the defences. i raised this every week, the prime minister pretends it is getting better, but it never does. the prime minister has almost given up on this now, put mass testing in its place. blind optimism, not a testing in its place. blind optimism, nota plan. testing in its place. blind optimism, not a plan. the idea we can go through the next few months and successfully keep the virus under control when 500,000 people a month are wandering around when they should be self isolating is not a sensible plan going forward. my my four point is to come to the level of economic support provided. i have to say to the prime minister, it is hard to overstate the level of anger is about this at their in our communities. many of whom have been in restrictions for months on end. yesterday, i did a virtual visit to the north—west, to businesses there. their emotions ranged from deep disappointment with the government to raw anger that the prime minister and chancellor just are to raw anger that the prime minister and chancellorjust are not listening and do not get the impact

of months of endless restrictions on the impact they have had on local communities. in march, the prime minister vowed... the chancel about to do whatever it takes to support households and businesses but there has now been six economic plans in nine months and the level of support is still insufficient. —— the chancellor. for these reasons, let me spell them out, the prime minister mumbles. let me spell out. first, the scheme does not fairly reflect the difficulties faced in businesses across the country. i will be surprised if members opposite on picking this up from constituents. let me start with the grant that gives a flat figure to areas regardless of how long they have been in restrictions. that means greater manchester, which will be on its 40th day of severe restrictions on it enters tier 3 tomorrow, has received the same one—off support as the isle of wight. that's when hint —— that went

into restrictions and will go into tieri tomorrow. it is unfair. to pretend it is not unfairjust is not real, prime minister. the second aspect, the grand does not take account of the number of businesses that need support in each area. our great cities are being asked to spread the same sum far more thinly, and that is also clearly unfair. 0ur constituents know that, our businesses know it is unfair, and nothing has been done about it. the third aspect, even allowing for today's announcement, many businesses are now receiving less support than they did during the first wave. this is a huge strain for businesses, particular those who have been so long under restrictions. it makes no economic sense for the government to allow them to go to the wall. putting the

grant them to go to the wall. putting the g ra nt syste m them to go to the wall. putting the grant system on one side, putting the grant system on one side, the second major point of the economic support is this. millions of self—employed people remain unfairly excluded from the government's support schemes. again, there is nothing that has been done about this. i have remaindered —— i have raised so many times of the prime minister and others. every time he chooses to talk about those that are in the scheme ignores those not in it. this is eight months on and we faced three on for months of this and that means a year without that support in those areas. he talks about those excluded from support. focusesin about those excluded from support. focuses in on those people and that includes those who set up companies 18 months ago. small businesses. these are the entrepreneurs we need to build britain back as we recover from the economic wreckage of the coronavirus. does he agree with me

that we should be investing in those people and not excluding them and leaving many of them in deep and dangerous debt? i do. they cry still has not been heard. i accept that in putting together a support package ina hurry putting together a support package in a hurry back in march, they may have been reasons why certain groups we re have been reasons why certain groups were overlooked. but this is eight months on and as we have pointed out over and over again, we go into a tiered system and there is still the gap in the system and it is being very strongly felt out there. the third point about the economic package is this. the government must remove the uncertainty about furlough and rule out changing the scheme again in january. furlough and rule out changing the scheme again injanuary. this is crucial because businesses are starting to make decisions about what they do in january. starting to make decisions about what they do injanuary. the chancellor made the statement before that by the time furlough was extended, many businesses had laid people off as it came to late. we note happens in these circumstances. the uncertainty has already caused severe economic damage and we cannot

afford the same mistake again. taking together the economic support just does not stack up. i want to make the wider point about the economic damage that the coronavirus and this government has done to the economy. last month's statement laid bare the huge economic cost of the crisis. i know there are those that say that is the reason to end restrictions. the reality is you cannot take the economy if you lose control of the virus. that leads to more uncertainty, more restrictions, and more long—term damage to the economy. it is the failure to get control of the virus or take a long—term approach to shielding our economy that has left the uk with the worst economic recession of the g7 and the highest death toll in europe. the fifth reason for scepticism about the government's approach is this. managing and priorities. the last 14 towers have been a summary of the mistakes government has made in this crisis.

—— 48—hour is. the prime minister is split between following the signs and pleasing the backbenchers. the prime minister knows that other restrictions are needed but he pretends that the restrictions might not be in place for very long. he pretends that it is quite possible that everybody will be in a lower tier in two weeks' time. the reality is that tough restrictions will be needed until the vaccine is rolled out. that may be months away. the prime minister will doubtless be backin prime minister will doubtless be back ina prime minister will doubtless be back in a few weeks with another plan, but the prime minister does not make that case today or provide the certainty or consistency that we need. so in the last 48—hour is, we have had concessions, letters, and promises to his mps, without clear and reliable messaging to the public and reliable messaging to the public and that is symptomatic of the

problem. mr speaker, coronavirus remains a serious threat to the public‘s health, to our economy and way of life, we recognise the need for continued restrictions, but it is not in the national interest devote these restrictions down today. we will allow these restrictions the past, but it is another wasted... we accept the case for restrictions, we want a plan thatis for restrictions, we want a plan that is going to work, we are on plan five and this one is full of holes! we have been there so many times, the prime minister has said that this is the plan, this is the plan and will solve the problem stopped 50 time around, still a plan with holes that have been there for months and still not solved. why is track and trace not working? while gaps in support of still there? why those excluded not included? why are those excluded not included? why are those who have to self—isolate not given the supposed to do so? these are huge gaps in the system and to vote through a plan for recognising

those problems is not going to help. i accept the case for restrictions, we will not stand in the way of these regulations, we do not want these regulations, we do not want the restrictions to come off, but i will not stand here and pretend, as the prime minister does, that this is the plan that will solve at all, vote for it and it will all be fine through to easter. that will not happen and nobody should vote on the basis today. thank you, mr speaker. thank you, mr speaker. i have to say, while there are many points of merit that the honourable gentleman hasjust raised, he has left the house in public with the impression that he is happy for these restrictions to go through, he just won't vote for them. i think that the idea that that is the kind of atmosphere that the public wants or will encourage the public to comply and cooperate, when there is disagreement between the two main parties on these fundamental issues that cannot be resolved in a sensible way, i think, the that cannot be resolved in a sensible way, ithink, the public that cannot be resolved in a sensible way, i think, the public be disappointed with that. i will give

way. they might be a different interpretation of the events that we re interpretation of the events that were just passed, mightn't there? a lot of us are very concerned that the prime minister does not give the full story to the house and to the nation. the truth is, we are almost certainly going to see another lockdown in january, certainly going to see another lockdown injanuary, aren't we? a full lockdown across the whole of the uk. the chancellor of the duchy of lancaster, the prime minister says that is not what we want. nobly wa nt says that is not what we want. nobly want any of it but we have to be honest and straightforward with the british people. these measures today are not sufficient today. sinemet i did not hear my right honourable friend —— did not hear my right honourable friend -- i think he has been privately honest with the house on this. it is difficult. i want to concentrate on what we agree. we agree we want to keep the r rate low while minimising restrictions on people's lives and limiting the economic damage. if the r rises

above one, this comes more difficult to predict and control. it has a multiplying effect even if the r eight remains constant. it remains legitimate for colleagues to press the government about why the nhs may be under pressure. it is not uncommon for hospitals to become overrun during the winter months. without the addition of covid. it is also reasonable for the government to fear the rising rate of covid infections would lead to that in some areas, or much worse, unless we can keep the r number around or below one. that is what these numbers can be expected to achieve. it is right to press the government for more analysis of the economic impact of these measures, but maybe the government was wrong to raise the government was wrong to raise the expectation that they can provide this degree of certainty we re provide this degree of certainty were so provide this degree of certainty were so much uncertainty exists. equally, it must be agreed it is impossible to predict the economic

consequences of a rapid spread of the virus. i understand the frustration of representing a low virus constituency that is included ina tier2 virus constituency that is included in a tier 2 area, and the need to provide the right support to business being badly hit. these are not about alternatives to the fundamentals of this policy, which i believe the opposition is trying to avoid. the real question is, and it is also a legitimate question, it will these tiers be enough? i hope tier2, tier2will will these tiers be enough? i hope tier 2, tier 2 will keep essex low the r one. there is doubt. tier2 did not work before. we must look upon this period as a further period of transition to when vaccines will begin to become available. we should look ahead at the challenges the vaccine look ahead at the challenges the vaccine programmes look ahead at the challenges the vaccine programmes will present. we should give thought to how we will provide reassurance that the vaccine that you are being invited to accept is right for you. in the meantime, the challenge is to ensure that we can move down the tears, notjust

down into tier 1, but remaining one evenif down into tier 1, but remaining one even if the vaccines take time to become effective and at scale. this will depend on how all behave example we set and what we do to encourage confidence and cooperation with track and trace operations. there is much to ask the government which time does not allow today about how to improve track and trace and self isolation operations at local level and how the community volunteer hopes could help support people who should isolate. that is vital work now. the last thing i wa nt vital work now. the last thing i want is to vote for these restrictions today, but until there are better alternatives, we have no alternative. we should support them. lam alternative. we should support them. i am sorry that majesty's opposition are trying to avoid that truth. the government also has the opportunity to learn by continuing to listen and gain public confidence from that.

thank you, madam deputy speaker. the emotions before the house do relate exclusively to england. but that does not mean they do not have consequences across these islands, so it is important that the voice of the scottish national party is heard in this debate. although in line with our long—standing practice, as regards matters that are devolved, we will not take part in any division this evening. i'm sure that is of some assistance to the government. perhaps the first thing the government needs to consider is why it has got to that stage. scotla nd why it has got to that stage. scotland has passed similar, but not identical, regulations with a far greater degree of cross—party and intra party greater degree of cross—party and intraparty consensus greater degree of cross—party and intra party consensus than greater degree of cross—party and intraparty consensus than seems to have been managed here in westminster. perhaps that is because the first minister and her cabinet secretaries and the senior public health officials have always taken a commendably frank and honest approach with the people of scotland about the challenges of the virus and the difficulty of the decisions that have to be made. in the

summertime, the first minister initiated a national dialogue with people across scotland on what a road map out of the initial lockdown should and could look like. instead of promising moon shots and world beating systems and that it would all be over by christmas, the scottish government and the other devolved governments have worked to ta ke devolved governments have worked to take people with them, whether that is the public at large or their own backbenchers. we have always been clear that only health and saving lives has to be the priority. whatever the pain, and there is real pain, caused to the economy and livelihoods by these kind of restrictions. that pain is as nothing to eli ended too soon. to a family or community bereaved by the dreadful disease, and as always, the snp sent its deepest sympathies to all of those who have lost a loved one as a result of a pandemic. that is not to minimise the impact and effect of the economic if impact. i

see in glasgow and north that thrives on the hospitality and event sector and will be interested to see what the consequences of the government's announcement about support for pubs will be north of the border. i constituency is home to thousands of creators, start—ups and entrepreneurs, who have all been left behind and forgotten from the chancellor's support package. we hear that the £20 universal credit uplift will not be extended from march. and those on legacy benefits who have yet to see a similar uplift. we all feel the struggle of the front line public sector workers busting a gut to keep the services we all depend on going in the most difficult circumstances. support for all of these groups and for those who need to isolate, which is absolutely critical to stopping the virus, and support for these groups, the government has been found wanting. the prime minister has jumped on the leader of the 0pposition asking, how we get people

to self—isolate? start i paying a decent statutory sick pay and make it affordable for people to stay home and safe. perhaps if they have made more effort to support those people, the excluded, families who are struggling, it would not be feeling the heat it is now from its own backbenchers. we need to compare that to what we have heard in the last few days in scotland. a five andjapan last few days in scotland. a five and japan bonus for all nhs and social care staff. —— £500 bonus. clapping for carers was never going to be enough and this is a gesture of thanks for extraordinary service. i hope the prime minister and chancellor will have the decency not to level tax on this well—deserved reward. the families who need it most, a £100 one—off payment before christmas to households with children in receipt of free school meals. a commitment that all primer schoolchildren will receive free schoolchildren will receive free school meals, breakfast at lunch —— brea kfast school meals, breakfast at lunch —— breakfast and lunch, if the snp is

re—elected next year. that is the difference devolution makes. families, nhs workers, that is not a disaster, that is the scottish government working for and delivering for their best interest in the interests of our society as a whole. if it means that we are using our share of money that the uk treasury has borrowed on scotland's behalf, that is the point of devolution. the tories do not like it and hear some muttering, with the solution is simple. independence for scotla nd solution is simple. independence for scotland would mean we could raise our own finance on our own terms and spend it on our priorities in our own time. would not have to wait for the south—east of england to be placed into lockdown before the furlough scheme is extended to the whole of the uk. if the prime minister is feeling pressure from his own side today, he only has his self blame. real leadership is about making the hard decisions and being honest with people when the stakes are made, especially in a time of crisis. people do not want bluster and false hope, they want honestly

and false hope, they want honestly and determination empathy. the government's —— the devolved governments have always sought a four nations approach if possible, and we have seen a decision can be reached as in the case of love ones being travelled —— people travelling to visit loved ones over christmas. all of us will have an extra responsibility to be vigilant, minimise risk, where ourface coverings, be hygienic, and all the other sex we have become familiar with. that cannot become complacency. the —— all of the other things we have become familiar with. the threat to our lives and the economy has not gone away. while we welcome the light at the end of the tunnel, that light must be approached slowly and carefully. that is why scotland will continue with its tier system and the difficult decisions that we need until the virus is beaten. the other devolved nations origins —— making

similar decision. ministers in england have the responsibly to do likewise. i think the instance of the prime minister in this matter are not too different from mine. it is a burden he carries, it is a difficult matter and there are difficult decisions to take. freedom is not an absolute, but it should be regarded as precious and it should be always the strongest possible presumption in its favour. if government is to take away fundamental liberties from the people they represent, they must demonstrate beyond question that they are acting in a way that is both proportionate and absolutely necessary. today, i think the government has failed to make that

case. the benefit of the doubt that the government has extended its harder to take for granted in december. six weeks ago many of us make the case that the curfew policy at 10pm was not just make the case that the curfew policy at 10pm was notjust unnecessary, but counter—productive. today, the government apparently agrees that the 10pm curfew makes no sense. a month ago the government insisted that golf and tennis and bowls and james were unsafe. now it seems that they are not. madam deputy speaker, before the second lockdown i invited the house to consider whether government had the right to make it illegal for people to see their children, their grandchildren or their elderly relatives. whether government had the right to ban collective worship or take away the right to work to support your

family. different people, different members of this house, will draw the line in different places. but we must all accept that these are fundamental freedoms of our constituents and we should insist on compelling evidence before we allow them to be compromised. that is why i asked for an impact assessment a month ago and also for our transparent publication of the criteria that we used to decide in which tier our constituents would be placed, and also crucially the weighting that would be applied to each of those criteria. my constituents have been placed u nfa i rly constituents have been placed unfairly in tier3, constituents have been placed unfairly in tier 3, in spite of test figures that are well below the average for england. currently, the

rate is falling rapidly. i looked in vainfor rate is falling rapidly. i looked in vain for the document published yesterday for any explanation or any route to be set out how we would reach that lower tier. there was no serious attempt in that document to provide an answer. in the absence of that serious and compelling case, half i have no choice but to oppose these measures. hilary benn. i would say to the right honourable gentleman that this debate is indeed about freedom, but also about the balance of risks and costs. the risk to life and because businesses and families which are both substantial and deeply worrying to every single member of this house. it is also a debate about facts. what are the fa cts ? debate about facts. what are the facts? in this country and across the world about how to handle this

epidemic, it is disputed by some and it isa epidemic, it is disputed by some and it is a dispute in which the truth and uncertainty, because some of this is all about scientific uncertainty, wrestles with the plainly false. it is about the impact of that vaccination that i wa nt to impact of that vaccination that i want to say a few today. for months now we have lived through restrictions, we have seen people die, our local businesses suffering from time to time we have lifted our eyes to the horizon in hopes of glimpsing something that is a bit better. well, something has now appeared in the dark winter sky there are three new stars that have appeared, and they are at the three new vaccines, which have been developed and are awaiting approval. as has been said already, every single one of us owes an enormous debt of gratitude to the scientists and volunteers who took part in all of the people in the nhs, local

authorities, our forces and of the people in the nhs, local authorities, ourforces and others who are making preparations for the mass vaccination programme to come. adapter is disputed by some people although i think it really important we distinguish between the conspiracy theorists who are against vaccines, and those who have genuine questions and concerns on the other. it may seem incredible to every single one of us that there are people who believe those conspiracy theories, one of which apparently is that governments wish to inject us all with microchips, given the problems there have been with other aspects of the epidemic, i don't think any government in the world would have the capability to do that. it is complete nonsense of course, but we do remember the com plete course, but we do remember the complete anxiety caused by the false claim that autism was caused by the mmr vaccine. that study was eventually discredited, the doctor responsible struck off, but the damage had been done and the

anti—vaxxing conspiracy theorists are still touting their lethal wares around the internets. the faxes —— the fact is that vaccinations have saved millions and millions of lives since edward jenner della bell —— developed the first successful vaccine in 1796. vaccinations against polio has almost eradicated that terrible disease, only two countries left in the world would still exist, pakistan and afghanistan. that is in part down to some people who have killed grave health workers who were only trying to save the lives of children. therefore, anything and everything that can be done to take on those who spread falsehoods will have the full support of this house. but it is also a fact that there are people who have genuine questions and concerns. i just say who have genuine questions and concerns. ijust say it is really important that we provide as much information as possible so people

can weigh up the facts, talk to their gps can weigh up the facts, talk to theirgps and make can weigh up the facts, talk to their gps and make a decision. i welcomed the decision that vaccination will not be compulsory, it should not be. but nor should we forget that it is both a fact and the truth that the more of us who are vaccinated the better the chance we have of defeating this disease. subject to the regulator saying they are safe, ifor one subject to the regulator saying they are safe, i for one will be queueing with my sleep. —— sleeves rolled up when the time comes. it is an interesting image to start my speech. let's look at the facts, the government tells us that this is all about protecting the national health service. fine. let's start with the hard uk numbers. the number of covid—19 numbers in hospitals reached a peak of 16,612 in the uk out of 127,000 hospital beds nationwide a week or two ago. the numberof nationwide a week or two ago. the number of patients in critical care

beds reached a peak. at the recent peak of the virus, the national health service had 13,003 hospital beds and 18% of critical care beds free, which is better than it usually is at this time of year. significantly better. there is cause of concern because of the potential growth of the virus but not cause for panic. the government undoubtedly has to act but it should do so on the basis of hard facts. what we are talking about today is what the government thinks of as a localised lockdown, but we know from other studies around the world, other studies around the world, other countries, what does work and what does not. we don't have to guess. there is hard evidence. some of the select committees have cove red of the select committees have covered that hard evidence. what does work is very, very narrowly targeted interventions with

intensive testing and tracking of contacts and highly localised lockdown is. take germany, who have theirfairshare of lockdown is. take germany, who have their fair share of densely populated areas, but have a death rate of one quarter of ours. their concept of a local lockdown was in the city with a population of 104,000. or the city with a population of 104,000. 0rone the city with a population of 104,000. or one meat packing factory, 7,000. 0r 104,000. or one meat packing factory, 7,000. or even, one block of flats, 700 people. that is what they think of as a localised lockdown. compare that to us. we looked on liverpool city region, 1.5 million. greater manchester, 2.8 million. greater manchester, 2.8 million. yorkshire and humber. 4.7 million. yorkshire and humber. 4.7 million. anything but a precise lockdown. 0ther million. anything but a precise lockdown. other countries as well like south korea and vietnam have used a similarly targeted approach to contain the virus with spectacularly better results and we have achieved. south korea hasjust ten deaths per million population.

vietnam is even more successful with about half of deaths per million population. these measures will undoubtedly go through today but i will not be voting for them. only come to put on them i will expect that next time in early february according to the prime minister i hope there will be massively —— they will be massively more targeted. we must will be massively more targeted. we m u st follow will be massively more targeted. we must follow the example of germany, south korea and others by having restrictions imposed on a much smaller area. they work better, they are more fairand smaller area. they work better, they are more fair and they cost much less economic damage. we don't know for sure whether blanket lockdown restrictions work to suppress the virus, but we do know for sure is the economic damage caused by such restrictions. the impact on people is and even their mental health is absolutely clear. as my honourable friend said earlier, in this country

we do not give up our freedoms likely. what we need today is a policy of maximum protection for minimum damage. this policy is not it and! minimum damage. this policy is not it and i hope the next iteration in february does a much betterjob. it's a pleasure to follow the right honourable gentleman. i agree with him and! honourable gentleman. i agree with him and i will be voting against these regulations. but he has persuaded me to change what i was going to say by the power of his speech because we don't have to look to germany and vietnam to see what it is necessary to do, we have to look at 200 years of public health in this country. which has always been done at a local level. one of the problems with this system is that the government have followed, like all governments, they want to centralise things, they want to take

control and it is