labourlist--2020-03-23--“Today’s debate is fundamentally about freedoms” – Jon Ashworth’s full speech

Mr Speaker , as always our thoughts are with those who have lost loved ones to this virus .
We praise again the extraordinary efforts of our NHS staff and other dedicated public servants .
This unprecedented global health crisis tests each and everyone of them like never before .
We are forever in their debt .
Today we are being asked to make decisions of a magnitude I would never have dreamt of only weeks ago .
I know no member here came into this place to put powers onto statue that curtail so many basic freedoms our forebears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take for granted .
But I also know every member here will want to support all means necessary to save lives and protect our communities in the face of this virus .
This is a global health emergency the like of which the world has not seen since Spanish flu .
I have said throughout that this virus spreads rapidly , exploits ambivalence and thrives on inequality .
The government has , quite correctly , sought to promote social-distancing as a means to reduce person-to-person transmission of the virus .
These measures have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a purely voluntary basis .
But still too many are not following the advice .
We have all seen the pictures this weekend of bustling markets , packed tube trains and busy beaches and parks I ’ m afraid the public health message still isn ’ t being heard loud and clear .
Everyone who can should be at home , everyone who can must work from home .
This house must send a clear message that young people are not invulnerable , they are at risk too .
And to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I love and respect this chamber , I relish the cut and thrust of robust debate across these despatch boxes .
But if other workplaces can use zoom calls and Skype to make decisions then why can ’ t we ?
We also need more public health messaging from government , we need advertising on TV and every radio station and across social media .
We need a leaflet through every door explaining what terms like ‘ social distancing ’ and ‘ shielding ’ actually mean .
But is now time to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ figures continue to climb unabated .
We are seeing an exponential growth in line with Italy .
For weeks we have highlighted concerns over numbers of ventilators , access to oxygen , critical care bed capacity and ECMO provision .
We again call for the government to go further and faster in building up the life saving equipment we need .
Clinicians warn our intensive care beds and high dependency units will soon be at capacity if not overwhelmed .
We have already seen a critical incident at one hospital , I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This crisis demands overwhelming resolve .
Other countries across the world have taken further compulsory far reaching measures .
In terms of fatalities we are beyond the numbers when Spain and France announced stricter enforcement .
We as Her Majesty ’ s loyal opposition call on the government to move to enforced social distancing and greater social protection as a matter of urgency .
If that means forcing people to stay at home then so be it .
We hope the Prime Minister will outline the further necessary steps that will be taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about more that so called ‘ lock downs ’ and enforcement however .
We need more testing , contact tracing and isolation to break the chains of transmission as well .
The World Health Organisation has famously instructed the world “ test , test , test ” .
We agree .
On this side of the House we have called for testing for the virus to be carried out within our communities on a mass scale starting with NHS and care staff as a priority .
We urge the government to rapidly scale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and NHS lab staff who are working so hard .
Could we not follow for example the Republic of Ireland who currently have 35 community testing facilities in operation with six more planned , with the largest one Croke Park stadium in Dublin providing a drive-through-service that is dealing with testing 1,000 people per day .
This approach entirely in keeping with the approach that has been so successful elsewhere , in countries such as South Korea .
Is there a capacity issue with testing ?
I ’ m told many labs either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing or are testing under-planned capacity because of supply chain issues with the chemicals and kits to do the testing .
What is government doing to urgently procure the testing kits we need .
Should we be not part of the EU joint procurement for testing kits and indeed other equipment ?
Can we use testing facilities in Universities and pharmaceutical labs ?
Of course , not testing NHS staff puts them and their patients at risk .
This weekend we heard a powerful message from doctors shouting out for help , telling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slaughter because of failures in the distribution of protective kit .
I ’ ve heard of GPs forced to go to DIY stores to make their own PPE , of pharmacists unable to get the appropriate PPE as sick patients walk through their door daily wanting advice .
We ’ ve heard stories of community nurses , health visitors , paramedics left without .
The Daily Telegraph report staff at Northwick Park Hospital forced to wear to bin bags .
The health , happiness and lives of our constituents , their loved ones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now more than ever .
We shouldn ’ t expect our NHS staff to go into battle exposed and not fully protected lacking the armour they desperately need .
If more PPE has been delivered , then we welcome that .
But it shouldn ’ t have taken so long .
Our NHS staff deserve every ounce of support we can offer – so can hospital car parking charges for NHS staff be scrapped urgently as well ?
Those working in critical services more widely – our police , our care workers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clothing too .
We urge the government to ensure all public servants can access PPE speedily .
For example in the Sunday Times yesterday it was reported that flights continue to arrive at Heathrow from Italy Iran and China , can he explain why those flights are continuing from those hotspots and what protections are being afforded to airline and airport workers and what measure are in place in respect of those passengers on arrival ?
And on the tube and trains there is a real worry that services are being reduced too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carriages putting everyone at risk .
What assurances can be given to ensure that there is a sufficiency of public transport services to get our frontline workers safely to their workplace .
Let me turn to some of the specifics of the Bill before making a broader point about protection for human rights and civil liberties .
First on the health and social care clauses .
The bill makes provisions for retired staff and final year medical and nursing students to re-join the health service for the duration of the pandemic .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Secretary of State tell the house if final year nursing and medical students will be able to return to learning and complete more supported clinical placements , if needed , once the crisis is over ?
Can he also outline how these students will be fully supported while working during what will undoubtedly be an incredibly stressful time for new doctors and nurses ?
Will students be properly remunerated for their work ?
What protections will be available for retired staff , many of whom could also be in already vulnerable groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most vulnerable people in the country , who absolutely depend on all us to defend their human rights and civil liberties are those in receipt of adult social care services .
On social care , this Bill makes sweeping changes to the duties which are placed on local authorities .
It removes the duty to assess care needs – including on discharge from hospital .
So there will be no duty to assess people who might need care or their carers – and no duty to assess some of those with the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continuing healthcare .
Can the Secretary of State reassure us that this will not mean that carers , disabled people and older people are left abandoned by the state until after this crisis ?
Most significantly , it downgrades the level of support which councils are obliged to provide to older and disabled people .
Rather than the current wellbeing measures , councils will now have to provide services where necessary to uphold people ’ s basic human rights .
In short , this means that they will only be entitled to receive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uphold their rights to privacy and a family life .
Obviously , this is not the vision of social care that we legislated for in 2014 , but these are difficult times .
Many older and disabled people – and their families – will be concerned that this will lead to existing care packages being significantly reduced overnight .
Local authorities are already struggling to meet statutory needs and increasing levels of workforce absence will only make this harder .
What none of us want to see is the new legal minimum of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authorities can provide more comprehensive packages of support they should do that .
And they should always bear in mind that people who use social care are not simply passive recipients .
There are doctors and nurses who rely on social care , as well as teachers , shop staff , food manufacturers and countless other vital professionals .
When councils are reducing care packages , they must be careful not to end up causing yet more difficulties for staff in crucial services .
Our amendments to schedule 11 recognise that there will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming weeks and months .
But it should not be possible for local authorities to immediately drop care packages to a lower level .
As long as it is reasonably practicable to do so , they should continue to meet people ’ s care needs .
The presumption should always be that services will be disrupted as little as they can be under the circumstances .
Nothing in these amendments would stop a local authority cutting back care hours if they have to .
But it would mean that disabled and older people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their care will be a last resort , rather than their independence being the first sacrifice to be made .
There are particular concerns about people who live alone or are being held in inpatient units and care homes .
We have seen visits to these settings stopped as part of the government ’ s shielding approach and the CQC have halted all inspections of care settings .
We know from incidents like Whorlton Hall that it is too easy for abuse to go unnoticed – something which the current situation could make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some inpatient units and care homes don ’ t become hotbeds of abuse of human rights over the coming months ?
In our new clause related to schedule 11 , we are proposing that a relevant body – such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission – be tasked with overseeing the impact that this Bill has on the provision of social care .
They would have to report every eight weeks on the operation of these changes , and whether they should be amended .
This would provide the oversight which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being undermined .
One of the ways that this Bill seeks to free up medical staff is by relaxing requirements under the Mental Health Act .
Specifically , it means that only one medical professional will have to agree to someone being sectioned – rather than the two it currently takes .
The scale of this change should not be underestimated .
No longer will a decision to section a person have to be taken in consultation by two doctors .
There will be no requirement for anyone involved to have prior involvement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are going to be under huge pressure over the coming months and mistakes may well be made .
The Bill says that a decision should be taken on the basis of one signature if acquiring a second signature would be impractical or require an unhelpful delay .
This seems too vague and potentially open to misreading .
Can the Secretary of State tell us what exactly this means , and what safeguards will be put in place to prevent this change being misused ?
Our amendments to schedule 7 would mean that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second signature can only be left off if acquiring it would mean an undesirable delay .
If something is impractical it will , by definition , create an undesirable delay .
By narrowing the wording in the Bill , we can avoid the potential misuse of powers .
We are also proposing changes to ensure that private mental health hospitals can not detain someone solely on the single recommendation of one of their employees .
This could create a conflict of interest , whereby a doctor comes under pressure to sign a detention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employer with income from the NHS .
No medical professional should be put under that kind of pressure , and our amendment ensures they can not be .
The Bill also extends the length of time somebody in hospital can be held waiting to be sectioned – up to five days from three .
This may seem like a minor change , but for the individual concerned it could make a significant difference .
Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that the intention should still be to adhere to the timetables @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with the changes we are discussing today only to be used if absolutely necessary ?
Many parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities will understand the need for flexibility during this difficult time but they are also extremely nervous that they could see the erosion of the hard-fought-for rights of disabled children and young people , children young people with special educational needs and their families .
The Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to change section 42 of the 2014 Children and Families act from giving children rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ reasonable endeavours ’ .
We believe this sets a low bar and seek changes to a duty to take ‘ all practicable steps ’ which would be much firmer .
Given we are talking here primarily about educational provision such as specialist tutors and therapy provision such as speech and language therapy , occupational therapy etc , it does not seem that requiring LAs and CCGs to take ‘ all practicable steps ’ to make that provision would be unreasonable .
Even in terms of ‘ pure ’ health provision , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to arrange this provision then CCGs would be absolved on the duty .
The government must reassure families that schedule 16 of the Bill will not be used to weaken the SEND legal framework for any longer than is strictly necessary .
The schedule appears to allow for an indefinite series of notices to be made which is understandably causing concern .
Labour ’ s amendment seeks to establish the requirement to consult with relevant bodies before any notice is made , particularly a second or subsequent notice which modifies section 42 of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the core duty to secure and arrange education and health provision in EHC Plans .
Today ’ s debate is fundamentally about freedoms .
But what freedom is there for those who have faced with making a choice between their health and hardship ?
Jobs and incomes need to be underpinned with a comprehensive income protection scheme ; European-level statutory sick pay for all workers from day one ; and increased Universal Credit , with a suspension of sanctions and an end to the 5-week wait .
We welcomed much of the Chancellor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plans to support the incomes of workers impacted by the Coronavirus outbreak .
However there are two significant gaps in the provisions that were offered .
First , as it currently stands , the proposals for income support through the jobs retention scheme does not include the self-employed and freelancers , whose income are now increasingly being seriously affected by the coronavirus outbreak .
Will the government today offer assurances to these groups of workers , who don ’ t have the safety net to safeguard and help them through this time ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the government to improve access to statutory sick pay for workers .
However , this bill doesn ’ t extend eligibility to all workers , including the just under two million workers who earn less than the threshold to qualify of £118 a week on average .
It doesn ’ t raise the level of SSP , which at £94.25 , is the second lowest in Europe .
Even if people qualify for SSP , because it is set at only £94.25 a week , it means they are still likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basic household bills .
The only increase on the cards at the moment will be the 1.7 % rise in line with inflation to £95.85 from April 6th .
Average weekly earnings are currently £512 , meaning that the average worker who has to self-isolate for 14 days will see their income fall by over £850 during that time .
Many workers on low pay are also unlikely to have savings to fall back on .
According to the latest Family Resources Survey half of households with an income of less than £15,600 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The government ’ s own consultation on health and work published last July said that there was a danger , even then , that people earning less than the threshold to qualify of £118 a week on average could be working on when unwell and the government believed there was a case to extend eligibility for SSP to them .
If it was thought so then , why hasn ’ t the government acted now to extend eligibility to all workers ?
The Bill also gives the government powers to make changes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ definition of people affected by the first two changes is “ an employee whose incapacity for work is related to coronavirus ” .
Can the Secretary of State clarify whether that includes people who are unable to work because , for instance , their children ’ s school has closed and they are unable to work from home ?
This is of course a difficult time for families , we need parents and carers to be able not just to have the right to ask for emergency leave , but also get it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to feed themselves and their children and live without fear of poverty in the best of times ; in the current crisis it is vital that people are not left at risk of destitution .
The government announced an increase in Universal Credit and Working Tax Credits on Friday which was welcome but there was no corresponding increase in the level of JSA , ESA or Carer ’ s Allowance .
Will the government therefore end the five-week wait for a first Universal Credit payment through making advances non-repayable for example ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ search requirements for Universal Credit and the requirement to fill in the online journal during this crisis Mr Speaker , nobody should have to lose their home because of the virus and its impact and it is welcome that Ministers listened to Labour and committed to an evictions ban for renters .
Yet despite promises made by the PM that the government will legislate for this , it is currently not covered in this bill .
8.5 million households rent their home from a private , council or housing association landlord in England @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that six million renting households have no savings at all , and so are particularly vulnerable if they lose their job , or have their hours cut , as a result of coronavirus .
Our threadbare legal and social security safety net offers little protection for renters if they fall on hard times .
To give people confidence and reassurance during this difficult time , and to ensure no renter loses their home as a result of coronavirus , rent needs to be suspended for those adversely affected by the impact of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many members across the House , Her Majesty ’ s opposition supports this Bill with very heavy heart .
Heavy not just with the shock and grief that this deadly virus has brought , but also , with the very real threats that emergency powers of this nature pose to human rights .
The Bill contains the most draconian powers ever seen in peace-time Britain : Powers to detain and test “ potentially infectious ” members of the public – including children – in isolation facilities .
Powers to shut down gatherings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against the overall handling of the crisis or against the abuse of these powers themselves .
It needs no explanation and very little imagination to understand the huge potential for abuse that powers like these and others in the Bill – however well-intended and needed – still contain .
These words will chill every liberal and libertarian instinct in each of the great democratic traditions of this House and our nations .
They will give shudder to we grandchildren of Hardie and Attlee and to those of Churchill as well .
Which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary and Solicitor General for discussing these measures with me and the Shadow Attorney General in the rapid preparation stage and for providing at least some of the safeguards that we sought in the legislation .

Mr Speaker, as always our thoughts are with those who have lost loved ones to this virus. We praise again the extraordinary efforts of our NHS staff and other dedicated public servants. This unprecedented global health crisis tests each and everyone of them like never before. We are forever in their debt.
Today we are being asked to make decisions of a magnitude I would never have dreamt of only weeks ago. I know no member here came into this place to put powers onto statue that curtail so many basic freedoms our forebears fought so hard for and many today take for granted. But I also know every member here will want to support all means necessary to save lives and protect our communities in the face of this virus.
This is a global health emergency the like of which the world has not seen since Spanish flu. I have said throughout that this virus spreads rapidly, exploits ambivalence and thrives on inequality. The government has, quite correctly, sought to promote social-distancing as a means to reduce person-to-person transmission of the virus.
These measures have been, for the most part, on a purely voluntary basis. But still too many are not following the advice. We have all seen the pictures this weekend of bustling markets, packed tube trains and busy beaches and parks I’m afraid the public health message still isn’t being heard loud and clear.
Everyone who can should be at home, everyone who can must work from home. This house must send a clear message that young people are not invulnerable, they are at risk too. And to be frank Mr Speaker, that includes us. I love and respect this chamber, I relish the cut and thrust of robust debate across these despatch boxes. But if other workplaces can use zoom calls and Skype to make decisions then why can’t we?
We also need more public health messaging from government, we need advertising on TV and every radio station and across social media. We need a leaflet through every door explaining what terms like ‘social distancing’ and ‘shielding’ actually mean.
But is now time to go further too. The case fatality figures continue to climb unabated. We are seeing an exponential growth in line with Italy. For weeks we have highlighted concerns over numbers of ventilators, access to oxygen, critical care bed capacity and ECMO provision. We again call for the government to go further and faster in building up the life saving equipment we need.
Clinicians warn our intensive care beds and high dependency units will soon be at capacity if not overwhelmed. We have already seen a critical incident at one hospital, I have no doubt we will see more. This crisis demands overwhelming resolve.
Other countries across the world have taken further compulsory far reaching measures. In terms of fatalities we are beyond the numbers when Spain and France announced stricter enforcement. We as Her Majesty’s loyal opposition call on the government to move to enforced social distancing and greater social protection as a matter of urgency. If that means forcing people to stay at home then so be it.
We hope the Prime Minister will outline the further necessary steps that will be taken. Suppressing and defeating this virus is about more that so called ‘lock downs’ and enforcement however. We need more testing, contact tracing and isolation to break the chains of transmission as well. The World Health Organisation has famously instructed the world “test, test, test”. We agree.
On this side of the House we have called for testing for the virus to be carried out within our communities on a mass scale starting with NHS and care staff as a priority. We urge the government to rapidly scale up testing and thank all the PHE and NHS lab staff who are working so hard.
Could we not follow for example the Republic of Ireland who currently have 35 community testing facilities in operation with six more planned, with the largest one Croke Park stadium in Dublin providing a drive-through-service that is dealing with testing 1,000 people per day. This approach entirely in keeping with the approach that has been so successful elsewhere, in countries such as South Korea.
Is there a capacity issue with testing? I’m told many labs either haven’t been able to start testing or are testing under-planned capacity because of supply chain issues with the chemicals and kits to do the testing. What is government doing to urgently procure the testing kits we need. Should we be not part of the EU joint procurement for testing kits and indeed other equipment? Can we use testing facilities in Universities and pharmaceutical labs?
Of course, not testing NHS staff puts them and their patients at risk. This weekend we heard a powerful message from doctors shouting out for help, telling us they feel like lambs to the slaughter because of failures in the distribution of protective kit.
I’ve heard of GPs forced to go to DIY stores to make their own PPE, of pharmacists unable to get the appropriate PPE as sick patients walk through their door daily wanting advice. We’ve heard stories of community nurses, health visitors, paramedics left without. The Daily Telegraph report staff at Northwick Park Hospital forced to wear to bin bags.
The health, happiness and lives of our constituents, their loved ones and neighbours depends on our NHS staff now more than ever. We shouldn’t expect our NHS staff to go into battle exposed and not fully protected lacking the armour they desperately need. If more PPE has been delivered, then we welcome that. But it shouldn’t have taken so long.
Our NHS staff deserve every ounce of support we can offer – so can hospital car parking charges for NHS staff be scrapped urgently as well? Those working in critical services more widely – our police, our care workers, our postal workers need the appropriate protecting clothing too. We urge the government to ensure all public servants can access PPE speedily.
For example in the Sunday Times yesterday it was reported that flights continue to arrive at Heathrow from Italy Iran and China, can he explain why those flights are continuing from those hotspots and what protections are being afforded to airline and airport workers and what measure are in place in respect of those passengers on arrival?
And on the tube and trains there is a real worry that services are being reduced too steeply causing our key workers onto crowded carriages putting everyone at risk. What assurances can be given to ensure that there is a sufficiency of public transport services to get our frontline workers safely to their workplace.
Let me turn to some of the specifics of the Bill before making a broader point about protection for human rights and civil liberties. First on the health and social care clauses. The bill makes provisions for retired staff and final year medical and nursing students to re-join the health service for the duration of the pandemic. We understand why and welcome this.
Can the Secretary of State tell the house if final year nursing and medical students will be able to return to learning and complete more supported clinical placements, if needed, once the crisis is over? Can he also outline how these students will be fully supported while working during what will undoubtedly be an incredibly stressful time for new doctors and nurses?
Will students be properly remunerated for their work? What protections will be available for retired staff, many of whom could also be in already vulnerable groups? Mr Speaker, some of the most vulnerable people in the country, who absolutely depend on all us to defend their human rights and civil liberties are those in receipt of adult social care services.
On social care, this Bill makes sweeping changes to the duties which are placed on local authorities. It removes the duty to assess care needs – including on discharge from hospital. So there will be no duty to assess people who might need care or their carers – and no duty to assess some of those with the most severe needs who may be eligible for continuing healthcare.
Can the Secretary of State reassure us that this will not mean that carers, disabled people and older people are left abandoned by the state until after this crisis? Most significantly, it downgrades the level of support which councils are obliged to provide to older and disabled people.
Rather than the current wellbeing measures, councils will now have to provide services where necessary to uphold people’s basic human rights. In short, this means that they will only be entitled to receive social care to keep them alive and uphold their rights to privacy and a family life. Obviously, this is not the vision of social care that we legislated for in 2014, but these are difficult times.
Many older and disabled people – and their families – will be concerned that this will lead to existing care packages being significantly reduced overnight. Local authorities are already struggling to meet statutory needs and increasing levels of workforce absence will only make this harder.
What none of us want to see is the new legal minimum of support become the default. Where local authorities can provide more comprehensive packages of support they should do that. And they should always bear in mind that people who use social care are not simply passive recipients.
There are doctors and nurses who rely on social care, as well as teachers, shop staff, food manufacturers and countless other vital professionals. When councils are reducing care packages, they must be careful not to end up causing yet more difficulties for staff in crucial services.
Our amendments to schedule 11 recognise that there will be difficulties delivering social care over the coming weeks and months. But it should not be possible for local authorities to immediately drop care packages to a lower level. As long as it is reasonably practicable to do so, they should continue to meet people’s care needs. The presumption should always be that services will be disrupted as little as they can be under the circumstances.
Nothing in these amendments would stop a local authority cutting back care hours if they have to. But it would mean that disabled and older people can be reassured that any reductions in their care will be a last resort, rather than their independence being the first sacrifice to be made.
There are particular concerns about people who live alone or are being held in inpatient units and care homes. We have seen visits to these settings stopped as part of the government’s shielding approach and the CQC have halted all inspections of care settings.
We know from incidents like Whorlton Hall that it is too easy for abuse to go unnoticed – something which the current situation could make worse. How will we ensure that some inpatient units and care homes don’t become hotbeds of abuse of human rights over the coming months?
In our new clause related to schedule 11, we are proposing that a relevant body – such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission – be tasked with overseeing the impact that this Bill has on the provision of social care. They would have to report every eight weeks on the operation of these changes, and whether they should be amended. This would provide the oversight which is needed to prevent people’s rights being undermined.
One of the ways that this Bill seeks to free up medical staff is by relaxing requirements under the Mental Health Act. Specifically, it means that only one medical professional will have to agree to someone being sectioned – rather than the two it currently takes.
The scale of this change should not be underestimated. No longer will a decision to section a person have to be taken in consultation by two doctors. There will be no requirement for anyone involved to have prior involvement with the patient. Our medical professionals are going to be under huge pressure over the coming months and mistakes may well be made.
The Bill says that a decision should be taken on the basis of one signature if acquiring a second signature would be impractical or require an unhelpful delay. This seems too vague and potentially open to misreading. Can the Secretary of State tell us what exactly this means, and what safeguards will be put in place to prevent this change being misused?
Our amendments to schedule 7 would mean that this would be narrowed, so that a second signature can only be left off if acquiring it would mean an undesirable delay. If something is impractical it will, by definition, create an undesirable delay. By narrowing the wording in the Bill, we can avoid the potential misuse of powers.
We are also proposing changes to ensure that private mental health hospitals cannot detain someone solely on the single recommendation of one of their employees. This could create a conflict of interest, whereby a doctor comes under pressure to sign a detention authorisation because doing so will provide their employer with income from the NHS. No medical professional should be put under that kind of pressure, and our amendment ensures they cannot be.
The Bill also extends the length of time somebody in hospital can be held waiting to be sectioned – up to five days from three. This may seem like a minor change, but for the individual concerned it could make a significant difference. Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that the intention should still be to adhere to the timetables set out in the Mental Health Act, with the changes we are discussing today only to be used if absolutely necessary?
Many parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities will understand the need for flexibility during this difficult time but they are also extremely nervous that they could see the erosion of the hard-fought-for rights of disabled children and young people, children young people with special educational needs and their families.
The Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to change section 42 of the 2014 Children and Families act from giving children rights in law to requesting public bodies take ‘reasonable endeavours’. We believe this sets a low bar and seek changes to a duty to take ‘all practicable steps’ which would be much firmer. Given we are talking here primarily about educational provision such as specialist tutors and therapy provision such as speech and language therapy, occupational therapy etc, it does not seem that requiring LAs and CCGs to take ‘all practicable steps’ to make that provision would be unreasonable.
Even in terms of ‘pure’ health provision, if the position with coronavirus made it impracticable to arrange this provision then CCGs would be absolved on the duty. The government must reassure families that schedule 16 of the Bill will not be used to weaken the SEND legal framework for any longer than is strictly necessary. The schedule appears to allow for an indefinite series of notices to be made which is understandably causing concern.
Labour’s amendment seeks to establish the requirement to consult with relevant bodies before any notice is made, particularly a second or subsequent notice which modifies section 42 of the Children and Families Act which is the core duty to secure and arrange education and health provision in EHC Plans.
Today’s debate is fundamentally about freedoms. But what freedom is there for those who have faced with making a choice between their health and hardship? Jobs and incomes need to be underpinned with a comprehensive income protection scheme; European-level statutory sick pay for all workers from day one; and increased Universal Credit, with a suspension of sanctions and an end to the 5-week wait.
We welcomed much of the Chancellor’s statement last Friday setting out plans to support the incomes of workers impacted by the Coronavirus outbreak. However there are two significant gaps in the provisions that were offered.
First, as it currently stands, the proposals for income support through the jobs retention scheme does not include the self-employed and freelancers, whose income are now increasingly being seriously affected by the coronavirus outbreak. Will the government today offer assurances to these groups of workers, who don’t have the safety net to safeguard and help them through this time?
We have also welcomed new measures announced by the government to improve access to statutory sick pay for workers. However, this bill doesn’t extend eligibility to all workers, including the just under two million workers who earn less than the threshold to qualify of £118 a week on average.
It doesn’t raise the level of SSP, which at £94.25, is the second lowest in Europe. Even if people qualify for SSP, because it is set at only £94.25 a week, it means they are still likely to struggle to keep on top of even basic household bills.
The only increase on the cards at the moment will be the 1.7% rise in line with inflation to £95.85 from April 6th. Average weekly earnings are currently £512, meaning that the average worker who has to self-isolate for 14 days will see their income fall by over £850 during that time.
Many workers on low pay are also unlikely to have savings to fall back on. According to the latest Family Resources Survey half of households with an income of less than £15,600 a year have no savings at all.
The government’s own consultation on health and work published last July said that there was a danger, even then, that people earning less than the threshold to qualify of £118 a week on average could be working on when unwell and the government believed there was a case to extend eligibility for SSP to them. If it was thought so then, why hasn’t the government acted now to extend eligibility to all workers?
The Bill also gives the government powers to make changes to existing legislation on SSP and the definition of people affected by the first two changes is “an employee whose incapacity for work is related to coronavirus”. Can the Secretary of State clarify whether that includes people who are unable to work because, for instance, their children’s school has closed and they are unable to work from home?
This is of course a difficult time for families, we need parents and carers to be able not just to have the right to ask for emergency leave, but also get it. It is vital that people are able to feed themselves and their children and live without fear of poverty in the best of times; in the current crisis it is vital that people are not left at risk of destitution.
The government announced an increase in Universal Credit and Working Tax Credits on Friday which was welcome but there was no corresponding increase in the level of JSA, ESA or Carer’s Allowance. Will the government therefore end the five-week wait for a first Universal Credit payment through making advances non-repayable for example? And suspend all sanctions and end work search requirements for Universal Credit and the requirement to fill in the online journal during this crisis
Mr Speaker, nobody should have to lose their home because of the virus and its impact and it is welcome that Ministers listened to Labour and committed to an evictions ban for renters. Yet despite promises made by the PM that the government will legislate for this, it is currently not covered in this bill.
8.5 million households rent their home from a private, council or housing association landlord in England. Labour analysis of government statistics shows that six million renting households have no savings at all, and so are particularly vulnerable if they lose their job, or have their hours cut, as a result of coronavirus.
Our threadbare legal and social security safety net offers little protection for renters if they fall on hard times. To give people confidence and reassurance during this difficult time, and to ensure no renter loses their home as a result of coronavirus, rent needs to be suspended for those adversely affected by the impact of the coronavirus outbreak.
Mr Speaker, like many members across the House, Her Majesty’s opposition supports this Bill with very heavy heart. Heavy not just with the shock and grief that this deadly virus has brought , but also, with the very real threats that emergency powers of this nature pose to human rights.
The Bill contains the most draconian powers ever seen in peace-time Britain: Powers to detain and test “potentially infectious” members of the public – including children – in isolation facilities. Powers to shut down gatherings, which could impede the ability to protest against the overall handling of the crisis or against the abuse of these powers themselves.
It needs no explanation and very little imagination to understand the huge potential for abuse that powers like these and others in the Bill – however well-intended and needed – still contain.
These words will chill every liberal and libertarian instinct in each of the great democratic traditions of this House and our nations. They will give shudder to we grandchildren of Hardie and Attlee and to those of Churchill as well.
Which is why I was grateful to the Health Secretary and Solicitor General for discussing these measures with me and the Shadow Attorney General in the rapid preparation stage and for providing at least some of the safeguards that we sought in the legislation.


labourlist--2020-03-23--Whoever leads Labour next will struggle to influence EU-UK relations

The tensions between national sovereignty and the desire to open up markets in Europe that follow from European integration , have not plagued Labour to anything like the same degree as they have the Conservative Party .
Indeed , since the late 1980s most Labour MPs have supported integration as a means of regulating markets and working conditions .
Yet divisions have persisted within the Parliamentary Labour Party ( PLP ) – most obviously since June 2016 on whether a second referendum should have been held and on precisely what kind of relationship the UK should pursue with the EU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ differences between representatives and those that they represent .
In its 2017 manifesto , Labour pledged to respect the referendum result while opposing ‘ no deal ’ , and aiming to capture the benefits of the single market and customs union in a withdrawal agreement .
But in 2019 the party ’ s position changed , instead offering voters a re-negotiated EU withdrawal agreement followed by a referendum which would include an option to Remain .
This shift reflected a compromise between different views within the PLP , as well as divisions among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were self-reported Remainers and one-quarter Leavers .
If we go back to the 2016 referendum , data on MPs ’ referendum positions show that just ten of Labour ’ s then 232 MPs voted Leave in the referendum .
However , estimates of the Leave vote in each constituency suggested that 148 of those 232 Labour seats saw a majority vote Leave .
While Labour was not alone in experiencing MP-versus-constituency differences , the proportion of seats in which a majority voted a different way to their MP was higher for Labour than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a Labour MP voted Remain while the majority of the constituents voted Leave – in only four cases was it the other way around .
This tension was played out in the subsequent votes in the Commons over the period following the referendum .
In February 2017 , a total of 47 Labour MPs chose not to follow the party whip and instead voted ‘ no ’ to the second reading of the European Union ( Notification of Withdrawal ) Bill – the legislation authorising the UK government to notify the EU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Treaty on European Union .
In most cases , these 47 MPs represented constituencies where more than half of those who voted in the referendum had backed Remain – however , seven of them were MPs for Leave seats .
Looking at the justifications offered for these decisions – via the MPs ’ websites and contributions to House of Commons debates – shows that some argued that they could not support triggering Article 50 until they knew more about the government ’ s negotiating priorities .
Others either did not believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their constituents ’ interests and/or explained that their belief in the need to remain in the EU was not something they were prepared to abandon .
The 2017 election did not see the arrival to parliament of any new Leavers among Labour MPs .
Nine of the ten Labour Brexiteers from the previous parliament were still present – but comprised just 3 % of the PLP .
This did not mean , however , that Labour was entirely united in its voting on Brexit-related issues over the subsequent two years .
The tensions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MPs , along with different opinions about what a future UK-EU relationship should look like , led to resignations from the shadow cabinet and 128 Labour MPs rebelling at least once on Brexit-related votes .
Three votes during the passage of the European Union Withdrawal Act highlighted the scale of Labour divisions .
In all three cases , Labour MPs had been whipped to abstain – in itself an indication of the difficulties that the party was facing in reaching a unified approach .
In a vote on staying in the customs union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voted in favour and four against .
A month later in January 2018 , 48 Labour MPs voted in favour of keeping the UK permanently in the single market and customs union – with four voting against .
Then in June 2018 , some 73 supported membership of the European economic area .
The PLP also suffered from division during the March 2019 indicative vote sessions on different options for a UK-EU relationship .
The proposal to hold a second referendum saw 198 vote in favour and 27 against – a significant split @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Labour ’ s 2019 election promise .
But what of the future ?
After the 2019 general election , only two of the Leavers who had been present in the 2015-17 parliament are still on the Labour benches .
That leaves them vastly outnumbered by the 79 MPs – including nine of Labour ’ s 26 new MPs – who had signed the Remain Labour campaign pledge .
A pledge that committed them to campaigning for Remain if a second referendum was secured .
When the EU ( Withdrawal Agreement ) Bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , only six Labour MPs voted in favour – although more than 30 opted not to vote .
The limitations on parliament ’ s role in approving any future agreement relationship with the EU , combined with a substantial Conservative majority , mean that Labour – and its new leader – will struggle to influence EU-UK relations in the short-term .
Of the three leadership contenders , none signed the Remain Labour pledge .
Keir Starmer was very closely associated with Labour ’ s call for a second referendum but this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now an overwhelmingly pro-European party .
Were his Corbynista rival Rebecca Long-Bailey to become leader , however , then there is speculation that tens of Labour MPs might leave Labour – although whether her more ambivalent views on Europe would be the primary cause of their putative departure is surely debatable .
Whoever wins , though , the PLP is likely to be united on some areas of policy that were previously in the realm of the EU than on others .
Given the range of seats represented by Labour MPs , immigration @ @ @ @ @ @ @

The tensions between national sovereignty and the desire to open up markets in Europe that follow from European integration, have not plagued Labour to anything like the same degree as they have the Conservative Party. Indeed, since the late 1980s most Labour MPs have supported integration as a means of regulating markets and working conditions.
Yet divisions have persisted within the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) – most obviously since June 2016 on whether a second referendum should have been held and on precisely what kind of relationship the UK should pursue with the EU. These divisions have been partly about differences between representatives and those that they represent.
In its 2017 manifesto, Labour pledged to respect the referendum result while opposing ‘no deal’, and aiming to capture the benefits of the single market and customs union in a withdrawal agreement. But in 2019 the party’s position changed, instead offering voters a re-negotiated EU withdrawal agreement followed by a referendum which would include an option to Remain. This shift reflected a compromise between different views within the PLP, as well as divisions among putative Labour voters – three-quarters of whom were self-reported Remainers and one-quarter Leavers.
If we go back to the 2016 referendum, data on MPs’ referendum positions show that just ten of Labour’s then 232 MPs voted Leave in the referendum. However, estimates of the Leave vote in each constituency suggested that 148 of those 232 Labour seats saw a majority vote Leave. While Labour was not alone in experiencing MP-versus-constituency differences, the proportion of seats in which a majority voted a different way to their MP was higher for Labour than for the Tories. In 142 constituencies, a Labour MP voted Remain while the majority of the constituents voted Leave – in only four cases was it the other way around.
This tension was played out in the subsequent votes in the Commons over the period following the referendum. In February 2017, a total of 47 Labour MPs chose not to follow the party whip and instead voted ‘no’ to the second reading of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill – the legislation authorising the UK government to notify the EU of its intention to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. In most cases, these 47 MPs represented constituencies where more than half of those who voted in the referendum had backed Remain – however, seven of them were MPs for Leave seats.
Looking at the justifications offered for these decisions – via the MPs’ websites and contributions to House of Commons debates – shows that some argued that they could not support triggering Article 50 until they knew more about the government’s negotiating priorities. Others either did not believe that leaving the EU would be in their constituents’ interests and/or explained that their belief in the need to remain in the EU was not something they were prepared to abandon.
The 2017 election did not see the arrival to parliament of any new Leavers among Labour MPs. Nine of the ten Labour Brexiteers from the previous parliament were still present – but comprised just 3% of the PLP. This did not mean, however, that Labour was entirely united in its voting on Brexit-related issues over the subsequent two years. The tensions between constituents’ views and those of MPs, along with different opinions about what a future UK-EU relationship should look like, led to resignations from the shadow cabinet and 128 Labour MPs rebelling at least once on Brexit-related votes.
Three votes during the passage of the European Union Withdrawal Act highlighted the scale of Labour divisions. In all three cases, Labour MPs had been whipped to abstain – in itself an indication of the difficulties that the party was facing in reaching a unified approach. In a vote on staying in the customs union in December 2017, 63 Labour MPs voted in favour and four against. A month later in January 2018, 48 Labour MPs voted in favour of keeping the UK permanently in the single market and customs union – with four voting against. Then in June 2018, some 73 supported membership of the European economic area.
The PLP also suffered from division during the March 2019 indicative vote sessions on different options for a UK-EU relationship. The proposal to hold a second referendum saw 198 vote in favour and 27 against – a significant split, given the option’s similarity to Labour’s 2019 election promise.
But what of the future? After the 2019 general election, only two of the Leavers who had been present in the 2015-17 parliament are still on the Labour benches. That leaves them vastly outnumbered by the 79 MPs – including nine of Labour’s 26 new MPs – who had signed the Remain Labour campaign pledge. A pledge that committed them to campaigning for Remain if a second referendum was secured. When the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill reached second reading in late December last year, only six Labour MPs voted in favour – although more than 30 opted not to vote. The limitations on parliament’s role in approving any future agreement relationship with the EU, combined with a substantial Conservative majority, mean that Labour – and its new leader – will struggle to influence EU-UK relations in the short-term.
Of the three leadership contenders, none signed the Remain Labour pledge. Keir Starmer was very closely associated with Labour’s call for a second referendum but this is unlikely to damage him with what is now an overwhelmingly pro-European party. Were his Corbynista rival Rebecca Long-Bailey to become leader, however, then there is speculation that tens of Labour MPs might leave Labour – although whether her more ambivalent views on Europe would be the primary cause of their putative departure is surely debatable. Whoever wins, though, the PLP is likely to be united on some areas of policy that were previously in the realm of the EU than on others. Given the range of seats represented by Labour MPs, immigration may well be one to watch.


labourlist--2020-03-23--After years of division, let us face the future again

The coronavirus pandemic has exposed the fragility of our economy and the insecurity of our society .
We have a responsibility to make sure that the choices we make now don ’ t just see our country through this crisis , but build a better economy , society and world in its aftermath .
We should ask ourselves how it was that anyone ever thought it was acceptable to expect sick people to live on £94.25 a week and the unemployed to live on even less .
We should question the political choices that have left older and disabled people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and an NHS that struggles to cope with winter , let alone a virus outbreak .
We should deplore the lack of global leadership at a time when the world needed so much more than slogans like ‘ America first ’ .
When future generations look back on our response to this pandemic , they should be able to do so with the same pride that our generation looks back on the legacy of the Attlee government .
Our 1945 manifesto , ‘ Let Us Face the Future ’ , saw a Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state and build international institutions that upheld a rules based international order rooted in the principles of democracy , freedom and human rights .
In that spirit , today I ’ m launching ‘ Let Us Face the Future Again ’ with the Fabian Society .
It looks at five big challenges facing our country – economic inequality , our ageing society , technological revolution , the climate emergency and shifting global power – and considers how Labour might address them .
It contains a raft of policy proposals for our new leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ settlement born of Thatcherism is not up to the job of rebuilding Britain ’ s economy to work in the interests of everyone , but nor are the often hierarchical and paternalistic institutions of our existing welfare state .
Both require re-imagination to meet the challenges of the 21st century .
To tackle economic inequality , I argue for a new Beveridge Commission to redesign the welfare state for the 21st century , a universal basic infrastructure serving every part of the country and for the biggest devolution of power in British history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities to give people more power and control over their lives .
The coronavirus pandemic has confronted many families with the harsh reality of our social insecurity system .
We should commit to restoring a social security system worthy of the name , with income protection for people when they lose their jobs , support to get people back to work and a living income for those genuinely unable to work , because of ill-health or disability , that enables people to enjoy a good quality of life .
Older people have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of the failure to fix the social care crisis .
In my chapter on our ageing society , I argue that we need to change our whole approach to old age .
People should be able to look forward to retirement , not just to look back on a life well lived , but to live life to the full until the very end .
That means introducing new national entitlements for care eligibility to end the postcode lottery , valuing our care workforce and biting the bullet on how we pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system .
As a country we should care more about how we fund the living , than about how we tax the dead .
We should see the disruption caused by coronavirus to the labour market as a wake-up call to prepare ourselves for the disruption coming as a result of the technological revolution we are living through .
We ’ ve already seen the erosion of hard-won employment rights by companies like Uber in the gig economy .
I argue for a ‘ good work commission ’ , modelled on the Low @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unions , employers and other experts develop new rights at work as our economy and labour market changes , so that we ’ re levelling up , not levelling down .
Labour ’ s proposed National Education Service understood that we ’ ve to provide education from the cradle to the grave to provide learning and re-skilling for a society that will be living longer and working longer .
That ’ s why we should prioritise investment in early years , schools and further education .
One side effect of the global response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in air pollution and harmful emissions .
If we think the current disruption to our way of life is bad , it is mild compared with the destructive impact of climate change , which is already the single biggest cause of displacement and conflict across the world .
Achieving net-zero long before 2050 must become a national mission , with enforceable targets , a Sustainable Economy Act , a Clean Air Act , a green industrial strategy to decarbonise our economy , a just transition to protect workers and a new mandate for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finance as the centre of a green new deal for the UK .
Clement Attlee famously said that the price of freedom is still eternal vigilance .
The world is changing around us .
Global power is shifting from West to East .
Rules , institutions and values that have underpinned international relations since 1945 are under strain and a backlash against globalisation has given rise to a wave of populism and extremism .
It is not certain that democracy , rather than tyranny , will define the 21st century .
I argue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on promoting democracy , freedom and human rights , with a renewed effort to rebuild international institutions and an unwavering commitment to our defence and security and the international alliances that keep us safe .
After our worst defeat since 1935 we have a simple mission : to renew our party so that we can rebuild our country .
I do not disavow the criticisms I ’ ve made about our leadership and direction under Jeremy Corbyn and I know that this will remain a point of contention with sections of our membership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , changing doesn ’ t mean we have to jettison every policy , embrace the economics of austerity or ape the Tories to win .
But the Labour Party will disappear quietly into a vacuum of our own making if we continue to debate the future as if it were a choice between two competing visions of the past .
I don ’ t pretend to offer all the answers .
No one individual or political tradition has a monopoly on virtue or wisdom .
But my arguments are unapologetically rooted in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win a majority on five occasions in our history and the revisionist tradition that has always understood that Labour wins when we apply our traditional values to the challenges of the modern world .
Whichever side of leadership elections we ’ re on , we ’ ve got to build a more welcoming , inclusive and political culture .
This is a responsibility we all share and in that spirit , I am happy to debate these ideas with people across our party .
After years of division , let us face the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to join in the Fabian Society ’ s Zoom event to discuss the ideas in Let Us Face the Future Again , which takes place at 6pm on Monday March 23rd .
You can register here .

The coronavirus pandemic has exposed the fragility of our economy and the insecurity of our society. We have a responsibility to make sure that the choices we make now don’t just see our country through this crisis, but build a better economy, society and world in its aftermath.
We should ask ourselves how it was that anyone ever thought it was acceptable to expect sick people to live on £94.25 a week and the unemployed to live on even less. We should question the political choices that have left older and disabled people languishing in a broken social care system and an NHS that struggles to cope with winter, let alone a virus outbreak. We should deplore the lack of global leadership at a time when the world needed so much more than slogans like ‘America first’.
When future generations look back on our response to this pandemic, they should be able to do so with the same pride that our generation looks back on the legacy of the Attlee government. Our 1945 manifesto, ‘Let Us Face the Future’, saw a Labour government elected that would create the welfare state and build international institutions that upheld a rules based international order rooted in the principles of democracy, freedom and human rights.
In that spirit, today I’m launching ‘Let Us Face the Future Again’ with the Fabian Society. It looks at five big challenges facing our country – economic inequality, our ageing society, technological revolution, the climate emergency and shifting global power – and considers how Labour might address them. It contains a raft of policy proposals for our new leadership team to consider.
The liberal market settlement born of Thatcherism is not up to the job of rebuilding Britain’s economy to work in the interests of everyone, but nor are the often hierarchical and paternalistic institutions of our existing welfare state. Both require re-imagination to meet the challenges of the 21st century. To tackle economic inequality, I argue for a new Beveridge Commission to redesign the welfare state for the 21st century, a universal basic infrastructure serving every part of the country and for the biggest devolution of power in British history to hand more power and resources to communities to give people more power and control over their lives.
The coronavirus pandemic has confronted many families with the harsh reality of our social insecurity system. We should commit to restoring a social security system worthy of the name, with income protection for people when they lose their jobs, support to get people back to work and a living income for those genuinely unable to work, because of ill-health or disability, that enables people to enjoy a good quality of life.
Older people have been left dangerously and avoidably exposed to coronavirus because of the failure to fix the social care crisis. In my chapter on our ageing society, I argue that we need to change our whole approach to old age. People should be able to look forward to retirement, not just to look back on a life well lived, but to live life to the full until the very end. That means introducing new national entitlements for care eligibility to end the postcode lottery, valuing our care workforce and biting the bullet on how we pay for it by reforming the inheritance tax system. As a country we should care more about how we fund the living, than about how we tax the dead.
We should see the disruption caused by coronavirus to the labour market as a wake-up call to prepare ourselves for the disruption coming as a result of the technological revolution we are living through. We’ve already seen the erosion of hard-won employment rights by companies like Uber in the gig economy. I argue for a ‘good work commission’, modelled on the Low Pay Commission, where government, trade unions, employers and other experts develop new rights at work as our economy and labour market changes, so that we’re levelling up, not levelling down. Labour’s proposed National Education Service understood that we’ve to provide education from the cradle to the grave to provide learning and re-skilling for a society that will be living longer and working longer. That’s why we should prioritise investment in early years, schools and further education.
One side effect of the global response to coronavirus has been the dramatic reduction in air pollution and harmful emissions. If we think the current disruption to our way of life is bad, it is mild compared with the destructive impact of climate change, which is already the single biggest cause of displacement and conflict across the world. Achieving net-zero long before 2050 must become a national mission, with enforceable targets, a Sustainable Economy Act, a Clean Air Act, a green industrial strategy to decarbonise our economy, a just transition to protect workers and a new mandate for the Bank of England to promote green finance as the centre of a green new deal for the UK.
Clement Attlee famously said that the price of freedom is still eternal vigilance. The world is changing around us. Global power is shifting from West to East. Rules, institutions and values that have underpinned international relations since 1945 are under strain and a backlash against globalisation has given rise to a wave of populism and extremism. It is not certain that democracy, rather than tyranny, will define the 21st century. I argue that our foreign policy should be based on promoting democracy, freedom and human rights, with a renewed effort to rebuild international institutions and an unwavering commitment to our defence and security and the international alliances that keep us safe.
After our worst defeat since 1935 we have a simple mission: to renew our party so that we can rebuild our country. I do not disavow the criticisms I’ve made about our leadership and direction under Jeremy Corbyn and I know that this will remain a point of contention with sections of our membership. As I argue in the pamphlet, changing doesn’t mean we have to jettison every policy, embrace the economics of austerity or ape the Tories to win. But the Labour Party will disappear quietly into a vacuum of our own making if we continue to debate the future as if it were a choice between two competing visions of the past.
I don’t pretend to offer all the answers. No one individual or political tradition has a monopoly on virtue or wisdom. But my arguments are unapologetically rooted in the mainstream centre tradition that has seen Labour win a majority on five occasions in our history and the revisionist tradition that has always understood that Labour wins when we apply our traditional values to the challenges of the modern world. Whichever side of leadership elections we’re on, we’ve got to build a more welcoming, inclusive and political culture. This is a responsibility we all share and in that spirit, I am happy to debate these ideas with people across our party. After years of division, let us face the future again.
LabourList readers are invited to join in the Fabian Society’s Zoom event to discuss the ideas in Let Us Face the Future Again, which takes place at 6pm on Monday March 23rd. You can register here.


labourlist--2020-03-23--“Only bold state intervention will see us through this crisis” – Ian Byrne’s maiden speech

It is an immense privilege to stand in the House today as the member of parliament for Liverpool , West Derby — the community that made me .
With the coronavirus pandemic sweeping across the globe , this is a worrying time for the people we represent across this House .
In light of that , the speech I deliver today will be very different from the one I wrote three weeks ago .
I would like to start by thanking my predecessor , Stephen Twigg , for the service he gave to West Derby constituency during his time in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many people first hand what a good constituency MP and excellent parliamentarian Stephen was , and I am sure the House will join me in wishing him every success in his post-parliamentary career. The constituency of Liverpool , West Derby has many notable sons and daughters , including Bessie Braddock , the formidable former Labour MP , who lived with her husband Jack on Zig Zag Road in West Derby in 1942 .
West Derby is home to The Casbah Coffee Club — a legendary venue that played a huge role in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ band : the Beatles .
Continuing the theme of world class , as an avid Liverpool fan it would be remiss of me not to mention our legendary former manager and great socialist , Bill Shankly , who lived in West Derby opposite Liverpool ’ s Melwood training ground .
The constituency is also the birthplace of currently the best right-back in the world : Trent Alexander-Arnold .
We have , in our current manager Jurgen Klopp , a man who is showing more leadership and wisdom off the pitch during this crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I grew up in West Derby in the ’ 70s , against a backdrop of de-industrialisation and Thatcher ’ s government .
Labelled ‘ the hardest nut to crack ’ by the Tories and earmarked for ‘ managed decline ’ , the Liverpool I grew up in knew the despair of joblessness and economic deprivation .
It was a city on the brink — but one that dared to fight back .
I am proud that , 35 years on , Liverpool ’ s red wall stands firm .
People in our city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less to spend per year now than it did in 2010 — that same council will be straining every sinew to keep its people ’ s heads above water , despite being hollowed out by cuts .
On April 15th 1989 , at 17 years of age , I was in Leppings Lane at the FA cup semi-final at Hillsborough .
What happened that day , the aftermath and the smears against the families , survivors and the people of our city have profoundly shaped my life and my politics .
The 30-year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a reminder that when we pull together the power of the people is greater than the people in power .
However , it should not have taken that fight to prove it .
Our justice system still denies bereaved families a level playing field when they are taking on public authorities or the state .
That is why we need the Hillsborough law to ensure that working-class people have access to the same tools that are available to the powerful .
We now know that austerity was a political choice .
I know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 2015 , I teamed up with my Evertonian mates Dave and Robbie to co-found Fans Supporting Foodbanks , a grassroots initiative that puts football fans at the heart of the fight against food poverty .
What started with three fans standing with a wheelie bin collecting tins of food outside the pub on match days now supplies 30 % of all donations to North Liverpool Foodbank and has become an operation that stretches from Glasgow to London to Dublin .
We have united people of different backgrounds , different faiths and even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game , because our problems were not caused by other working-class people , but by a rigged system propped up by the born-to-rule elite who only represent the interests of the 1 % — a system that means 1.6 million people need help from a food bank in one of the richest countries on earth .
I am here in parliament to challenge that system .
In West Derby , we are also immensely proud of our two world-class hospitals , Broadgreen Hospital and Alder Hey Children ’ s Hospital .
I am @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospitals for better pay and conditions as a trade union organiser for Unite the union .
Now , as we face the coronavirus pandemic , I would like to express my unreserved gratitude to all our NHS staff for their dedication and courage .
This pandemic clearly demonstrates how free health and social care is not a cost , but a precious and crucial asset when fate comes calling .
The government must rise to this challenge .
We must act now to support those who need us .
In the immediate term @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working-class people and communities with the same scale and urgency as the bail-out of the banks .
The first duty of any government is to protect its people , so the government must adopt clear commitments to prioritise human need — that no one will lose their home , no one will be plunged into hardship , and no one will go hungry as a result of a virus that is not their fault .
I say to the government that now is not the time for half-measures .
They should guarantee decent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rent , mortgage and utility bills , make private healthcare facilities available for our NHS rent-free , ban evictions , end sanctions , scrap the five-week wait for universal credit and consider rolling out a basic income .
We can not leave it to the whims and warped priorities of the market .
Only bold state intervention will see us through this crisis , if only we had the political will to act .
Our demand must be an end to the broken political and economic model of the last 40 years .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ never be more critical than in the coming weeks , because there is such thing as society , and we must shape that society to place the health and needs of its people above the interests of profit .
That is what socialism is .
That is what humanity is , and without that we are nothing .

It is an immense privilege to stand in the House today as the member of parliament for Liverpool, West Derby — the community that made me. With the coronavirus pandemic sweeping across the globe, this is a worrying time for the people we represent across this House. In light of that, the speech I deliver today will be very different from the one I wrote three weeks ago.
I would like to start by thanking my predecessor, Stephen Twigg, for the service he gave to West Derby constituency during his time in this House. I have heard from many people first hand what a good constituency MP and excellent parliamentarian Stephen was, and I am sure the House will join me in wishing him every success in his post-parliamentary career.
The constituency of Liverpool, West Derby has many notable sons and daughters, including Bessie Braddock, the formidable former Labour MP, who lived with her husband Jack on Zig Zag Road in West Derby in 1942. West Derby is home to The Casbah Coffee Club — a legendary venue that played a huge role in the formation of the world’s greatest band: the Beatles.
Continuing the theme of world class, as an avid Liverpool fan it would be remiss of me not to mention our legendary former manager and great socialist, Bill Shankly, who lived in West Derby opposite Liverpool’s Melwood training ground. The constituency is also the birthplace of currently the best right-back in the world: Trent Alexander-Arnold. We have, in our current manager Jurgen Klopp, a man who is showing more leadership and wisdom off the pitch during this crisis than some of our world leaders.
I grew up in West Derby in the ’70s, against a backdrop of de-industrialisation and Thatcher’s government. Labelled ‘the hardest nut to crack’ by the Tories and earmarked for ‘managed decline’, the Liverpool I grew up in knew the despair of joblessness and economic deprivation. It was a city on the brink — but one that dared to fight back. I am proud that, 35 years on, Liverpool’s red wall stands firm. People in our city know that Liverpool City Council has £436m less to spend per year now than it did in 2010 — that same council will be straining every sinew to keep its people’s heads above water, despite being hollowed out by cuts.
On April 15th 1989, at 17 years of age, I was in Leppings Lane at the FA cup semi-final at Hillsborough. What happened that day, the aftermath and the smears against the families, survivors and the people of our city have profoundly shaped my life and my politics. The 30-year fight for truth and justice serves as a reminder that when we pull together the power of the people is greater than the people in power. However, it should not have taken that fight to prove it. Our justice system still denies bereaved families a level playing field when they are taking on public authorities or the state. That is why we need the Hillsborough law to ensure that working-class people have access to the same tools that are available to the powerful.
We now know that austerity was a political choice. I know the human cost all too well. In 2015, I teamed up with my Evertonian mates Dave and Robbie to co-found Fans Supporting Foodbanks, a grassroots initiative that puts football fans at the heart of the fight against food poverty. What started with three fans standing with a wheelie bin collecting tins of food outside the pub on match days now supplies 30% of all donations to North Liverpool Foodbank and has become an operation that stretches from Glasgow to London to Dublin.
We have united people of different backgrounds, different faiths and even people who wear different colours at the game, because our problems were not caused by other working-class people, but by a rigged system propped up by the born-to-rule elite who only represent the interests of the 1% — a system that means 1.6 million people need help from a food bank in one of the richest countries on earth. I am here in parliament to challenge that system.
In West Derby, we are also immensely proud of our two world-class hospitals, Broadgreen Hospital and Alder Hey Children’s Hospital. I am proud to have organised workers in both hospitals for better pay and conditions as a trade union organiser for Unite the union. Now, as we face the coronavirus pandemic, I would like to express my unreserved gratitude to all our NHS staff for their dedication and courage. This pandemic clearly demonstrates how free health and social care is not a cost, but a precious and crucial asset when fate comes calling. The government must rise to this challenge. We must act now to support those who need us. In the immediate term, we need a rescue package for working-class people and communities with the same scale and urgency as the bail-out of the banks.
The first duty of any government is to protect its people, so the government must adopt clear commitments to prioritise human need — that no one will lose their home, no one will be plunged into hardship, and no one will go hungry as a result of a virus that is not their fault. I say to the government that now is not the time for half-measures. They should guarantee decent sick pay for all workers, suspend rent, mortgage and utility bills, make private healthcare facilities available for our NHS rent-free, ban evictions, end sanctions, scrap the five-week wait for universal credit and consider rolling out a basic income.
We cannot leave it to the whims and warped priorities of the market. Only bold state intervention will see us through this crisis, if only we had the political will to act. Our demand must be an end to the broken political and economic model of the last 40 years. The reversal of the Thatcher doctrine will never be more critical than in the coming weeks, because there is such thing as society, and we must shape that society to place the health and needs of its people above the interests of profit. That is what socialism is. That is what humanity is, and without that we are nothing.


labourlist--2020-03-23--Rebecca Long-Bailey calls on government to set up “National Food Service”

Labour leadership candidate Rebecca Long-Bailey has called on the government to set up a “ National Food Service ” , coordinating supermarkets and their supply chains , to help people who are self isolating during the Covid-19 crisis .
The MP for Salford and Eccles has argued for the establishment of a “ comprehensive and coordinated ” response from the government in response to coronavirus to make sure that all households get the essentials they need .
In the plan outlined by the Shadow Business Secretary , people in need would be able to request free weekly packages of basics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distributed across the country .
The leadership hopeful ’ s proposal would see the coordination of supermarkets , supply chains and food banks to set up local storage and packing hubs , from which the Royal Mail would deliver the products to people ’ s homes .
Long-Bailey said : “ We ’ ve all seen the empty supermarket shelves and worried whether our friends and loved ones will have everything they need during the outbreak .
Supermarkets have worked incredibly hard to stay stocked and implement their own forms of rationing on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working .
The supermarkets can ’ t be expected to deliver on their own .
“ We need a comprehensive and coordinated response from the government that I call the National Food Service .
This Service would coordinate the supermarkets and their supply chains and work with Royal Mail so that everyone receives the essentials who needs them .
We really can make sure that no one is left behind in this crisis.
” The proposal comes after the CWU voted last week to become and additional emergency service , with postal workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vulnerable and support people working from home .

Labour leadership candidate Rebecca Long-Bailey has called on the government to set up a “National Food Service”, coordinating supermarkets and their supply chains, to help people who are self-isolating during the Covid-19 crisis.
The MP for Salford and Eccles has argued for the establishment of a “comprehensive and coordinated” response from the government in response to coronavirus to make sure that all households get the essentials they need.
In the plan outlined by the Shadow Business Secretary, people in need would be able to request free weekly packages of basics including food and toiletries that would be distributed across the country.
The leadership hopeful’s proposal would see the coordination of supermarkets, supply chains and food banks to set up local storage and packing hubs, from which the Royal Mail would deliver the products to people’s homes.
Long-Bailey said: “We’ve all seen the empty supermarket shelves and worried whether our friends and loved ones will have everything they need during the outbreak. Supermarkets have worked incredibly hard to stay stocked and implement their own forms of rationing on essential items but it’s not working. The supermarkets can’t be expected to deliver on their own.
“We need a comprehensive and coordinated response from the government that I call the National Food Service. This Service would coordinate the supermarkets and their supply chains and work with Royal Mail so that everyone receives the essentials who needs them. We really can make sure that no one is left behind in this crisis.”
The proposal comes after the CWU voted last week to become and additional emergency service, with postal workers able to deliver medication, check on the vulnerable and support people working from home.


labourlist--2020-03-23--Government urgently needs to announce support for the self-employed

“ This is not a movie .
You are not Will Smith in I Am Legend .
Go home.
” That ’ s the message from one Italian mayor .
And this video is pure gold , showing a number of mayors in the country reacting to people breaking coronavirus lockdowns : a series of very clear , unambiguous messages .
We ’ ve seen similar clear instructions from other European governments for people to stay indoors , contrasting starkly to the communication we ’ ve had from our own PM .
On Friday , he both told people not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that he hoped to see his .
Yesterday , he said that people should stay at home , but also stated that fresh air is good for you .
And while New Zealand joined the list of countries in complete lockdown last night , Boris Johnson only urged people to follow the advice or face “ tougher measures ” .
It ’ s possible that we could see a lockdown of our own soon then , but as ever it ’ s unclear .
As part of yesterday ’ s briefing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most at-risk people would be sent letters instructing them to remain at home for 12 weeks .
The list of people receiving the letter includes cancer patients , organ transplant recipients and others with existing conditions .
But Labour MP and A & E doctor Rosena Allin-Khan has called for the government to go further and implement a “ strict lockdown ” .
The deputy leadership contender has also suggested that Downing Street could be “ guilty of gross negligence ” , following allegations that Dominic Cummings had been pushing for the ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that experts concluded would have led to 250,000 deaths .
Meanwhile Rishi Sunak is under pressure today to provide protection for self-employed workers – if this crisis is really “ on all of us ” , some are asking why so many are left out of his emergency package .
Last week , he announced that the self-employed would be able to access Universal Credit at the same rate as statutory sick pay .
But this falls far short of the offer for employees with the government covering up to 80 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month .
It leaves five million workers in the UK to survive on £94.25 a week – a “ major omission ” , as Jeremy Corbyn pointed out .
The Labour leader called on the government to up the support for these workers over the weekend , emphasising that many will face a dilemma between self-isolating and providing for their families .
If the government wants self-employed workers to stay at home , it needs to support them to do so .
It is vital that we see more from Sunak this afternoon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the government , if we expect people to follow public health advice .
Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

“This is not a movie. You are not Will Smith in I Am Legend. Go home.” That’s the message from one Italian mayor. And this video is pure gold, showing a number of mayors in the country reacting to people breaking coronavirus lockdowns: a series of very clear, unambiguous messages. We’ve seen similar clear instructions from other European governments for people to stay indoors, contrasting starkly to the communication we’ve had from our own PM. On Friday, he both told people not to visit their mums on Sunday and said that he hoped to see his. Yesterday, he said that people should stay at home, but also stated that fresh air is good for you. And while New Zealand joined the list of countries in complete lockdown last night, Boris Johnson only urged people to follow the advice or face “tougher measures”. It’s possible that we could see a lockdown of our own soon then, but as ever it’s unclear.
As part of yesterday’s briefing, Johnson revealed that 1.5 million of the most at-risk people would be sent letters instructing them to remain at home for 12 weeks. The list of people receiving the letter includes cancer patients, organ transplant recipients and others with existing conditions. But Labour MP and A&E doctor Rosena Allin-Khan has called for the government to go further and implement a “strict lockdown”. The deputy leadership contender has also suggested that Downing Street could be “guilty of gross negligence”, following allegations that Dominic Cummings had been pushing for the ‘herd immunity’ strategy – an approach that experts concluded would have led to 250,000 deaths.
Meanwhile Rishi Sunak is under pressure today to provide protection for self-employed workers – if this crisis is really “on all of us”, some are asking why so many are left out of his emergency package. Last week, he announced that the self-employed would be able to access Universal Credit at the same rate as statutory sick pay. But this falls far short of the offer for employees with the government covering up to 80% of their wages, capped at £2,500 per month. It leaves five million workers in the UK to survive on £94.25 a week – a “major omission”, as Jeremy Corbyn pointed out. The Labour leader called on the government to up the support for these workers over the weekend, emphasising that many will face a dilemma between self-isolating and providing for their families. If the government wants self-employed workers to stay at home, it needs to support them to do so. It is vital that we see more from Sunak this afternoon, as well as overall clearer messaging from the government, if we expect people to follow public health advice. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-03-23--Starmer calls for “further compliance measures” to combat Covid-19

Keir Starmer has called on the Prime Minister to introduce “ further compliance measures to combat coronavirus ” in his press briefing later today .
The Labour leadership candidate has made the call hours before the next Covid-19 statement from Boris Johnson this afternoon , citing “ severe pressures ” on the NHS .
He stated that Labour had so far supported the social distancing measures in place , but said that the “ extraordinary times ” call for measures like that of other countries .
The Holborn MP said : “ In these extraordinary times , the government must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as those introduced in other countries .
“ These are vital days in the battle against the coronavirus .
Any additional measures should sit alongside a national plan of action to support people to cope , including the most vulnerable and the self-employed.
” Chancellor Rishi Sunak is under pressure to introduce further support for the self-employed later today , following his announcement on Friday that employees would see up to 80 % of their wages covered by the government .
As yet , the support announced for self-employed workers is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Credit at the same rate as statutory sick pay , which currently stands at £94.25 per week .
Starmer went on to say that : “ Ministers should provide an update on this at this afternoon ’ s press conference and if they choose not to implement additional measures , then they should explain why .
“ These decisions are not easily made , but they are now necessary .
We all have a duty to do what we can to protect the nation ’ s health and to save people ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ act.
” Labour health spokesperson Jon Ashworth has also called for the government to introduce stricter social distancing measures , saying that “ something has to change ” .
Commenting ahead of the next coronavirus statement from Johnson , he said : “ After another weekend of apparent public confusion and widespread non-compliance with ‘ social distancing ’ , of grave scientific warnings and brave medical professionals talking of being sent to work like ‘ lambs to the slaughter ’ with inadequate protective equipment , something has to change .
“ Other countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures .
We now call on the government to move to enforced social distancing and greater social protection as a matter of urgency .
The Prime Minister must outline further necessary steps the government will now take to keep people safe , protect our NHS and save lives.
” The next statement from the Prime Minister will be made later today at 5pm .
There are currently 5,683 recorded cases of coronavirus in the UK , with the greatest number of cases by a large margin in London at 2,189 .

Keir Starmer has called on the Prime Minister to introduce “further compliance measures to combat coronavirus” in his press briefing later today.
The Labour leadership candidate has made the call hours before the next Covid-19 statement from Boris Johnson this afternoon, citing “severe pressures” on the NHS.
He stated that Labour had so far supported the social distancing measures in place, but said that the “extraordinary times” call for measures like that of other countries.
The Holborn MP said: “In these extraordinary times, the government must now set out further compliance measures, such as those introduced in other countries.
“These are vital days in the battle against the coronavirus. Any additional measures should sit alongside a national plan of action to support people to cope, including the most vulnerable and the self-employed.”
Chancellor Rishi Sunak is under pressure to introduce further support for the self-employed later today, following his announcement on Friday that employees would see up to 80% of their wages covered by the government.
As yet, the support announced for self-employed workers is that they will be able to claim Universal Credit at the same rate as statutory sick pay, which currently stands at £94.25 per week.
Starmer went on to say that: “Ministers should provide an update on this at this afternoon’s press conference and if they choose not to implement additional measures, then they should explain why.
“These decisions are not easily made, but they are now necessary. We all have a duty to do what we can to protect the nation’s health and to save people’s lives. I hope the government will act.”
Labour health spokesperson Jon Ashworth has also called for the government to introduce stricter social distancing measures, saying that “something has to change”.
Commenting ahead of the next coronavirus statement from Johnson, he said: “After another weekend of apparent public confusion and widespread non-compliance with ‘social distancing’, of grave scientific warnings and brave medical professionals talking of being sent to work like ‘lambs to the slaughter’ with inadequate protective equipment, something has to change.
“Other countries have taken further far reaching social distancing measures. We now call on the government to move to enforced social distancing and greater social protection as a matter of urgency. The Prime Minister must outline further necessary steps the government will now take to keep people safe, protect our NHS and save lives.”
The next statement from the Prime Minister will be made later today at 5pm. There are currently 5,683 recorded cases of coronavirus in the UK, with the greatest number of cases by a large margin in London at 2,189.


labourlist--2020-03-24--WATCH: Khan urges all but “essential workers” to stay away from public transport

Sadiq Khan has reminded people that the public transport systems in London are running in order to help “ essential workers ” to get to and from work , and urged others to stay away especially during peak times .
Speaking on BBC Breakfast following the Prime Minister ’ s announcement of lockdown rules last night , the London mayor discussed the fact that many people have continued to take tube journeys this morning .
He said that “ messages have been mixed and the public don ’ t appear to understand the importance of following the message : everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
Khan said : “ These rules aren ’ t optional .
These are instructions given for a very good reason , to stop the spread of the virus and to ensure fewer people will die .
And it ’ s really important all of us follow these rules.
” He added : “ And if you ’ ve got to go to work for a very good reason , please don ’ t do so during the rush hour .
Public transport is running for essential workers to get to and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to work , he said : “ There has been a difference of opinion between the government and myself on this issue , to be quite frank , but I ’ m quite clear .
Only if you really have to go to work must you be going to work .
The mayor also called for the Chancellor to introduce additional measures as “ a matter of urgency ” for the self-employed , those in the gig economy and those working on zero-hours contracts .
“ Here ’ s the problem… people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ zero hour contracts , people who work in the gig economy who unless they work can ’ t get money to put food on the table and they face a real conundrum.
” Last week , Rishi Sunak announced that the self-employed would be able to access Universal Credit at the same rate as statutory sick pay .
This leaves five million workers in the UK to sustain themselves on £94.25 a week .
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has called the lack of help for the self-employed a “ major omission ” from @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Sadiq Khan has reminded people that the public transport systems in London are running in order to help “essential workers” to get to and from work, and urged others to stay away especially during peak times.
Speaking on BBC Breakfast following the Prime Minister’s announcement of lockdown rules last night, the London mayor discussed the fact that many people have continued to take tube journeys this morning.
He said that “messages have been mixed and the public don’t appear to understand the importance of following the message: everyone should stay at home. Full stop”.
Khan said: “These rules aren’t optional. These are instructions given for a very good reason, to stop the spread of the virus and to ensure fewer people will die. And it’s really important all of us follow these rules.”
He added: “And if you’ve got to go to work for a very good reason, please don’t do so during the rush hour. Public transport is running for essential workers to get to and from work.”
335 people have lost their lives. That’s not just a number; these are men and women who have died prematurely because of this disease, and this number is only going one way. These new rules are not optional: they are to stop people dying. #StayAtHome pic.twitter.com/ANfNSEcrRm — Sadiq Khan (@SadiqKhan) March 24, 2020
On who should go to work, he said: “There has been a difference of opinion between the government and myself on this issue, to be quite frank, but I’m quite clear. Only if you really have to go to work must you be going to work.
The mayor also called for the Chancellor to introduce additional measures as “a matter of urgency” for the self-employed, those in the gig economy and those working on zero-hours contracts.
“Here’s the problem… people who are self-employed, people who are on zero hour contracts, people who work in the gig economy who unless they work can’t get money to put food on the table and they face a real conundrum.”
Last week, Rishi Sunak announced that the self-employed would be able to access Universal Credit at the same rate as statutory sick pay. This leaves five million workers in the UK to sustain themselves on £94.25 a week.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has called the lack of help for the self-employed a “major omission” from the government’s support measures.