Financial and Social Emergency Support Package

The spike in coronavirus deaths has raised concerns among constituents about their security, income, job, and home due to economic uncertainties. Businesses are behaving irresponsibly towards workers' health and safety, while banks and retailers are profiteering from the crisis. Clarity is needed for businesses and workers during the lockdown.

Asked about mixed messages regarding repatriation of UK citizens, highlighting inconsistencies between Foreign Secretary's statements and actual support available to bring people home.

Expressed hope that this would not be the last time John McDonnell speaks at the Dispatch Box. Questioned why doctors and nurses are being sent into battle without proper protective equipment if it is truly a war against coronavirus.

Agreed that unscrupulous retailers profiteering during the crisis will face long-term reputational damage and should consider the consequences of their actions.

Suggested that businesses refusing to close should be subject to closure orders and heavy fines to ensure compliance with lockdown measures.

Asked the Government to come before Parliament to scrutinise the statement on support for self-employed individuals, instead of making announcements at press conferences.

Thanked his right hon. Friend and the Leader of the Opposition for their work over five years, supporting all Opposition Members. He asked if there should not be any situation in which pay is allowed to be below the national living wage when furloughing, even if it means going above the 80% rule.

Reiterated the need for a floor of the national minimum wage during furloughing to ensure workers are not paid below this level. He highlighted that around one in 10 people surveyed are still working but with reduced pay or hours, urging the Government to resolve issues affecting part-time and zero-hours contract workers who may fall through the cracks of current policies. McDonnell also called for assurance regarding eligibility for non-UK nationals under the scheme and an end to no recourse to public funds rules during this period.

Asked whether the Government needs to ensure that anyone laid off before the announcement of the scheme can be brought back into employment and put on it, with non-compliant employers potentially being named or required by the Government to do so.

Acknowledged the challenge posed by the voluntary nature of the employer participation in the scheme but emphasised using all possible means to urge employers to participate, protect their workers, and maximise the use of the scheme.

Congratulated the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee on getting Wetherspoons to do a U-turn in participating in the Government’s scheme for its staff, highlighting this as an example of what cross-party MPs can achieve.

Noted that naming and shaming works but did not commit to drinking to it in Wetherspoons. He also mentioned the scale of lay-offs happening now and welcomed reforms needed for universal credit.

Asked McDonnell whether we must ensure opportunistic employers who have laid off or threatened to do so will not immediately think they can lay people off once received funds from the job retention scheme, suggesting a need for guarantees from the Government on this.

McDonnell stressed the need for fair treatment of self-employed individuals and emphasised the urgency of providing financial support. He also highlighted issues with unemployment benefits, sick pay, and housing assistance during the pandemic, advocating for higher jobseeker's allowance and statutory sick pay rates to prevent hardship. Additionally, he called for immediate measures to protect tenants from evictions and debt accumulation due to rent arrears.

Onwurah corrected a misunderstanding regarding her speech on the power of the market. She was not praising the market but identifying its critical failings in providing capacity for the state to respond to pandemics.

Stephens asked the Minister what action the Government is considering to protect workers who have been sent letters asking them to shield themselves but are still being forced into work by their employers.

Jones highlighted a case where an employer was trying to do the right thing for his workers but needed more guidance on how to implement the support scheme. He urged the Minister to provide this information urgently.

Russell-Moyle suggested that the issue is not just about an individual case but a broader lack of guidance for employers. He requested that details on how to use the 80% wage support scheme be put on the public record.

Clarke confirmed that other Government Departments will address concerns raised during the debate. He announced new advances for universal credit claimants available online or by phone, relaxed earning rules for self-employed sick or self-isolating individuals, and increased standard allowance for UC and working tax credits from 6 April. He also mentioned a £500 million hardship fund for local authorities to provide council tax relief to vulnerable people.

Dhesi asked if the Minister would share information about the number of universal credit claimants with local authorities. He highlighted that many areas, including Slough, are expecting a significant increase in claims.

Jones questioned Clarke on letting agents and estate agents being listed as essential services while people were still facing eviction. She urged for clear guidance that nobody should be evicted at this time.

Clarke responded to Jones, committing to write a letter with full details on the point raised and making it public. He also discussed support measures for rough sleepers, care system, children's education, and child benefit.

Cadbury suggested raising child benefit by at least £10 a week to help families during the time when children are not getting free school meals. Clarke acknowledged that costs would be higher for families but confirmed that free school meals should continue to be available.

Gardiner asked if the children of construction workers working on an essential site could also attend schools under Clarke's guidelines. Clarke clarified it was only for key workers as per their issued list.

McDonagh asked if the Minister would give way, but Clarke moved on due to time constraints.

Asked for a discussion with party leaders, including the Government, to ensure accountability and understanding of important decisions during the crisis. Emphasised that democracy must continue despite the recess.

Expressed frustration over the lack of transparency in decision-making processes related to government statements and press conferences. Suggested voting down the motion for an Easter recess if necessary to maintain parliamentary activity.

Critiqued the Prime Minister's handling of the national crisis, highlighting that he has not come to the Chamber to be held accountable. Asked about the Speaker's powers to ensure the Prime Minister makes statements in Parliament.

Agreed with coming together during the national crisis but believed the Prime Minister was acting against this sentiment by briefing journalists instead of addressing Parliament. Asked if it is possible to compel the Prime Minister to deliver a statement in Parliament.

Expressed difficulty in performing her role as an MP due to lack of information from the Government, leading to many constituents seeking clarification. Asked for advice on how she can continue to support her constituents during the recess.

Asked if it was possible to suspend the sitting and request an urgent meeting with either the Prime Minister or Chancellor to announce government decisions in Parliament instead of press conferences.

Responded to points of order by explaining that the Government is committed to cross-party work during the crisis, providing support for self-employed individuals within 24 hours. Stated that the House's recess was brought forward based on representations from MPs.

Challenged the Leader of the House to provide a timeline for when government packages were signed off, suggesting that if they are making press announcements, the work must be complete. Emphasised the importance of proper communication channels.

Requested an undertaking from the Government to consult with Opposition party leaders before significant announcements, aiming for a collaborative approach throughout the crisis.

Asked for an assurance that the House of Commons would receive copies of proposals before media outlets, promising to honour any embargo placed upon them. Stressed the need for this to prepare questions and respond to constituents' concerns.

Suggested that Ministers hold briefings via telephone or online calls, as they had done previously with the Health Secretary's press conference and a meeting with the immigration Minister. He proposed this to facilitate direct questioning from Members of Parliament.

Critiqued the handling of recent events, citing the Chancellor’s statement as an example where Ministers did not adhere to assurances given to the House. Called for a statement outlining main points even if details were incomplete.

Expressed anguish over how self-employed constituents are being treated, suggesting that the announcement could be made tonight instead of tomorrow. Criticised the Leader of the House for not amending business motion to allow sitting tomorrow and warned against voting against adjournment.

Encouraged leaders of parties to open channels for better communication, acknowledging good offers made during the debate but deferring response to the Leader of the House.

Clarified that plans were not yet ready and Ministers could only brief opposite numbers verbally. He defended the government's actions regarding briefing press before the House, citing limited detail in previous press releases.

Proposed receiving embargoed copies an hour or half an hour in advance to allow for informed comments by opposition parties. Emphasised the need to represent stressed constituents effectively.

Challenged the Leader of the House's assertion that briefing before the release is not possible, noting that the press had been briefed already. Accused the government of holding the House in contempt and questioned its adherence to parliamentary procedures.