HM Revenue and Customs

Mr Steve Brine agreed with Mel Stride, emphasising that the Government should have prioritised getting help to those who missed out on support rather than focusing too much on potential misuse of funds. He suggested that the schemes fell short in their universality and inclusivity.

Mr Nigel Evans informed the House about the time limit for Back-Bench contributions, which was set at four minutes.

Expressed concern over the exclusion of gig economy workers from Government support schemes, highlighting the plight of those on zero-hours contracts, freelance workers, sole directors, and short-term contract employees who have been unable to access financial assistance. Emphasised the importance of addressing this issue immediately as these individuals are struggling financially.

Acknowledged that many people did not need support and might not have claimed it even if they could, suggesting a level of trust in the population during times of crisis. Highlighted the importance of flexibility within support schemes to accommodate different circumstances.

Praised HMRC for successfully implementing emergency support schemes quickly but noted that these rapid measures came with 'hard edges'—unintended negative impacts on individuals. Called for a more nuanced approach to address the specific needs of various sectors such as the arts and hospitality, where tip income is not accounted for adequately.

I want to go back to the point about people who had to use personal service company set-ups in order to get liability insurance. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a crazy system that led to that behaviour, which in turn has led to people going without money?

I absolutely agree. This crisis has forced us to look at how our labour market works, and we need to come back to that very strongly indeed. Tomorrow, I want to hear that the Chancellor is doing something to help the freelancers who power much of our cultural industry but who have thus far been excluded from the help available. I want to see him announce a strategic sectoral approach to job retention to ensure that the economy thrives.

A few months ago, the Chancellor spoke directly to those who had lost their livelihoods overnight. He said: 'To all those at home right now, anxious about the days ahead, I say this: you will not face this alone.' Those were reassuring words, and they were backed up by a Government promise to do “whatever it takes” to keep the people of these isles healthy and financially secure. The Trussell Trust reported a staggering 89% rise in the need for emergency food parcels in April, so “whatever it takes” is clearly a lot more than what is being provided.

Cummins argued that Bradford, with a higher than average rate of infection, needs flexible furlough schemes and economic support during local lockdowns. She pointed out the high proportion of key workers in retail and gig economy who cannot work from home and are at risk without adequate financial aid.

Gibson criticised the furlough scheme for excluding many, such as newly employed individuals and contract workers. She urged the Chancellor to implement a universal support system and extend furlough until August to save jobs. She also called for converting business loans into grants and provided specific examples of impacted sectors like aviation and islands.

Cooper emphasised the plight of limited company directors excluded from government schemes, advocating for HMRC to consider dividend certificates as a basis for eligibility. She expressed frustration at the lack of response and stressed that these individuals are facing financial ruin and mental health challenges.

Stephens advocated for addressing issues related to who is self-employed versus directly employed, referencing the Taylor review. He also highlighted HMRC staff's efforts during the crisis and called for better treatment of these workers.

Acknowledges the Government's intervention with regard to self-employed support and job retention schemes but highlights gaps in these programmes. Emphasises that many have been excluded due to rigid rules and lack of flexibility. Acknowledges groups like ExcludedUK campaigning on this issue and mentions the all-party parliamentary group established for them. Points out specific issues around young entrepreneurs, freelancers, access to finance, qualifying dates for second phase of self-employment scheme, and identity rights in Northern Ireland.

Thanking the Government for their support during the pandemic but also highlights specific issues faced by constituents such as Alan Petticrew who did not qualify due to trading profits limits. Emphasises the need to extend support to limited company directors and freelancers essential for economic recovery.

Acknowledges the Treasury's efforts but notes that many people, such as those who changed jobs or started businesses recently, freelance workers, agency workers, and limited company directors, did not benefit from support schemes.

Highlights issues in the fishing sector where self-employed fishermen with earnings just above the threshold were excluded. Also mentions a constituent Carl who missed out due to the furlough scheme's start date being set at 19 March instead of 31 March. Proposes spending vouchers for certain British businesses on high streets to aid recovery.

The UK Government's coronavirus support schemes have left millions of people without income, despite the Chancellor's assurances. The furlough scheme and SEISS were not designed to cover everyone, leading to significant gaps in support for new starters, self-employed workers, those affected by the £50,000 cliff edge, and others. There is a need for an emergency basic payment to ensure that all individuals have some income during this crisis. Additionally, HMRC's rigid administration of these schemes has caused numerous delays and denied many businesses access to support they are entitled to.

The Government's coronavirus job retention scheme and SEISS have provided significant support but also missed opportunities and problems. The scheme was too rigid, leading to new starters being left out, a lack of clarity regarding shielding staff, and agencies opting not to furlough their workers. There is an urgent need for flexibility in the winding down of these schemes and changes to sick pay rules to ensure that people are not forced to choose between their health and income.

There was no planning for what to do with the economy in a pandemic, despite preparations for a public health crisis. This lack of preparation led to muddled advice and changes to support schemes as they were implemented.

The Member criticised the Chancellor's failure to act in workers' interests, such as not making support schemes conditional on retaining jobs. He also highlighted missed opportunities for corporate tax reform and environmental gains. The Member raised concerns over HMRC staff redundancies and office closures, arguing they are counterproductive to the Government’s levelling-up narrative.

The Minister praised HMRC's swift response in implementing support schemes for businesses and employees during the pandemic. He highlighted the speed at which the furlough scheme and self-employment income support scheme were rolled out, noting that they covered the vast majority of the working population with unprecedented efficiency.

The Member questioned whether there was economic planning for a pandemic in 2016, suggesting it should be a priority moving forward. She raised concerns about the lack of support for gig economy workers.

Eagle emphasises the need for Government support for people who have been given no help, particularly those whose livelihoods were affected due to government decisions that closed down parts of the economy.

Norman highlights the comprehensive nature of the Government's response to the crisis, including furlough schemes, self-employment support, loans, tax deferrals, grants, and other forms of benefit. He explains that these schemes were designed quickly with minimal risk of fraud and emphasises that while there are gaps in the current system, changes at the margins have been made.

Stride acknowledges the Government's rapid response but calls for an iterative approach to addressing the gaps in support, especially for those who have been left out, such as the million-plus hard-working people across the country.