I think it is fair to say that the shadow Secretary of State has been moderate. He has not repeated his party leader’s call for a national lockdown, and people in areas where the virus has not jumped up very high will be grateful for that. My father’s family came from Greater Manchester, and were they there now I think they would ask that the Mayor make an agreement with the Government, because public help and public health go together. If it is a proportionate offer, we have not heard the reason why it is inadequate in one place. If we want employment in the future, we need to have employers, and help is going to be needed for those who need and are struggling to keep their businesses going. I also want to make one more point: down in Worthing, we are not getting our test results back all the time very fast. It is important that we do because a father or mother who has a child who may have symptoms may not be able to go to work as a teacher, and that ends up penalising all the children in the class.

While there may be a small minority who do not think of those around them, the majority of people try to follow the advice to reduce the spread of covid. We know that the virus spreads where people are in close contact. This is about not just pubs and nightclubs; it includes those in overcrowded housing, those in exposed jobs where working from home is not an option, and those on zero-hours contracts who simply will not get paid if they are not working. Does the Secretary of State not think it is a bit inappropriate for politicians with well-paid and secure jobs to suggest that rising covid cases in certain areas are just due to some form of misbehaviour requiring tougher penalties? People want to do the right thing, whether due to restrictions or because they are infected themselves, but sometimes they feel that they have no option but to continue going out of the house. Although in general surveys the vast majority of people say that they would isolate if they caught covid, a study from King’s College London shows that less than 20% of those who develop symptoms go on to isolate. That was associated with financial hardship, social deprivation, having dependent children and working in key jobs that cannot be carried out from home. Why is the Chancellor not continuing the full furlough scheme when we are heading into a second wave and the hardest winter that the NHS will ever have faced? There are still millions of people who have not received any support since March. Does the Secretary of State not recognise that, for those on low wages and in insecure work, the choice between staying at home and feeding their family just does not feel like a choice at all?

My right hon. Friend and his Department have engaged with me and my Tees Valley colleagues a number of times in recent weeks, and I thank him for that. He is well aware of my deep reservations about further restrictions on my constituents’ lives, liberties and livelihoods, particularly due to the mental health impact of these restrictions. Can he confirm that, while discussions are ongoing, there are no current plans to move Redcar and Cleveland into tier 3 restrictions? Will he also commit to working with me, Redcar and Cleveland Council, my Tees Valley colleagues and the Tees Valley Mayor, Ben Houchen, on any future changes?

Today marks a low point in the handling of this situation. Instead of reuniting people behind their approach, the Government have imposed this decision, leaving a bitter taste. There are other decisions still to come, and other regions are watching what has happened today, including my own in the west midlands. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that, as significant economic support is withdrawn at the end of this month, any decision on whether national restrictions are required will not be taken because that is cheaper and a means of avoiding adequate support for the businesses and workers concerned, because if that is the case, the public health measures and the economic measures will be pulling in two different directions?

Today, Jonathan Van-Tam said in answer to a question that a national lockdown right now would be inappropriate for places such as East Anglia. Does my right hon. Friend therefore disagree with the decision of the Labour party and Ipswich Labour that now is the time to close down the entire hospitality sector in somewhere like Ipswich with low levels of covid, which employs thousands of my constituents?

Earlier, the Prime Minister said that he was still talking to the north-east. May I reiterate that, in the north-east, we believe that we should remain in tier 2 and are working hard to that end? What we do need is financial support for the test and trace work already being carried out effectively locally and financial support for our hospitality, leisure and retail sectors, which are taking the strain of current restrictions. Will the Secretary of State now fund the test and trace work being done so effectively locally, and urge the Chancellor to provide a financial support package for our hospitality, leisure and retail sectors within tier 2 to support our economy and local people?

In the last four weeks, the number of covid patients admitted to intensive care units in hospitals in some parts of the country has increased sevenfold. I agree with my right hon. Friend that we must act now to control the spread of the virus, but can he assure me that the Government are doing all that they can to keep cancer treatments, elective surgeries and other vital diagnostic services going?

I, too, am working hard with Tees Valley colleagues to keep the area out of tier 3, but my constituents in Hartlepool are confused and seething with anger. They are concerned about moving to tier 3 with all the health and economic impacts that that will bring. We are not in tier 3 yet, but if we get there what exit strategy does the Secretary of State have for ending lockdown?

Greater Manchester has lived under harsh additional restrictions for three months. May I put it to my right hon. Friend that lockdowns themselves cost lives as well as livelihoods, and that they take a terrible toll on mental health, particularly of the young? Does he accept that it is better to do these things, if they must be done, by consent? In that regard, will he confirm that these measures will be brought to the House for approval, and that in any case they will end with the sunset after 28 days?

None of us doubts the grave threat to public health and the difficulty of dealing with it, but there is also now a widespread real threat of poverty, so whether the £60 million is on the table or off the table is immaterial; it is not what the elected representatives of Greater Manchester say they need. Do the Secretary of State and his Government appreciate that the people of Greater Manchester feel tonight that they have been abandoned by this Government, and that my constituents in Edinburgh West and people up and down the country will be wondering whether they will be abandoned next?

More action is needed to help livelihoods and save incomes, so will the Government share and, if necessary, develop their work with the commercial and public sectors on how air-conditioning systems, ventilation systems, heating systems and air-extraction systems can be adapted or improved so that more commercial and public buildings can be kept open for proper use?

Asked the Secretary of State for all that he is doing. There are many underlying health conditions, including respiratory illnesses; declared an interest as chair of the APPG on respiratory health. Given that respiratory illnesses are one of the leading causes of death in the UK—covid-19 included—what reassurances can he offer me and those people who suffer from them that referrals for severe asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other respiratory illnesses will not be forgotten but will be maintained, and that further unnecessary deaths will be avoided?

Understood that talks are ongoing about South Yorkshire, which includes Rother Valley, going into a stricter lockdown. Before any decision is made, will my right hon. Friend agree to get agreement between councils and local MPs, so that local views, concerns and support can be agreed in advance, especially around mental health and local businesses?

In lockdown, people need financial support to do the right thing and stay at home to stop the virus. In Wales, £300 million was provided by the Labour Government, which is £100 per person; in Manchester, the Prime Minister has provided £22 million, which is £8 per person instead of £100 per person in Wales. How can that be right? Will the Secretary of State and the Chancellor ensure that wherever people live across the United Kingdom they have enough money to stay at home to beat the virus without inflicting massive poverty?

Warrington finds itself as a tier 2 island in the north-west with stubbornly high infection rate and admissions to Warrington Hospital exceeding peak of first wave in April. Does my right hon. Friend agree that any further measures for Warrington should protect NHS and save lives but also support local livelihoods and economy?

Described today’s events as impossible without unparliamentary language, but settled for 'a complete shambles'. Today, this Government made a choice not to protect the poorest people in Greater Manchester through punishing reality of winter. Does Secretary of State really believe we will get through pandemic by subjecting communities to financial negotiations? Do the Government truly value lives more than pennies?

My right hon. Friend told the House measures are about increase in infection among over-60s, who are more vulnerable. What assessment has he made of whether that infection is being spread in community as opposed to care settings? If it is in the community, what messages should we give rest of community?

My constituents have suffered huge anxiety over past six months, worrying about health and livelihoods. Chaos today will do nothing to allay fears; angry about money wasted on personal protective equipment purchases, consultants, failing Test and Trace system. Would he answer questions raised by her hon. Friend?

One of the ways we can hope to pick path out of crisis is with improved and faster testing. New testing technologies being piloted with NHS staff. If technology found to be effective, what is right hon. Gentleman’s timeline for rolling that testing out to wider groups?

Was hugely disappointed Mayor of Greater Manchester failed to reach agreement with Government, compounding uncertainty facing constituents. We need way forward; advocated on behalf of Stockport Council and constituents in Cheadle regarding testing and tracing, hospitality sector compliance. Pressed for borough-by-borough approach that reflects lower case rate. Urged leader of Stockport Council to act on behalf of Cheadle residents and businesses; will the Minister continue to work with local leaders and her to secure fair deal?

Welcomed the Secretary of State's announcement that there are no plans to move North-East England into tier 3 and asked for more resources to local directors of public health for test and trace. Asked when local directors will receive timely information from national Test and Trace.

Asked if the Secretary of State will either use Government powers or give powers to local council leaders in Halton and Merseyside to reopen gyms, as Lancashire and Manchester are allowed to do under tier 3.

Asked if closing pubs in certain areas will not affect case levels in other places, and suggested that local interventions are better than a national lockdown.

Asked if discussions between Government and Sheffield city region are final, and whether the same offer made to Lancashire and Merseyside will be given elsewhere.

Asked for a commitment from the Secretary of State to meet Greater Manchester council leaders and MPs to find a fair and workable agreement, following an unsuccessful attempt by the Mayor.

Critiqued the Secretary of State's attempt to divide local leaders and accused him of spending too little on support for people entering tier 3.

Asked if targeted action is needed in Gedling to slow virus spread, especially among over-60s where risks are higher.

Asked for urgent reply to Cheshire leaders' request for support, expressed disappointment in Prime Minister's response towards Greater Manchester.

Complimented the Secretary of State for his local approach, asked about providing 60-minute tests for relatives visiting vulnerable residents in care homes.

Described the Health Secretary's response as disappointing, stated that local lockdowns require a competent test and trace system, financial support for workers, and national Government backing.

Asked about the estimate of excess deaths above long-term averages in recent weeks.

There is a pattern here, is there not? Whenever the Government cannot agree a deal, it is always somebody else’s fault. In this case, it is Andy Burnham’s fault for simply standing up for what Greater Manchester needs—not what we want; what we need.

Does the Home Secretary think that he has carried the people of the north with the Government as they watch bully boy tactics and punishment beatings being used against the legitimate concerns of local leaders from all parties to try to protect the livelihoods of the poorest people and local businesses in Greater Manchester?

It is absolutely right that the Government treat Greater Manchester fairly and equally. The Government could not give greater support to one area than to Liverpool or Lancashire because then the local leaders who are refusing to take the action necessary to lock down the virus will be given greater financial rewards.

Will this Government try to play poker with the people of Bradford and their financial support, like they did with Manchester before putting it into the highest tier?

I welcome the setting up of a second local national testing centre locally in Fenton Manor in my constituency. Will my right hon Friend continue to support this excellent work and continue to grow the testing capacity?

The Secretary of State talks about fairness, but today we find out that Greater Manchester is effectively getting a third of the level of financial support that the Government gave to Lancashire. It is a failure that his Government cannot negotiate a decent package of support with our Greater Manchester Mayor.

The definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing over and over again in the hope that it will turn good. We have had three months of interventions in Greater Manchester, which have yielded very little results indeed.

Can I say that it was not just the Mayor, but all the leaders and most of the MPs across Greater Manchester? We are a city united this evening, but should any economic support package be based on need?