Sunak under pressure on furlough as Bank pours in extra £100bn
Former PM among dozens of Tories to rebel on vote with many criticising ‘unjust’ measures
THE Chancellor and the Bank of England will today announce a new package of measures to boost the economy as the UK heads into another lockdown.
The Bank is poised to pump an extra £100 billion into a rapidly flagging economy to fight off the crippling impact of a resurgent virus.
Interest rates are already at a rockbottom 0.1 per cent, but the Bank is said to be considering a controversial move into negative rates as a winter chill descends on the economy.
Rishi Sunak is expected to confirm that furloughed workers will get 80 per cent of their wages so long as their businesses are mandated to shut, after Boris Johnson told MPS they would not lose out after the second lockdown ends.
Mr Sunak is also likely to announce that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will have access to the furlough scheme should they follow England in imposing new national restrictions. He may also have to extend the extra support granted to the self-employed on Monday to ensure parity with any additional package for workers.
Business leaders last night urged the Government to provide firms with certainty heading into the critical Christmas period by extending the furlough scheme into the new year.
While the Treasury refused to comment, Mr Sunak could alternatively increase the generosity of the job support scheme, currently postponed, which will be open to workers of any firm forced to close or suffering from restricted trading.
The move is likely to add billions of pounds to Government spending and follows claims from allies of Mr Sunak that he has been effectively “bounced” by Mr Johnson into agreeing more cash for the devolved administrations.
Meanwhile, Mr Johnson faced a fierce backlash from Theresa May and 54 other Conservative MPS who yesterday refused to support the second lockdown in a vote in the House of Commons. Accusing Mr Johnson of selectively choosing data to fit his Covid policies, the former prime minister called on the Government to set out the economic cost of the new restrictions.
Under the three-tiered system, which the Government plans to reintroduce after Dec 2, pubs and bars in the highest tier are expected to remain shut.
While their workers will be able to claim the 80 per cent furlough throughout November, there is mounting concern that when the lockdown ends they will be forced to transition to the less generous job support scheme, which pays just 67 per cent.
A senior business leader warned that such a shift would send a “very strange message” to regions that are kept under tougher restrictions.
“It would effectively be saying that people in Tier 3 areas and the North are second-class citizens,” they added.
THERESA MAY yesterday refused to back the second lockdown, accusing Boris Johnson of relying on inaccurate data to impose it.
The former prime minister was among 21 Conservatives to abstain on a vote on the month-long measures, with a further 34 Tories voting against. The vote was passed by 516 to 38.
Last night Tory sources said there would be no disciplinary action against the rebels. One said: “The PM understands the points they are making.”
During a heated debate, MPS from all wings of the party condemned Mr Johnson’s decision to put England into a second national lockdown until Dec 2. Ministers were accused of “relishing the power of seeking to micromanage” people’s lives with new laws, and of presiding over the “destruction and damage” of a second national lockdown.
Mrs May attacked Mr Johnson’s administration for relying on the prediction of 4,000 deaths a day by Christmas. There were gasps in the chamber as the Prime Minister walked out just as she began her speech but he later wrote a letter of apology, saying he had to leave for a scheduled meeting.
An ally said: “It was not a deliberate snub. He has great respect for her.”
In a four-minute speech, Mrs May accused Mr Johnson of choosing data to fit his coronavirus policies and demanded that the Government reveal the economic cost of the lockdown.
She said that, based on the 4,000deaths-a- day prediction, “we would have reached 1,000 deaths a day by the end of October. The average in the last week of October was 259.” She added: “Each of those deaths is a sadness and our thoughts are with the families, but it’s not 1,000 deaths a day. So the prediction was wrong before it was even used.
“We need proper analyses. We need to know the details behind these models. We need to be able to assess the validity of those models.” However, NHS Providers, the organisation for hospitals and services, urged MPS to pass the legislation – and then just hours later the NHS in England returned to its highest state of alert, amid warnings that hospitals would continue filling up with Covid-19 patients for at least another two weeks.
In the Commons, Philip Davies, Tory MP for Shipley, accused Matt Hancock of failing to build capacity in the NHS and called on the Health Secretary to “sacrifice his job in solidarity with others in the country” who will lose theirs because of lockdown.
Huw Merriman, the Tory chairman of the transport select committee, warned that the restrictions would have an impact on suicides, mental illness, domestic abuse, lost jobs and homes.
Sir Charles Walker, vice chairman of the 1922 Committee of backbench Tory MPS, said people’s freedoms were “like the air we breathe” and accused the Government of coercing citizens into giving theirs away. He said the law enforcing the second lockdown was “terribly unjust”, adding: “I will not live in fear of the virus but I am living in fear of something much, much darker hiding in the shadows.” Sir Graham Brady, his chairman, agreed, adding: “The Government is reaching too far into the private and family lives of our constituents. I think there is an – unintended perhaps – arrogance in assuming the Government has the right to do so.”
Separately, Jake Berry, chairman of the Northern Research Group of Tory MPS, warned that the North could not be “locked in to lockdown indefinitely” and demanded a “clear road map” out of restrictions from Dec 2.
Craig Mackinlay, MP f or South Thanet, said the lockdown was an “insult” and noted that the rules seemed to allow a couple to go for a walk on a golf course, but not with “a golf club and ball”. And Sir Bob Neill, chairman of the justice select committee, said the lockdown was not “based upon the evidence”.
Mr Hancock insisted the lockdown was necessary to stop hospitals being overrun. He said our “hard won” historic liberties “should not be infringed, save the gravest of times.”
The Commons have voted for a one-month lockdown by a majority of 478 on the understanding that it will end on December 2, a deadline reaffirmed by Boris Johnson during Question Time. He declined an invitation from Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, to say that it might continue if the infection rate or hospital admissions are still rising on that date.
The Prime Minister is gambling on the lockdown suppressing the virus and, with the R rate falling, that seems likely. However, if hospitals continue to fill up with sufferers, will he stick with the December 2 date? As it is now written into statute, he would need to come back to Parliament to approve an extension. This is as it should be: rule by executive diktat is over and proper democratic processes have been restored.
However, they rely upon an open and free debate. The restrictions on liberty and legitimate activity are too profound to be allowed to continue by default, even with a Commons vote. Yet the scope for discussion is constrained by the pressure imposed on parliamentarians to toe the official line or face accusations of risking lives.
Ahead of yesterday’s vote, an open letter was sent to all MPS by the managers of a body called NHS Providers, which represents health service trusts, urging them to vote in favour of the lockdown. It stated that “we have lost control” of the spread of the virus and there is a “clear and present danger” that the NHS would not be able to treat all the patients it needs to in a clear and timely way. This may or may not be true, but it is not for NHS Providers to make that argument. The “weaponisation” of the NHS to make political points must be resisted.