get our economy moving again?

[Rishi Sunak]

May I welcome the shadow Chancellor to her place, and thank her for the constructive dialogue that I have had with her over the past two or so weeks? Let me address her questions directly and swiftly. First, I turn to her question about the loan guarantee programme and the banks’ operational capacity. Obviously, this is something that the Economic Secretary and I, working with the banks, have spent a lot of time on over the past few weeks. I am grateful to the banks for re-engineering their entire systems to offer this brand new bounce-back loan. I am assured that it will be available from next Monday morning. There will be a very simple application process, and the banks will not have to conduct more than the customary fraud and anti-money laundering checks, which of course would be reduced for their existing customers. If someone has an existing business account with a bank, the process should prove incredibly rapid, and they should have the cash in their bank account within a day or two. The banks are readying their systems for that launch date as we speak.

I hear a lot from many commentators that we should copy what was done in Switzerland. Now, Switzerland does have 100% guaranteed loans—I absolutely agree that it does—but it is worth bearing in mind that it does not provide very much else in the way of direct fiscal support for their businesses. Indeed, after extensive dialogue with the Swiss Government, it is very clear that, for them, the loan guarantee scheme is the primacy of their direct fiscal support to businesses. In this country, we have provided tens of billions of pounds in direct cash support—in tax cuts through reducing business rates, in cash grants of £10,000 or £25,000, and by paying people’s statutory sick pay bill. These very direct cash impacts, I believe, are more generous than asking companies to take on a loan, which is why I believe that the Switzerland comparison is not analogous. Secondly, the Switzerland furlough scheme requires employers to contribute a fifth of the payment to the scheme, whereas in this country, our furlough scheme removes that very considerable cash burden from businesses.

As I always say when I am at this Dispatch Box or answering questions elsewhere, it is important to look at the totality of all our economic interventions. When measured as a percentage of GDP, it is very clear to me, as has been empirically shown by others, that the sum total of our fiscal intervention to support businesses and people through this crisis is one of the most comprehensive and generous, in terms of scope and scale, anywhere in the world.

Turning to the next question—on universal credit and support for the most vulnerable—I firmly agree that during this crisis, we must of course look after the most vulnerable in our society, and from the Budget onwards, I have strived to do exactly that. We have invested extra funds into tax credits and into universal credit, improved eligibility for statutory sick pay, improved employment support allowance, improved how these schemes work for the self-employed, improved the local housing allowance and, indeed, created a brand new hardship fund for local authorities to help people with their council tax bills. All these investments have a sum total of over £7 billion of investment by this Government to strengthen the safety net to help the most vulnerable in our society through this difficult period.

Lastly, with regard to the future, I wholeheartedly believe that the best way out of this is to ensure that as many people as possible can return to the job that they had. That is the best way to protect people and to protect their livelihoods, their families and their household incomes, which is why all our support has been conducted with that aim in mind—how can we help to support businesses? How can we help them to keep their employees attached to that business? I believe that our furlough scheme stands at the centre of that. All the other interventions will help to support that aim so that as we emerge from this crisis, we can bounce back as quickly as possible to the life that we once knew.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Rishi Sunak

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he does championing improved accessibility for his disabled constituents, which is why in the Budget we announced £50 million to remodel 12 stations. I spoke to the Secretary of State for Transport this morning about Burnley Manchester Road station, and he is happy to take a call from my hon. Friend.

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

Transport infrastructure and, indeed, all infrastructure relies on the construction industry, and in particular its workforce. We have had reports of workers working in close proximity in construction—indeed, I have seen that myself, including at transport-related facilities this morning—in some cases with no hygienic support and no evidence of enhanced cleaning. The industry has been described as a breeding ground for infection. What action is being taken to protect workers in that industry?

[Rishi Sunak]

The hon. Member is absolutely right: we must ensure the safety of our workers in their industries. The guidance from the Government last night was clear that people should go to work if they cannot work from home. In common with other countries such as Italy or France, construction has remained open, but of course it is right that that is done safely. I know that my right hon. Friend the Housing Secretary is in touch with the sector and I believe that he has had conversations about guidance in this regard.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anneliese Dodds and Rishi Sunak

Tuesday 7th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I think the hon. Lady is referring to the Government’s plans to review all our frameworks, processes and mechanisms to allocate investment spending. That work is under way, and the Chancellor and other Ministers will update the House, as required, as more details emerge.

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

A very happy new year to you and everyone in the House, Mr Speaker.

The regional investment gap of £63 billion in transport alone is compounded by deindustrialisation. Yesterday, a senior Minister—anonymously—dismissed concerns over customs and rules of origin barriers as

“lobbying from industries that are in secular decline”,

but they are felt by all advanced manufacturers. What will the Chancellor do about his colleagues who seem to blithely accept further regional job losses in manufacturing?

[Rishi Sunak]

I was in the Tees valley earlier this week, and what I heard there from manufacturers was incredible support for this Government’s agenda of spreading opportunity, driving investment in regional infrastructure and sensible taxation of manufacturing companies, all of which will lead to higher growth, more jobs and better investment for their community.