labourlist--2020-11-17--‘Global Britain’ must mean investing in Israeli-Palestinian peace-building

My fellow Labour Friends of Israel vice-chair Catherine McKinnell has today secured a parliamentary debate on UK support for an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace .
This debate could not come at a better time .
The US House of Representatives recently approved legislation that brought the establishment of an international fund a crucial step closer to reality .
The legislation is now progressing through the Senate .
Following the election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris , there is a huge opportunity for the UK to get behind a multilateral initiative to provide tangible support to Israeli-Palestinian peace-building and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UK is serious about international cooperation .
The US Middle East Partnership for Peace Act – sponsored by the much-respected Democrat congresswoman Nita Lowey – will allocate the fund $ 110m over five years to support people-to-people projects between Israelis and Palestinians , as well as a further much-needed $ 140m in investments in the Palestinian economy .
But the inspiration for the fund , which has been promoted by the Alliance for Middle East Peace ( ALLMEP ) and championed here in the UK by Labour Friends of Israel , lies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ darkest days of the Troubles in the mid-1980s , the new International Fund for Ireland began investing in peace-building work in Northern Ireland .
Those projects provided the civic society foundations upon which the Good Friday Agreement was later built and helped establish a reservoir of public support in both the unionist and nationalist communities that has sustained peace in Northern Ireland through multiple ups and downs over the past two decades .
The US legislation , which has bipartisan support , and the backing of influential Democrats and Republicans in the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump ’ s reckless decision in 2018 to slash US support for coexistence projects .
It instead offers a ground-breaking opportunity , albeit in the very different circumstances of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict , to invest in the same kind of civic society work that proved so important in Northern Ireland .
And the legislation , which is totally separate from the Trump administration ’ s deeply flawed peace plan , would help underpin and support any new Middle East initiative taken by the Biden administration .
However , as conceptualised by ALLMEP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a US-dominated or solely US-funded institution , and the new US legislation leaves open the door to other international actors both donating to it and participating in its governance .
The fund will bring an expert , strategic approach to grassroots peace-building , targeting funding on joint economic development and civil society projects that promote coexistence and broad support for peace even while they improve social and economic conditions on the ground .
There is robust evidence to suggest that – even on their present small scale – the work done by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produce positive results .
Peace-building work , research conducted by the academic Ned Lazarus in 2017 found , significantly improves Israeli and Palestinian participants ’ attitudes to one another .
The US international development agency , USAID , agrees .
It has suggested that those participating in cross-border coexistence report higher levels of trust and cooperation , more “ conflict resolution values ” , and less aggression and loneliness .
Regrettably , however , the UK government has failed to embrace the opportunity provided by the establishment of the international fund .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remained steadfastly detached from international discussions and engagement .
It has also shown no inclination to offer any form of financial support .
Sadly , this reflects the government ’ s lack of interest in coexistence work more broadly .
In 2016 , previous small-scale investment in people-to-people projects through the Conflict Security and Stability Fund was eliminated .
A year later , following campaigning by LFI , the government announced a new three-year £3m programme .
While we awaited the Department for International Development ’ s formal evaluation , this programme was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no open process for existing projects to bid for funding and key players on the ground seemingly shut out of participation .
The government has now , once again , axed UK support for people-to-people work , despite experts and practitioners arguing that is only through long-term and sustained investment that these projects have any chance of producing real and lasting results .
It is long-term and sustained investment that the fund will offer .
The Prime Minister now has the opportunity to show that his much-vaunted ambitions for ‘ global Britain ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be few better ways of showing it than the government stepping up to support – and invest in – an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace .

My fellow Labour Friends of Israel vice-chair Catherine McKinnell has today secured a parliamentary debate on UK support for an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace. This debate could not come at a better time.
The US House of Representatives recently approved legislation that brought the establishment of an international fund a crucial step closer to reality. The legislation is now progressing through the Senate. Following the election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, there is a huge opportunity for the UK to get behind a multilateral initiative to provide tangible support to Israeli-Palestinian peace-building and demonstrate to the incoming Biden-Harris administration that the UK is serious about international cooperation.
The US Middle East Partnership for Peace Act – sponsored by the much-respected Democrat congresswoman Nita Lowey – will allocate the fund $110m over five years to support people-to-people projects between Israelis and Palestinians, as well as a further much-needed $140m in investments in the Palestinian economy. But the inspiration for the fund, which has been promoted by the Alliance for Middle East Peace (ALLMEP) and championed here in the UK by Labour Friends of Israel, lies rather closer to home.
During the darkest days of the Troubles in the mid-1980s, the new International Fund for Ireland began investing in peace-building work in Northern Ireland. Those projects provided the civic society foundations upon which the Good Friday Agreement was later built and helped establish a reservoir of public support in both the unionist and nationalist communities that has sustained peace in Northern Ireland through multiple ups and downs over the past two decades.
The US legislation, which has bipartisan support, and the backing of influential Democrats and Republicans in the US Senate, will not simply reverse President Donald Trump’s reckless decision in 2018 to slash US support for coexistence projects. It instead offers a ground-breaking opportunity, albeit in the very different circumstances of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to invest in the same kind of civic society work that proved so important in Northern Ireland. And the legislation, which is totally separate from the Trump administration’s deeply flawed peace plan, would help underpin and support any new Middle East initiative taken by the Biden administration.
However, as conceptualised by ALLMEP, the fund is not supposed to be a US-dominated or solely US-funded institution, and the new US legislation leaves open the door to other international actors both donating to it and participating in its governance. The fund will bring an expert, strategic approach to grassroots peace-building, targeting funding on joint economic development and civil society projects that promote coexistence and broad support for peace even while they improve social and economic conditions on the ground.
There is robust evidence to suggest that – even on their present small scale – the work done by coexistence projects in Israel and Palestine can produce positive results. Peace-building work, research conducted by the academic Ned Lazarus in 2017 found, significantly improves Israeli and Palestinian participants’ attitudes to one another. The US international development agency, USAID, agrees. It has suggested that those participating in cross-border coexistence report higher levels of trust and cooperation, more “conflict resolution values”, and less aggression and loneliness.
Regrettably, however, the UK government has failed to embrace the opportunity provided by the establishment of the international fund. While offering occasional warm words, it has remained steadfastly detached from international discussions and engagement. It has also shown no inclination to offer any form of financial support. Sadly, this reflects the government’s lack of interest in coexistence work more broadly.
In 2016, previous small-scale investment in people-to-people projects through the Conflict Security and Stability Fund was eliminated. A year later, following campaigning by LFI, the government announced a new three-year £3m programme. While we awaited the Department for International Development’s formal evaluation, this programme was conducted in a highly secretive manner with no open process for existing projects to bid for funding and key players on the ground seemingly shut out of participation. The government has now, once again, axed UK support for people-to-people work, despite experts and practitioners arguing that is only through long-term and sustained investment that these projects have any chance of producing real and lasting results.
It is long-term and sustained investment that the fund will offer. The Prime Minister now has the opportunity to show that his much-vaunted ambitions for ‘global Britain’ are not simply meaningless waffle. There would be few better ways of showing it than the government stepping up to support – and invest in – an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace.


labourlist--2020-11-17--Labour urges interventions to protect economy against foreign acquisitions

Labour has called on the government to strengthen its powers to intervene in foreign acquisitions that would damage the economy and urged ministers to do more to keep “ high-growth and strategically important ” companies in the UK .
The call from the opposition party comes ahead of debate this afternoon on the national security and investments bill in parliament , which seeks to give government greater powers to act when foreign acquisitions threaten national security .
Labour has argued that ministers must protect against companies in the UK being “ stripped for parts or moved overseas ” and has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sale of UK tech company ARM in September .
Ed Miliband said : “ It ’ s right that the government is bringing the UK into line with other countries to give itself powers to protect national security , but this bill is a missed opportunity to do so on wider industrial strategy .
“ Time and again in recent years , the existing powers have proved inadequate to protect vital economic interests – from Pfizer ’ s attempted takeover of Astrazeneca to the recent takeover of ARM.
” ARM holdings , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ successful tech companies , was sold to US company Nvidia for £31bn earlier this year .
Miliband has described the company as a “ key national asset ” that could now be shifted overseas resulting in job losses .
Labour has said today that it will call on minister to “ come clean about whether they have obtained legal assurances about the company ’ s future in the UK ” during the course of the parliamentary debate this afternoon .
The Shadow Business Secretary added : “ Every month that goes by when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues leaves us more vulnerable to losing vital economic interests .
“ If the government is serious about industrial strategy , we need an ability to intervene in takeovers to protect our vital interests , particularly in our tech sector.
” The 2002 Enterprise Act allows the government to intervene in acquisitions on competition grounds , or on four other bases – financial stability , media plurality , national security or pandemic resilience – if the deal is sufficiently big .
Labour has highlighted powers available to other governments .
The French government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US committee on foreign investment can block acquisitions that have implications for national interests .
The intervention from Labour this morning follows claims by ministers that the Conservatives are abandoning the existing government industrial strategy and publishing a new and improved one this autumn .
The opposition party has highlighted that despite this claim , departmental transparency data shows that ministers have held only three meetings with stakeholders to discuss an industrial strategy this year out of a total of 1,375 .
Labour has pointed out that none of these meetings were with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying that the new industrial strategy aims to put the UK “ at the forefront of global technological opportunities ” .
The new national security and investment bill to be discussed by MPs later today will seek to allow government ministers to retrospectively halt acquisitions any time in the five years after a deal is concluded .
Conservative MP and Business Secretary Alok Sharma has declared that while the government wants to ensure the country remains attractive to foreign investment , “ hostile actors should be in no doubt – there is no @ @ @ @ @ @

Labour has called on the government to strengthen its powers to intervene in foreign acquisitions that would damage the economy and urged ministers to do more to keep “high-growth and strategically important” companies in the UK.
The call from the opposition party comes ahead of debate this afternoon on the national security and investments bill in parliament, which seeks to give government greater powers to act when foreign acquisitions threaten national security.
Labour has argued that ministers must protect against companies in the UK being “stripped for parts or moved overseas” and has said the government should have intervened in the sale of UK tech company ARM in September.
Ed Miliband said: “It’s right that the government is bringing the UK into line with other countries to give itself powers to protect national security, but this bill is a missed opportunity to do so on wider industrial strategy.
“Time and again in recent years, the existing powers have proved inadequate to protect vital economic interests – from Pfizer’s attempted takeover of Astrazeneca to the recent takeover of ARM.”
ARM holdings, one of the UK’s most successful tech companies, was sold to US company Nvidia for £31bn earlier this year. Miliband has described the company as a “key national asset” that could now be shifted overseas resulting in job losses.
Labour has said today that it will call on minister to “come clean about whether they have obtained legal assurances about the company’s future in the UK” during the course of the parliamentary debate this afternoon.
The Shadow Business Secretary added: “Every month that goes by when ministers don’t legislate on these issues leaves us more vulnerable to losing vital economic interests.
“If the government is serious about industrial strategy, we need an ability to intervene in takeovers to protect our vital interests, particularly in our tech sector.”
The 2002 Enterprise Act allows the government to intervene in acquisitions on competition grounds, or on four other bases – financial stability, media plurality, national security or pandemic resilience – if the deal is sufficiently big.
Labour has highlighted powers available to other governments. The French government can block takeovers deemed strategic and the US committee on foreign investment can block acquisitions that have implications for national interests.
The intervention from Labour this morning follows claims by ministers that the Conservatives are abandoning the existing government industrial strategy and publishing a new and improved one this autumn.
The opposition party has highlighted that despite this claim, departmental transparency data shows that ministers have held only three meetings with stakeholders to discuss an industrial strategy this year out of a total of 1,375.
Labour has pointed out that none of these meetings were with tech companies, despite a government spokesperson saying that the new industrial strategy aims to put the UK “at the forefront of global technological opportunities”.
The new national security and investment bill to be discussed by MPs later today will seek to allow government ministers to retrospectively halt acquisitions any time in the five years after a deal is concluded.
Conservative MP and Business Secretary Alok Sharma has declared that while the government wants to ensure the country remains attractive to foreign investment, “hostile actors should be in no doubt – there is no backdoor to the UK”.


labourlist--2020-11-17--Swift U-turn by the Prime Minister after he kicks off devolution dust-up

There is no holding back this PM .
Self-isolating or otherwise , he has proven once again his formidable ability to put his foot in his mouth and kick off an almighty row .
Reports emerged last night that Boris Johnson claimed “ devolution has been a disaster north of the border ” and was Tony Blair ’ s “ biggest mistake ” during a meeting with around 60 Tory MPs .
Labour ’ s Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham has slammed the comments while Shadow Scotland Secretary Ian Murray said they confirmed that Johnson “ doesn ’ t believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the UK at risk ” .
Scottish Conservatives leader Douglas Ross argued : “ Devolution has not been a disaster .
The SNP ’ s non-stop obsession with another referendum — above jobs , schools and everything else — has been a disaster.
” Downing Street gave a clarification just two hours after the story broke , and now the PM apparently thinks devolution is “ great ” .
Jeremy Corbyn has issued a statement this morning following his suspension nearly three weeks ago for his comments on the Equality and Human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party .
The party took disciplinary action after Corbyn argued that “ the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents ” .
Referring to his initial statement , the former Labour leader has now said : “ I regret the pain this issue has caused the Jewish community and would wish to do nothing that would exacerbate or prolong it .
To be clear , concerns about antisemitism are neither ‘ exaggerated ’ nor ‘ overstated ’ .
” He added that he hopes the matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
LabourList sources say the national executive committee panel considering his case is set to meet this afternoon .
The Tories last night voted down a Labour amendment that would have required pension schemes to develop strategies to comply with the Paris agreement on climate change by 2050 .
Critics within the labour movement pointed out that the party ’ s position on the bill , requiring funds to meet the objectives 30 years from now “ or sooner ” , represents a significant shift away from the net-zero carbon emissions 2030 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a Green New Deal spokesperson Lauren Townsend described the amendment as an “ unacceptable betrayal of party democracy ” .
The 2019 Labour conference committed Labour to working “ towards a path to net-zero carbon emissions by 2030 ” and Ed Miliband spoke out in favour of the 2030 target in July this year .
Our editor Sienna spoke with former Shadow Attorney General Shami Chakrabarti to discuss the government ’ s legislation on covert human intelligence sources , or ‘ CHIS ’ .
While Labour under Keir Starmer abstained on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Commons , Baroness Chakrabarti is tabling amendments and working cross-party to radically reform the proposed law .
The former director of advocacy group Liberty warned : “ If the CHIS bill passes , a real Rubicon will have been crossed ” .
And we have more great content for you this evening .
Tune in here at 6pm to see Sienna live in conversation with Liam Byrne .
You can email us here with any suggested questions for Labour ’ s West Midlands mayoral candidate .
Sign up to LabourList ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every weekday morning .

There is no holding back this PM. Self-isolating or otherwise, he has proven once again his formidable ability to put his foot in his mouth and kick off an almighty row. Reports emerged last night that Boris Johnson claimed “devolution has been a disaster north of the border” and was Tony Blair’s “biggest mistake” during a meeting with around 60 Tory MPs. Labour’s Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham has slammed the comments while Shadow Scotland Secretary Ian Murray said they confirmed that Johnson “doesn’t believe in devolution and would put the future of the UK at risk”. Scottish Conservatives leader Douglas Ross argued: “Devolution has not been a disaster. The SNP’s non-stop obsession with another referendum — above jobs, schools and everything else — has been a disaster.” Downing Street gave a clarification just two hours after the story broke, and now the PM apparently thinks devolution is “great”.
Jeremy Corbyn has issued a statement this morning following his suspension nearly three weeks ago for his comments on the Equality and Human Rights report into antisemitism within the Labour Party. The party took disciplinary action after Corbyn argued that “the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents”. Referring to his initial statement, the former Labour leader has now said: “I regret the pain this issue has caused the Jewish community and would wish to do nothing that would exacerbate or prolong it. To be clear, concerns about antisemitism are neither ‘exaggerated’ nor ‘overstated’.” He added that he hopes the matter is “resolved as quickly as possible”. LabourList sources say the national executive committee panel considering his case is set to meet this afternoon.
The Tories last night voted down a Labour amendment that would have required pension schemes to develop strategies to comply with the Paris agreement on climate change by 2050. Critics within the labour movement pointed out that the party’s position on the bill, requiring funds to meet the objectives 30 years from now “or sooner”, represents a significant shift away from the net-zero carbon emissions 2030 commitment under the last leadership. Labour for a Green New Deal spokesperson Lauren Townsend described the amendment as an “unacceptable betrayal of party democracy”. The 2019 Labour conference committed Labour to working “towards a path to net-zero carbon emissions by 2030” and Ed Miliband spoke out in favour of the 2030 target in July this year.
Our editor Sienna spoke with former Shadow Attorney General Shami Chakrabarti to discuss the government’s legislation on covert human intelligence sources, or ‘CHIS’. While Labour under Keir Starmer abstained on the bill at both second and third reading in the Commons, Baroness Chakrabarti is tabling amendments and working cross-party to radically reform the proposed law. The former director of advocacy group Liberty warned: “If the CHIS bill passes, a real Rubicon will have been crossed”. And we have more great content for you this evening. Tune in here at 6pm to see Sienna live in conversation with Liam Byrne. You can email us here with any suggested questions for Labour’s West Midlands mayoral candidate. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-11-17--Corbyn on suspension: “I hope this matter is resolved as quickly as possible”

Jeremy Corbyn has released a fresh statement on the subject of his suspension from the Labour Party in which he expresses hope that “ this matter is resolved as quickly as possible ” and clarifies his comments .
He was suspended nearly three weeks ago after claiming that “ the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents ” in his response to the Equality and Human Rights Commission report .
The report on Labour antisemitism had found that the party was responsible for “ unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination ” and “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time that Corbyn was in charge .
A Labour spokesperson announced on October 29th that Corbyn was being suspended by the party due to “ his comments ” and “ his failure to retract them subsequently ” , and the Islington MP had the whip removed .
Referring to his Facebook post on the day of the EHRC report , Corbyn has now said : “ I regret the pain this issue has caused the Jewish community and would wish to do nothing that would exacerbate or prolong it .
“ To be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ exaggerated ” nor “ overstated ” .
The point I wished to make was that the vast majority of Labour Party members were and remain committed anti-racists deeply opposed to antisemitism.
” LabourList sources on the left of the party have privately expressed optimism about the possibility that disciplinary action against Corbyn will be dropped , either via a Labour national executive committee ( NEC ) panel or beforehand .
LabourList understands that longstanding Corbyn allies Jon Trickett MP and Unite ’ s Len McCluskey have been working behind the scenes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back for the former leader .
The Jewish Labour Movement has voiced frustration that Labour discussion after the EHRC report has been dominated by the row over Corbyn , “ who could have avoided his inevitable suspension ” , secretary Peter Mason said .
Some members today have pointed out that the former Labour leader has not apologised , nor does his statement offer support to the report ’ s findings , instead welcoming Keir Starmer ’ s acceptance of the recommendations .
The Labour Party is not commenting on the new statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one well-placed source , a Labour NEC panel may be convened as soon as this afternoon to consider Corbyn ’ s disciplinary case .
Below is the full text of Jeremy Corbyn ’ s statement on his suspension .
Last month , I was suspended from the Labour Party , after 54 years ’ membership and four and a half years as party leader .
On the day I was suspended I gave a broadcast interview to clarify what I had said in response to the EHRC report , and I also made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up any confusion about what I had meant , as follows : “ The publication of the EHRC report should have been a moment for the Labour Party to come together in a determination to address the shortcomings of the past and work as one to root out antisemitism in our own ranks and wider society .
We must never tolerate antisemitism or belittle concerns about it .
And that was not my intention in anything I said this week .
I regret the pain this issue has caused the Jewish community and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exacerbate or prolong it .
To be clear , concerns about antisemitism are neither “ exaggerated ” nor “ overstated ” .
The point I wished to make was that the vast majority of Labour Party members were and remain committed anti-racists deeply opposed to antisemitism .
I fully support Keir Starmer ’ s decision to accept all the EHRC recommendations in full and , in accordance with my own lifelong convictions , will do what I can to help the Party move on , united against antisemitism which has been responsible for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crimes against humanity.
” I ’ m grateful to the many thousands of Labour party members , trade unionists , and supporters in Britain and around the world , who have offered their solidarity .
I hope this matter is resolved as quickly as possible , so that the party can work together to root out antisemitism and unite to oppose and defeat this deeply damaging Conservative government .

Jeremy Corbyn has released a fresh statement on the subject of his suspension from the Labour Party in which he expresses hope that “this matter is resolved as quickly as possible” and clarifies his comments.
He was suspended nearly three weeks ago after claiming that “the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents” in his response to the Equality and Human Rights Commission report.
The report on Labour antisemitism had found that the party was responsible for “unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination” and “serious failings in leadership” during the time that Corbyn was in charge.
A Labour spokesperson announced on October 29th that Corbyn was being suspended by the party due to “his comments” and “his failure to retract them subsequently”, and the Islington MP had the whip removed.
Referring to his Facebook post on the day of the EHRC report, Corbyn has now said: “I regret the pain this issue has caused the Jewish community and would wish to do nothing that would exacerbate or prolong it.
“To be clear, concerns about antisemitism are neither “exaggerated” nor “overstated”. The point I wished to make was that the vast majority of Labour Party members were and remain committed anti-racists deeply opposed to antisemitism.”
LabourList sources on the left of the party have privately expressed optimism about the possibility that disciplinary action against Corbyn will be dropped, either via a Labour national executive committee (NEC) panel or beforehand.
LabourList understands that longstanding Corbyn allies Jon Trickett MP and Unite’s Len McCluskey have been working behind the scenes to de-escalate the row and create a way back for the former leader.
The Jewish Labour Movement has voiced frustration that Labour discussion after the EHRC report has been dominated by the row over Corbyn, “who could have avoided his inevitable suspension”, secretary Peter Mason said.
Some members today have pointed out that the former Labour leader has not apologised, nor does his statement offer support to the report’s findings, instead welcoming Keir Starmer’s acceptance of the recommendations.
The Labour Party is not commenting on the new statement posted by Corbyn. But according to one well-placed source, a Labour NEC panel may be convened as soon as this afternoon to consider Corbyn’s disciplinary case.
Below is the full text of Jeremy Corbyn’s statement on his suspension.
Last month, I was suspended from the Labour Party, after 54 years’ membership and four and a half years as party leader.
On the day I was suspended I gave a broadcast interview to clarify what I had said in response to the EHRC report, and I also made a statement to the party to clear up any confusion about what I had meant, as follows:
“The publication of the EHRC report should have been a moment for the Labour Party to come together in a determination to address the shortcomings of the past and work as one to root out antisemitism in our own ranks and wider society. We must never tolerate antisemitism or belittle concerns about it. And that was not my intention in anything I said this week. I regret the pain this issue has caused the Jewish community and would wish to do nothing that would exacerbate or prolong it. To be clear, concerns about antisemitism are neither “exaggerated” nor “overstated”. The point I wished to make was that the vast majority of Labour Party members were and remain committed anti-racists deeply opposed to antisemitism. I fully support Keir Starmer’s decision to accept all the EHRC recommendations in full and, in accordance with my own lifelong convictions, will do what I can to help the Party move on, united against antisemitism which has been responsible for so many of history’s greatest crimes against humanity.”
I’m grateful to the many thousands of Labour party members, trade unionists, and supporters in Britain and around the world, who have offered their solidarity.
I hope this matter is resolved as quickly as possible, so that the party can work together to root out antisemitism and unite to oppose and defeat this deeply damaging Conservative government.


labourlist--2020-11-17--WATCH: Burnham slams PM’s devolution comments and calls for federal UK

Andy Burnham has called for the UK to adopt a more federal model of government as he criticised the Prime Minister over his comments that “ devolution has been a disaster north of the border ” and was Tony Blair ’ s “ biggest mistake ” .
In an interview with Sky News this morning , the mayor of Greater Manchester described the country as “ London-centric ” and argued the UK is divided as a result of the disproportionate focus on the capital .
Commenting on remarks made by Boris Johnson during a meeting with Conservative northern research group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a little worried by it , Kate , to be honest .
“ He seemed to be talking about devolution north of the border but even so it ’ s not a particularly helpful comment .
It just adds fuel to the fire for those calling for independence as far as I can see .
“ And if the Prime Minister is saying that devolution per se is a disaster , that ’ s something we really don ’ t want to hear in Greater Manchester because we live in a very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why it ’ s a very divided country and actually what we need is more devolution so that more places like Greater Manchester can be masters of their own destiny and not always subject to the London-centric policies that come out of Westminster… “ The time has come for a more federal UK where we take more power out of Westminster , put it closer to people , and I think that in the long run will strengthen the country and build a better way of doing politics.
” The comments from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prime Minister ’ s meeting with the group of around 60 Tory MPs on Monday evening .
Politicians from across the political spectrum have reacted angrily to the comments .
Scottish Conservatives leader Douglas Ross said : “ Devolution has not been a disaster .
The SNP ’ s non-stop obsession with another referendum — above jobs , schools and everything else — has been a disaster.
” Shadow Scotland Secretary Ian Murray declared : “ This confirms that Boris Johnson doesn ’ t believe in devolution and would put the future of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government should have been working in partnership with the devolved governments during this crisis .
Instead , people across the UK have been paying the price for his failings .
“ Devolution is one of Labour ’ s proudest achievements and we will always fight for a strong Scotland in the UK .
Scotland deserves better than two governments obsessed by division – Labour will work to bring our country together.
” Downing Street issued a clarification just hours after reports of the initial comments surfaced : “ The Prime Minister has always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foresee the rise of separatists in Scotland .
“ Devolution is great — but not when it ’ s used by separatists and nationalists to break up the UK .
”

Andy Burnham has called for the UK to adopt a more federal model of government as he criticised the Prime Minister over his comments that “devolution has been a disaster north of the border” and was Tony Blair’s “biggest mistake”.
In an interview with Sky News this morning, the mayor of Greater Manchester described the country as “London-centric” and argued that the UK is divided as a result of the disproportionate focus on the capital.
Commenting on remarks made by Boris Johnson during a meeting with Conservative northern research group MPs, Burnham said: “I was a little worried by it, Kate, to be honest.
“He seemed to be talking about devolution north of the border but even so it’s not a particularly helpful comment. It just adds fuel to the fire for those calling for independence, as far as I can see.
“And if the Prime Minister is saying that devolution per se is a disaster, that’s something we really don’t want to hear in Greater Manchester because we live in a very London-centric country.
“It’s why it’s a very divided country and actually what we need is more devolution so that more places like Greater Manchester can be masters of their own destiny and not always subject to the London-centric policies that come out of Westminster…
“The time has come for a more federal UK where we take more power out of Westminster, put it closer to people, and I think that in the long run will strengthen the country and build a better way of doing politics.”
Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham says he's "worried" by Boris Johnson's comments on devolution. He adds 'we live in a very London-centric country which is why it's a divided country'. Read more: https://t.co/8CLoHRXAee pic.twitter.com/yxgaWSgGRS — SkyNews (@SkyNews) November 17, 2020
The comments from the mayor follow reports that emerged after the Prime Minister’s meeting with the group of around 60 Tory MPs on Monday evening. Politicians from across the political spectrum have reacted angrily to the comments.
Scottish Conservatives leader Douglas Ross said: “Devolution has not been a disaster. The SNP’s non-stop obsession with another referendum — above jobs, schools and everything else — has been a disaster.”
Shadow Scotland Secretary Ian Murray declared: “This confirms that Boris Johnson doesn’t believe in devolution and would put the future of the UK at risk.
“His government should have been working in partnership with the devolved governments during this crisis. Instead, people across the UK have been paying the price for his failings.
“Devolution is one of Labour’s proudest achievements and we will always fight for a strong Scotland in the UK. Scotland deserves better than two governments obsessed by division – Labour will work to bring our country together.”
Downing Street issued a clarification just hours after reports of the initial comments surfaced: “The Prime Minister has always supported devolution but Tony Blair failed to foresee the rise of separatists in Scotland.
“Devolution is great — but not when it’s used by separatists and nationalists to break up the UK.”


labourlist--2020-11-17--Chakrabarti: “If the CHIS bill passes, a real Rubicon will have been crossed”

“ If this bill passes unamended , as it did in the House of Commons , I think a real Rubicon will have been crossed that we will come to regret.
” Shami Chakrabarti served as director of advocacy group Liberty before becoming Shadow Attorney General under the last Labour leadership .
She is now using those skills and her detailed knowledge of civil liberties and human rights law in the House of Lords to resist the government ’ s new legislation on covert human intelligence sources , known as ‘ CHIS ’ .
While the party led by Keir @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both second and third reading in the Commons , Baroness Chakrabarti is tabling amendments and working cross-party to radically reform the proposed piece of legislation that she regards as “ contrary to the rule of law ” and “ counterproductive to law and order ” .
The Labour peer tells me in our interview that she believes something fundamental changed in the debate when the bill was introduced to the Lords last week .
She points out that the new Advocate General for Scotland , Keir Stewart , acknowledged in his opening speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the existing approach ” – and described this as a “ deliberate policy decision ” .
Neither the government nor the Labour frontbench was saying that this was the case , instead portraying the bill as merely formalising the status quo .
“ A lot of the people who supported the bill in the Commons did so on the understanding that what the bill is about is taking existing shadowy practices and putting them on a statutory footing , ” Chakrabarti tells me .
“ And that ’ s certainly how the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ myth has been busted , she says .
What does the CHIS bill actually do , and what is it that led 34 Labour MPs including several frontbenchers to break the whip and oppose it ?
The legislation would allow CHIS – not employees of agencies like MI5 , but people who establish or maintain a relationship to gather intelligence for those bodies – to lawfully engage in authorised criminal conduct .
Put simply , CHIS can currently be authorised to commit crimes in the process of obtaining information , but such activity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Under this bill , however , they would be given immunity from prosecution when authorised .
The government has now conceded this via its law chief .
Chakrabarti says the criminal conduct authorisation we have now is “ not a golden ticket ” and “ not a license to kill ” , but the government is seeking to overturn that by creating immunity .
“ Now that the government has come clean , ” she says , “ I have tabled some amendments to restore the status quo , and to do what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is just to put current practices squarely on a statutory footing , to take them out of the shadows.
” She has cross-party support for her two amendments .
One is to strip out the immunity , so that the conduct isn ’ t rendered “ lawful for all purposes ” but made relevant to the public interest test , to the court ’ s consideration of available defences and to the consideration of liability or damages .
The other is to prohibit criminal conduct being authorised to make someone an agent provocateur @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of inciting crime or discrediting those under surveillance .
The Labour peer explains : “ Throughout the history of peaceful protest , and particularly progressive movements , in our country – and in the world , probably – there have been some agents of the state who ’ ve gone undercover not really to investigate crime , not to gather intelligence on what they believe to be a violent group , not to disrupt criminal or violent behaviour , but to actually incite it , to whip it up .
In order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or in order to justify a more robust state response , like ‘ ban this organisation ’ or ‘ break up this demonstration ’ .
This happened with the Hunger marches , ” she says , referring to the protests that became prominent in the 1920s and 1930s .
“ It probably happened at Peterloo , for goodness ’ sake !
” Her concern here is linked to that of trade unionists who are keenly aware that their legitimate activity – as well as that of justice campaigns such as Orgreave and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subject to police surveillance .
I know myself of those worries first-hand , though not of the devastating effect that such spying can have , as my interest in the CHIS bill may be shaped partly by the experience of being in an anti-capitalist activist samba band for several years .
The only child in the group , I grew up for a time surrounded by adults who constantly exchanged rumours about whether this or that member was an undercover agent .
It seemed a bit paranoid at the time – why would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a non-violent group that simply loved drumming at demonstrations and in anti-G8 camps while wearing pink and silver ?
– but it seems I was too naive , as the band Rhythms of Resistance became a core participant in the undercover policing inquiry .
I wouldn ’ t be surprised to discover I had been babysat by a CHIS .
As I drill into the detail of the bill with Chakrabarti , I bring up one criticism voiced by MPs from across the chamber – that so many different agencies are listed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gambling Commission , which seems absurd .
This point and the concern about surveillance overreach taps into a broader problem with this legislation , Chakrabarti tells me : “ criminal conduct is being tagged on to a framework that is about surveillance ” , i.e .
the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 .
The peer says : “ I need a politician ’ s warrant if I want to tap your telephone .
But ironically , I can self-authorise as an agency or a police force if I want to use the most intrusive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an undercover operative.
” “ Why is it the most intrusive ?
Because they ’ re human .
And because you ’ re human , once they ’ re in , they can change your behaviour .
They ’ re not just a bugging device , or a monitoring device , or a telephone tap , or even a search of your physical premises .
Once a human is in your friendship circle , in your office , in your bed , they are actually changing your behaviour.
” Chakrabarti convincingly makes the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” in the original Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act , first introduced in 2000 under a Labour government .
( She jokes that I am “ pricking the balloon of pompous elderly people in the House of Lords ” when I mention that this was the sort of thing I would watch her talk about on BBC Question Time as a teenager . )
She sums up : “ This is how thin ends of wedges work .
You start with surveillance powers that are too broad , then you start building criminal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a long list of agencies.
” Another key objection to the bill – known as ‘ spycops ’ by critics – is that there is no limit specified on the types of crimes that can be authorised , and it simply refers to the Human Rights Act instead .
When this was raised directly with Starmer during a ‘ Call Keir ’ meeting over Zoom , he emphasised that “ nothing can be authorised if it conflicts with or breaches the Human Rights Act ” .
The leader asked rhetorically : “ If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breaks the Human Rights Act , how on earth do people make the argument that you can break human rights under this bill ?
” But Chakrabarti counters that the HRA is being used in a “ slightly Orwellian way ” , as a “ fig leaf ” .
She makes the point that “ if the Human Rights Act were enough by itself , we wouldn ’ t need criminal law ” , with the bottom line being : “ No individual can be prosecuted under the Human Rights Act .
Human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bodies.
” And on that subject , the government has declared that it doesn ’ t hold itself responsible for the actions of CHIS , and Chakrabarti says “ they haven ’ t squared that circle ” .
The other argument put forward is that Labour needs to rebuild trust with voters on national security , and this bill makes us safer .
Starmer has stressed that he worked with security and intelligence services before entering parliament , and that in the last three years 27 terrorist plots have been brought down by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Chakrabarti says : “ You do not protect law and order by allowing armies of members of the community , including former criminals who are turned , or continuing criminals who are also operating as CHIS , to break the law with impunity .
If voters really understood that is the debate here , they wouldn ’ t consider it soft on crime to say we don ’ t want agents of the state committing crimes against us in the community with impunity.
” She is not against CHIS committing crimes in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem with the legislation as such : “ Sienna , if you and I were walking down the street , and we walked past a house , and we saw a child who appeared to be in incredible distress and looked as if they were being strangled by somebody , and they ’ re up there in the window .
And we ’ re not police officers , we ’ re not MI5 agents .
We ’ re just citizens .
If we broke down the door , or smashed the window , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t think we had time to call the police and we thought a child was in mortal peril , we would subsequently be able to rely on the public interest in not prosecuting us .
“ And if anybody was perverse enough to prosecute us , we would have defences that we could rely on .
And the point is , it ’ s the same law for us , as it is for undercover operatives , or even police officers .
Now , granted , they have to put themselves in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we don ’ t .
And that ’ s the justification for giving them these authorisations plus guidance and putting it on a statutory footing .
But it ’ s not a justification for saying they get complete immunity .
“ I believe that the public would understand that .
It ’ s a really important principle of British law , that there ’ s one law for everybody .
Look at how they felt about Dominic Cummings , and Barnard Castle… A lot of people will accept the privations of lockdown , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if there ’ s one law for some and another law for other people .
And I think if people can feel that way about Dominic Cummings , they can certainly feel that way about armies of unnamed not just officers and spies but members of the community who are acting as undercover operatives .
You don ’ t protect the rule of law by undermining it.
” Chakrabarti is “ hoping ” to work with the Labour leadership on stripping out big parts of the CHIS bill , particularly after the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t just putting the existing , difficult , shadowy , vital practice on a statutory footing ” .
Building such alliances is the next step of the journey , as the committee stage takes place in the Lords on November 24th .
But the real , ultimate question for the passing of this legislation is whether the government will change course and accept amendments if they are passed by the Lords , or simply reverse those changes as ministers have done with other recent bills .
Although all signs point to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the concerns of some Tory MPs and on the joint human rights committee report that is deeply critical , which has led Baroness Chakrabarti to remain optimistic in her fight against the ‘ spycops ’ bill .

“If this bill passes unamended, as it did in the House of Commons, I think a real Rubicon will have been crossed that we will come to regret.” Shami Chakrabarti served as director of advocacy group Liberty before becoming Shadow Attorney General under the last Labour leadership. She is now using those skills and her detailed knowledge of civil liberties and human rights law in the House of Lords to resist the government’s new legislation on covert human intelligence sources, known as ‘CHIS’. While the party led by Keir Starmer abstained on the CHIS bill at both second and third reading in the Commons, Baroness Chakrabarti is tabling amendments and working cross-party to radically reform the proposed piece of legislation that she regards as “contrary to the rule of law” and “counterproductive to law and order”.
The Labour peer tells me in our interview that she believes something fundamental changed in the debate when the bill was introduced to the Lords last week. She points out that the new Advocate General for Scotland, Keir Stewart, acknowledged in his opening speech that it represents “a departure from the existing approach” – and described this as a “deliberate policy decision”. Neither the government nor the Labour frontbench was saying that this was the case, instead portraying the bill as merely formalising the status quo. “A lot of the people who supported the bill in the Commons did so on the understanding that what the bill is about is taking existing shadowy practices and putting them on a statutory footing,” Chakrabarti tells me. “And that’s certainly how the government was presenting the bill.” But this myth has been busted, she says.
What does the CHIS bill actually do, and what is it that led 34 Labour MPs including several frontbenchers to break the whip and oppose it? The legislation would allow CHIS – not employees of agencies like MI5, but people who establish or maintain a relationship to gather intelligence for those bodies – to lawfully engage in authorised criminal conduct. Put simply, CHIS can currently be authorised to commit crimes in the process of obtaining information, but such activity can still be considered for prosecution. Under this bill, however, they would be given immunity from prosecution when authorised. The government has now conceded this via its law chief.
Chakrabarti says the criminal conduct authorisation we have now is “not a golden ticket” and “not a license to kill”, but the government is seeking to overturn that by creating immunity. “Now that the government has come clean,” she says, “I have tabled some amendments to restore the status quo, and to do what Labour people said they wanted, which is just to put current practices squarely on a statutory footing, to take them out of the shadows.” She has cross-party support for her two amendments. One is to strip out the immunity, so that the conduct isn’t rendered “lawful for all purposes” but made relevant to the public interest test, to the court’s consideration of available defences and to the consideration of liability or damages. The other is to prohibit criminal conduct being authorised to make someone an agent provocateur, i.e. for the primary purpose of inciting crime or discrediting those under surveillance.
The Labour peer explains: “Throughout the history of peaceful protest, and particularly progressive movements, in our country – and in the world, probably – there have been some agents of the state who’ve gone undercover not really to investigate crime, not to gather intelligence on what they believe to be a violent group, not to disrupt criminal or violent behaviour, but to actually incite it, to whip it up. In order to tarnish the organisation or the campaign, or in order to justify a more robust state response, like ‘ban this organisation’ or ‘break up this demonstration’. This happened with the Hunger marches,” she says, referring to the protests that became prominent in the 1920s and 1930s. “It probably happened at Peterloo, for goodness’ sake!”
Her concern here is linked to that of trade unionists who are keenly aware that their legitimate activity – as well as that of campaigns such as the one led by Stephen Lawrence’s family – has been subject to police surveillance. I know myself of those worries first-hand, though not of the devastating effect that such spying can have, as my interest in the CHIS bill may be shaped partly by the experience of being in an anti-capitalist activist samba band for several years. The only child in the group, I grew up for a time surrounded by adults who constantly exchanged rumours about whether this or that member was an undercover agent. It seemed a bit paranoid at the time – why would the police be interested in spying on a non-violent group that simply loved drumming at demonstrations and in anti-G8 camps while wearing pink and silver? – but it seems I was too naive, as the band Rhythms of Resistance became a core participant in the undercover policing inquiry. I wouldn’t be surprised to discover I had been babysat by a CHIS.
As I drill into the detail of the bill with Chakrabarti, I bring up one criticism voiced by MPs from across the chamber – that so many different agencies are listed, including the Food Standards Agency and the Gambling Commission, which seems absurd. This point and the concern about surveillance overreach taps into a broader problem with this legislation, Chakrabarti tells me: “criminal conduct is being tagged on to a framework that is about surveillance”, i.e. the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The peer says: “I need a politician’s warrant if I want to tap your telephone. But ironically, I can self-authorise as an agency or a police force if I want to use the most intrusive surveillance of all, which is actually an undercover operative.”
“Why is it the most intrusive? Because they’re human. And because you’re human, once they’re in, they can change your behaviour. They’re not just a bugging device, or a monitoring device, or a telephone tap, or even a search of your physical premises. Once a human is in your friendship circle, in your office, in your bed, they are actually changing your behaviour.” Chakrabarti convincingly makes the case that this is a “defect” in the original Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, first introduced in 2000 under a Labour government. (She jokes that I am “pricking the balloon of pompous elderly people in the House of Lords” when I mention that this was the sort of thing I would watch her talk about on BBC Question Time as a teenager.) She sums up: “This is how thin ends of wedges work. You start with surveillance powers that are too broad, then you start building criminal conduct powers on to that edifice with a long list of agencies.”
Another key objection to the bill – known as ‘spycops’ by critics – is that there is no limit specified on the types of crimes that can be authorised, and it simply refers to the Human Rights Act instead. When this was raised directly with Starmer during a ‘Call Keir’ meeting over Zoom, he emphasised that “nothing can be authorised if it conflicts with or breaches the Human Rights Act”. The leader asked rhetorically: “If you can’t authorise something that breaks the Human Rights Act, how on earth do people make the argument that you can break human rights under this bill?” But Chakrabarti counters that the HRA is being used in a “slightly Orwellian way”, as a “fig leaf”. She makes the point that “if the Human Rights Act were enough by itself, we wouldn’t need criminal law”, with the bottom line being: “No individual can be prosecuted under the Human Rights Act. Human rights principles bind the state and public bodies.” And on that subject, the government has declared that it doesn’t hold itself responsible for the actions of CHIS, and Chakrabarti says “they haven’t squared that circle”.
The other argument put forward is that Labour needs to rebuild trust with voters on national security, and this bill makes us safer. Starmer has stressed that he worked with security and intelligence services before entering parliament, and that in the last three years 27 terrorist plots have been brought down by agents. To this line of reasoning, Chakrabarti says: “You do not protect law and order by allowing armies of members of the community, including former criminals who are turned, or continuing criminals who are also operating as CHIS, to break the law with impunity. If voters really understood that is the debate here, they wouldn’t consider it soft on crime to say we don’t want agents of the state committing crimes against us in the community with impunity.” She is not against CHIS committing crimes in the public interest, but illustrates her problem with the legislation as such:
“Sienna, if you and I were walking down the street, and we walked past a house, and we saw a child who appeared to be in incredible distress and looked as if they were being strangled by somebody, and they’re up there in the window. And we’re not police officers, we’re not MI5 agents. We’re just citizens. If we broke down the door, or smashed the window, or did something, because we didn’t think we had time to call the police and we thought a child was in mortal peril, we would subsequently be able to rely on the public interest in not prosecuting us. “And if anybody was perverse enough to prosecute us, we would have defences that we could rely on. And the point is, it’s the same law for us as it is for undercover operatives, or even police officers. Now, granted, they have to put themselves in these situations all the time, and we don’t. And that’s the justification for giving them these authorisations plus guidance and putting it on a statutory footing. But it’s not a justification for saying they get complete immunity. “I believe that the public would understand that. It’s a really important principle of British law, that there’s one law for everybody. Look at how they felt about Dominic Cummings, and Barnard Castle… A lot of people will accept the privations of lockdown, harsh though they are, but not if there’s one law for some and another law for other people. And I think if people can feel that way about Dominic Cummings, they can certainly feel that way about armies of unnamed not just officers and spies but members of the community who are acting as undercover operatives. You don’t protect the rule of law by undermining it.”
Chakrabarti is “hoping” to work with the Labour leadership on stripping out big parts of the CHIS bill, particularly after the government made the fundamental concession that “this isn’t just putting the existing, difficult, shadowy, vital practice on a statutory footing”. Building such alliances is the next step of the journey, as the committee stage takes place in the Lords on November 24th. But the real, ultimate question for the passing of this legislation is whether the government will change course and accept amendments if they are passed by the Lords, or simply reverse those changes as ministers have done with other recent bills. Although all signs point to government intransigence, there is hope based on the concerns of some Tory MPs and on the joint human rights committee report that is deeply critical, which has led Baroness Chakrabarti to remain optimistic in her fight against the ‘spycops’ bill.


labourlist--2020-11-17--Labour demands government expansion of Covid isolation payment

Anneliese Dodds has called on the government to “ overhaul the broken system ” for people told to self-isolate and expand the NHS Test and Trace support payment of £500 to those notified via the NHS Covid-19 app .
In a letter to Rishi Sunak , the Shadow Chancellor argued that “ isolation is currently the weakest part of the government ’ s shambolic test , trace and isolate programme ” and urged her opposite number to offer better support .
The intervention from Dodds follows research carried out by the Department for Health and Social Care that shows just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the NHS Test and Trace app have done so , undermining efforts to tackle the health crisis .
Those told to stay at home via a notification through the app are not currently able to apply for the £500 support available to those contacted directly by NHS Test and Trace .
Labour has called for improvements to the system on three fronts by : • “ Expand eligibility by giving every eligible user of the NHS Covid-19 app access to test and trace support and suspending the no recourse to public funds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reduce the isolation period by boosting testing capacity to cut the isolation period from 14 days to an initial target of ten days , targeted initially to the health and care workforce and areas where mass testing is in place ; and • “ Improve communication with a proper national and local communications strategy to advertise what support is available for people to self-isolate.
” Commenting today on the challenge facing those told to self-isolate , Dodds said : “ The Prime Minister is lucky he can self-isolate from the comfort of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for many people that ’ s not an option .
“ He should use his own period of self-isolation to overhaul the broken system of support for those who run the risk of falling into debt by doing the right thing and staying home for two weeks .
“ Everyone using the Covid-19 app who is eligible for self-isolation support should get it .
And government must boost testing to cut the isolation period so they can get back to work sooner.
” The government announced in September that anyone required to self-isolate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eligible for a £500 payment if they are in work , can not work from home and will lose income as a result of remaining at home .
Claimants have to be able to show that they are in receipt of Universal Credit , Working Tax Credit , income-based jobseeker ’ s allowance , income support , housing benefit and/or pension credit .
But government guidance states that individuals told to self-isolate by the NHS app , and who have not received a notification from NHS Test and Trace by email , phone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently apply for the £500 support payment .
The government instead provided local authorities with a fixed 5 % top up in funding for the four months between October and January to make discretionary payments to those who have been required to self-isolate and can not access the benefit .
The Resolution Foundation estimated that only one in eight workers are eligible for the £500 test and trace payment , describing the benefit as a “ mess of a system providing too low or no support at all for people if we ask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has prompted concerns that , despite intention among the general population to self-isolate when necessary being high at around 70 % , the lack of support has resulted in the much lower level of compliance – 11 % – recorded by the department .

Anneliese Dodds has called on the government to “overhaul the broken system” for people told to self-isolate and expand the NHS Test and Trace support payment of £500 to those notified via the NHS Covid-19 app.
In a letter to Rishi Sunak, the Shadow Chancellor argued that “isolation is currently the weakest part of the government’s shambolic test, trace and isolate programme” and urged her opposite number to offer better support.
The intervention from Dodds follows research carried out by the Department for Health and Social Care that shows just 11% of people asked to isolate by the NHS Test and Trace app have done so, undermining efforts to tackle the health crisis.
Those told to stay at home via a notification through the app are not currently able to apply for the £500 support available to those contacted directly by NHS Test and Trace. Labour has urged improvements to the system in the following three ways:
“ Expand eligibility by giving every eligible user of the NHS Covid-19 app access to test and trace support and suspending the no recourse to public funds rule for the scheme;
by giving every eligible user of the NHS Covid-19 app access to test and trace support and suspending the no recourse to public funds rule for the scheme; “ Reduce the isolation period by boosting testing capacity to cut the isolation period from 14 days to an initial target of ten days, targeted initially to the health and care workforce and areas where mass testing is in place; and
by boosting testing capacity to cut the isolation period from 14 days to an initial target of ten days, targeted initially to the health and care workforce and areas where mass testing is in place; and “Improve communication with a proper national and local communications strategy to advertise what support is available for people to self-isolate.”
Commenting today on the challenge facing those told to self-isolate, Dodds said: “The Prime Minister is lucky he can self-isolate from the comfort of his home and carry on working, but for many people that’s not an option.
“He should use his own period of self-isolation to overhaul the broken system of support for those who run the risk of falling into debt by doing the right thing and staying home for two weeks.
“Everyone using the Covid-19 app who is eligible for self-isolation support should get it. And government must boost testing to cut the isolation period so they can get back to work sooner.”
The government announced in September that anyone required to self-isolate by NHS Test and Trace would be eligible for a £500 payment if they are in work, cannot work from home and will lose income as a result of remaining at home.
Claimants have to be able to show that they are in receipt of Universal Credit, Working Tax Credit, income-based jobseeker’s allowance, income support, housing benefit and/or pension credit.
But government guidance states that individuals told to self-isolate by the NHS app, and who have not received a notification from NHS Test and Trace by email, phone call or text message, cannot currently apply for the £500 support payment.
The government instead provided local authorities with a fixed 5% top up in funding for the four months between October and January to make discretionary payments to those who have been required to self-isolate and cannot access the benefit.
The Resolution Foundation estimated that only one in eight workers are eligible for the £500 test and trace payment, describing the benefit as a “mess of a system providing too low or no support at all for people if we ask them to stay home”.
This has prompted concerns that, despite intention among the general population to self-isolate when necessary being high at around 70%, the lack of support has resulted in the much lower level of compliance – 11% – recorded by the department.


labourlist--2020-11-17--Labour NEC panel readmits Jeremy Corbyn to party after suspension

Jeremy Corbyn has been readmitted to the Labour Party after being suspended last month over his response to the Equality and Human Rights Commission report on Labour antisemitism .
A panel of five Labour national executive committee ( NEC ) members convened for several hours this afternoon to consider his case – and ultimately decided to reinstate the former leader of the party .
Update , 7.50pm : Commenting on his readmission , Corbyn said : “ I am pleased to have been reinstated in the Labour Party and would like to thank party members , trade unionists and all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must now come together to oppose and defeat this deeply damaging Conservative government.
” LabourList understands that the ex-leader of the opposition is set to receive a ‘ reminder of conduct ’ , which is more severe than the ‘ reminder of values ’ consequence that was expected by some party sources .
Update , 8.15pm : Reacting to the decision , Keir Starmer said : “ I know that this has been another painful day for the Jewish community and those Labour members who have fought so hard to tackle antisemitism .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ caused and the trauma people have felt .
“ Jeremy Corbyn ’ s statement in response to the EHRC report was wrong and completely distracted from a report that identified unlawful conduct in our tackling of racism within the Labour Party .
This should shame us all .
“ I will not allow a focus on one individual to prevent us from doing the vital work of tackling antisemitism .
When I stood as leader of the Labour Party , I was clear that my first priority would be to root out antisemitism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know we have a long way to go , but I am absolutely resolute in my determination to make the Labour Party a safe place for Jewish people .
I stand by the commitments I made last month to accept the findings and the recommendations of the EHRC ’ s report in full .
“ That must mean establishing an independent complaints process as soon as possible in the New Year .
This is my commitment and my promise to our party , the Jewish community and the British people.
” LabourList understands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on whether to restore the Labour whip to Corbyn , which is a separate matter from the NEC decision on the disciplinary case .
The NEC panel members were Labour to Win-backed local party rep Gurinder Singh Josan , Momentum-backed Yasmine Dar , UNISON ’ s Wendy Nichols , the FBU ’ s Ian Murray and ‘ soft left ’ councillor Alice Perry .
The former Labour leader released a statement on Tuesday morning on the subject of his suspension in which he tried to clarify previous comments and expressed hope that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible ” .
Corbyn did not directly apologise for his original response , as some had urged him to do , but said : “ I regret the pain this issue has caused the Jewish community and would wish to do nothing that would exacerbate or prolong it .
“ To be clear , concerns about antisemitism are neither “ exaggerated ” nor “ overstated ” .
The point I wished to make was that the vast majority of Labour Party members were and remain committed anti-racists deeply opposed to antisemitism.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to lift the suspension as “ extraordinary ” and said the move would “ embolden those who agreed with him ” when he “ downplayed the reality of antisemitism in the Labour Party ” .
The organisation has criticised the decision for being “ expedited ” and taken by a “ factionally-aligned political committee ” .
Many critics have focused on the make-up of the NEC panel , which had two Labour left-wingers , two Corbynsceptics and one soft left member .
Margaret Hodge tweeted : “ This is a broken outcome from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opaque and dysfunctional complaints process could never reach a fair conclusion .
This is exactly why the EHRC instructed Labour to setup an independent process !
“ I simply can not comprehend why it is acceptable for Corbyn to be a Labour MP if he thinks antisemitism is exaggerated and a political attack , refuses to apologise , never takes responsibility for his actions & rejects the findings of the EHRC report .
Ridiculous.
” The Campaign Against Antisemitism , which referred Labour to the EHRC and complained to the party about Corbyn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing more than a media stunt to blunt the blow of the EHRC ’ s report last month ” .
Unite ’ s Len McCluskey said the readmission is “ the correct , fair and unifying decision ” , adding : “ As a party we now move forward to implement the EHRC ’ s recommendations and redouble our efforts to inspire voters about Keir ’ s ten pledges.
” Momentum co-chair Andrew Scattergood said : “ This is the right outcome and testament to the efforts of thousands of Labour members across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defend Corbyn and the rights of socialists within the party.
” The group has also branded recent disciplinary action against ordinary members “ unwarranted ” and urged the party to reinstate those who have been suspended after considering motions on Corbyn ’ s suspension at a local level .
A number of Labour MPs on the party ’ s left such as Kate Osborne tweeted their approval of the decision , with Lloyd Russell-Moyle saying : “ We must go forward united and expose the failures of this government.
” Corbyn was suspended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents ” in his response to the EHRC report .
The report on Labour antisemitism had found that the party was responsible for “ unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination ” and “ serious failings in leadership ” during the time that Corbyn was in charge .
A Labour spokesperson announced on October 29th that Corbyn was being suspended by the party due to “ his comments ” and “ his failure to retract them subsequently ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whip removed .

Jeremy Corbyn has been readmitted to the Labour Party after being suspended last month over his response to the Equality and Human Rights Commission report on Labour antisemitism.
A panel of five Labour national executive committee (NEC) members convened for several hours this afternoon to consider his case – and ultimately decided to reinstate the former leader of the party.
Update, 7.50pm: Commenting on his readmission, Corbyn said: “I am pleased to have been reinstated in the Labour Party and would like to thank party members, trade unionists and all who have offered solidarity. Our movement must now come together to oppose and defeat this deeply damaging Conservative government.”
LabourList understands that the ex-leader of the opposition is set to receive a ‘reminder of conduct’, which is more severe than the ‘reminder of values’ consequence that was expected by some party sources.
Update, 8.15pm: Reacting to the decision, Keir Starmer said: “I know that this has been another painful day for the Jewish community and those Labour members who have fought so hard to tackle antisemitism. I know the hurt that has been caused and the trauma people have felt.
“Jeremy Corbyn’s statement in response to the EHRC report was wrong and completely distracted from a report that identified unlawful conduct in our tackling of racism within the Labour Party. This should shame us all.
“I will not allow a focus on one individual to prevent us from doing the vital work of tackling antisemitism. When I stood as leader of the Labour Party, I was clear that my first priority would be to root out antisemitism. It still is.
“I know we have a long way to go, but I am absolutely resolute in my determination to make the Labour Party a safe place for Jewish people. I stand by the commitments I made last month to accept the findings and the recommendations of the EHRC’s report in full.
“That must mean establishing an independent complaints process as soon as possible in the New Year. This is my commitment and my promise to our party, the Jewish community and the British people.”
LabourList understands that no decision has yet been taken on whether to restore the Labour whip to Corbyn. Allies of Corbyn say the party rulebook indicates that he is now automatically a Labour MP once again, but those close to the leadership disagree.
The NEC panel members were Labour to Win-backed local party rep Gurinder Singh Josan, Momentum-backed Yasmine Dar, UNISON’s Wendy Nichols, the FBU’s Ian Murray and ‘soft left’ councillor Alice Perry.
The former Labour leader released a statement on Tuesday morning on the subject of his suspension in which he tried to clarify previous comments and expressed hope that “this matter is resolved as quickly as possible”.
Corbyn did not directly apologise for his original response, as some had urged him to do, but said: “I regret the pain this issue has caused the Jewish community and would wish to do nothing that would exacerbate or prolong it.
“To be clear, concerns about antisemitism are neither “exaggerated” nor “overstated”. The point I wished to make was that the vast majority of Labour Party members were and remain committed anti-racists deeply opposed to antisemitism.”
The Jewish Labour Movement has described the decision to lift the suspension as “extraordinary” and said the move would “embolden those who agreed with him” when he “downplayed the reality of antisemitism in the Labour Party”.
The organisation has criticised the decision for being “expedited” and taken by a “factionally-aligned political committee”. Many critics have focused on the make-up of the NEC panel, which had two Labour left-wingers, two Corbynsceptics and one soft left member.
Margaret Hodge tweeted: “This is a broken outcome from a broken system. A factional, opaque and dysfunctional complaints process could never reach a fair conclusion. This is exactly why the EHRC instructed Labour to setup an independent process!
“I simply cannot comprehend why it is acceptable for Corbyn to be a Labour MP if he thinks antisemitism is exaggerated and a political attack, refuses to apologise, never takes responsibility for his actions & rejects the findings of the EHRC report. Ridiculous.”
The Campaign Against Antisemitism, which referred Labour to the EHRC and complained to the party about Corbyn, accused the party of conducting “nothing more than a media stunt to blunt the blow of the EHRC’s report last month”.
Unite’s Len McCluskey said the readmission is “the correct, fair and unifying decision”, adding: “As a party we now move forward to implement the EHRC’s recommendations and redouble our efforts to inspire voters about Keir’s ten pledges.”
Momentum co-chair Andrew Scattergood said: “This is the right outcome and testament to the efforts of thousands of Labour members across the country who have stood up to defend Corbyn and the rights of socialists within the party.”
The group has also branded recent disciplinary action against ordinary members “unwarranted” and urged the party to reinstate those who have been suspended after considering motions on Corbyn’s suspension at a local level.
A number of Labour MPs on the party’s left such as Kate Osborne tweeted their approval of the decision, with Lloyd Russell-Moyle saying: “We must go forward united and expose the failures of this government.”
Corbyn was suspended nearly three weeks ago after controversially claiming that “the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents” in his response to the EHRC report.
The report on Labour antisemitism had found that the party was responsible for “unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination” and “serious failings in leadership” during the time that Corbyn was in charge.
A Labour spokesperson announced on October 29th that Corbyn was being suspended by the party due to “his comments” and “his failure to retract them subsequently”, and the Islington MP had the whip removed.


labourlist--2020-11-17--FBU slams “stomach-churning” disregard for safety by cladding makers

The Fire Brigades Union has criticised cladding manufacturers on the basis of Grenfell inquiry evidence for a “ total disregard for safety in the pursuit of profit ” that the trade union describes as “ stomach-churning ” .
The inquiry currently looking into the Grenfell Tower fire that caused 72 deaths in 2017 has been told that Celotex , the main supplier of insulation for the building , cheated in order to pass a fire safety test in 2014 .
Former Celotex assistant product manager Jonathan Roper admitted on Monday that the company behaved in a “ completely unethical way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ test , amounting to “ dishonest ” work .
After the first phase of the inquiry concluded that the flammable cladding on the west London tower fuelled the fire , the second phase now underway is examining the circumstances that allowed the tragedy to take place .
It has been revealed via evidence to the inquiry that Celotex , after failing a first test , added a fire-resisting magnesium oxide board to a cladding test rig made up of 12mm fibre cement panels for a second test .
Any mention in marketing literature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by order of superiors in the company , according to former employee Roper , which he described as “ misleading and intended to mislead ” .
The inquiry today heard that Celotex exploited ignorance about fire safety classifications in local authority building control to wrongfully obtain a certificate , which allowed their product to be used on buildings over 18 metres .
“ The total disregard for safety in the pursuit of profit is stomach-churning – and it ’ s a symptom of the shamefully lax regulatory environment fostered by consecutive governments .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Grenfell Tower Inquiry is more shocking than the last .
But sadly the interest from many media outlets has waned , now that corporations are on the stand.
” Labour MP Zarah Sultana tweeted : “ The Grenfell Fire Inquiry has been told that Celotex , who supplied insulation for the tower ’ s refurbishment , deliberately cheated to pass a fire-safety test in 2014 .
This is an absolutely huge scandal.
” Her colleague David Lammy , a shadow cabinet member who personally knew one of the Grenfell victims , Khadija Saye @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scandalous and should be on every newspaper ’ s front page.
” Wrack , head of the union that represents the overwhelming majority of firefighters in the UK and is a core participant in the Grenfell inquiry , concluded : “ What happened at Grenfell was criminal – and those responsible should be properly held to account.
” The FBU highlighted in September that emails seen by the inquiry revealed “ just how lax ” the government allowed UK building regulations to become and said ministers “ showed no interest in tackling the @ @ @

The Fire Brigades Union has criticised cladding manufacturers on the basis of Grenfell inquiry evidence for a “total disregard for safety in the pursuit of profit” that the trade union describes as “stomach-churning”.
The inquiry currently looking into the Grenfell Tower fire that caused 72 deaths in 2017 has been told that Celotex, the main supplier of insulation for the building, cheated in order to pass a fire safety test in 2014.
Former Celotex assistant product manager Jonathan Roper admitted on Monday that the company behaved in a “completely unethical way” by “over-engineering” a cladding test, amounting to “dishonest” work.
After the first phase of the inquiry concluded that the flammable cladding on the west London tower fuelled the fire, the second phase now underway is examining the circumstances that allowed the tragedy to take place.
It has been revealed via evidence to the inquiry that Celotex, after failing a first test, added a fire-resisting magnesium oxide board to a cladding test rig made up of 12mm fibre cement panels for a second test.
Any mention in marketing literature of the magnesium oxide was then removed by order of superiors in the company, according to former employee Roper, which he described as “misleading and intended to mislead”.
The inquiry today heard that Celotex exploited ignorance about fire safety classifications in local authority building control to wrongfully obtain a certificate, which allowed their product to be used on buildings over 18 metres.
FBU general secretary Matt Wrack said: “Today, we’ve seen further evidence that Celotex deliberately misled buyers and regulators into thinking their highly flammable insulation was safe for high-rise buildings.
“The total disregard for safety in the pursuit of profit is stomach-churning – and it’s a symptom of the shamefully lax regulatory environment fostered by consecutive governments.
“Each day of phase two the Grenfell Tower Inquiry is more shocking than the last. But sadly the interest from many media outlets has waned, now that corporations are on the stand.”
Labour MP Zarah Sultana tweeted: “The Grenfell Fire Inquiry has been told that Celotex, who supplied insulation for the tower’s refurbishment, deliberately cheated to pass a fire-safety test in 2014. This is an absolutely huge scandal.”
Her colleague David Lammy, a shadow cabinet member who personally knew one of the Grenfell victims, Khadija Saye, said: “This is totally scandalous and should be on every newspaper’s front page.”
Wrack, head of the union that represents the overwhelming majority of firefighters in the UK and is a core participant in the Grenfell inquiry, concluded: “What happened at Grenfell was criminal – and those responsible should be properly held to account.”
The FBU highlighted in September that emails seen by the inquiry revealed “just how lax” the government allowed UK building regulations to become and said ministers “showed no interest in tackling the problem”.


labourlist--2020-11-17--PM “thought he could show off” with devolution comments, says Drakeford

Mark Drakeford has accused the Prime Minister this afternoon of having tried to “ show off ” to northern English Conservative MPs by describing devolution as a “ disaster ” on Monday evening .
Addressing members of the Senedd during First Minister Question ’ s this afternoon , the Welsh Labour leader argued that the comments by Johnson betrayed an “ old hostility ” on the part of the Tories towards devolution .
He said : “ Devolution thrives when there is a Labour government to support it , and devolution comes under the sorts of pressures that it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government – when you scratch the surface of the Conservative Party and all its old hostility to devolution rises back to the surface .
“ That ’ s what happened yesterday when the Prime Minister thought he could show off in front of a few Conservative MPs from the North of England .
“ But we have the Senedd because of the Labour Party and this Labour Party will continue to make sure that we use all of the powers that we have here.
” Johnson sparked outrage on Monday evening when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disaster north of the border ” , and described it as Tony Blair ’ s “ biggest mistake ” , during a meeting of the northern research group MPs .
Scottish Conservatives leader Douglas Ross responded to the remarks by saying : “ Devolution has not been a disaster .
The SNP ’ s non-stop obsession with another referendum — above jobs , schools and everything else — has been a disaster.
” Shadow Scotland Secretary Ian Murray declared : “ This confirms that Boris Johnson doesn ’ t believe in devolution and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at risk .
“ His government should have been working in partnership with the devolved governments during this crisis .
Instead , people across the UK have been paying the price for his failings .
“ Devolution is one of Labour ’ s proudest achievements and we will always fight for a strong Scotland in the UK .
Scotland deserves better than two governments obsessed by division – Labour will work to bring our country together.
” Downing Street issued a clarification just hours after reports of the initial comments surfaced : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but Tony Blair failed to foresee the rise of separatists in Scotland .
“ Devolution is great — but not when it ’ s used by separatists and nationalists to break up the UK.
” Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham criticised the comments from the Prime Minister this morning , emphasising during an interview the negative impacts of the “ London-centric ” style of government in the UK and calling for a more federal system .
Welsh Labour tweeted on Monday evening : “ Labour created devolution to rebalance power across the UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities in Wales .
It has been endorsed by the people of Wales in two referendums.
” The party added : “ You can ’ t trust the Tories .
Welsh Labour will always stand up for Wales and for devolution.
” Jeremy Miles MS said : “ The PM ’ s comments are shocking but sadly not surprising .
It has been clear for some time that this Conservative government is not remotely interested in respecting the devolution settlements across the UK .
“ The prime minister is also minister for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government is actually the biggest threat to the future of the union.
” The Welsh general counsel added : “ If they [ the UK government ] want to demonstrate that they are prepared to relent , and respect the will of the people in the devolved nations , they should immediately overhaul the internal market bill , with its assault on devolution , and finally commit to working with , not working around , the Welsh government when it comes to the shared prosperity fund [ which is designed to replace EU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The controversial internal market bill , which makes provisions to break international law , passed its third reading in the Commons with a majority of 84 in September as MPs voted 340 to 256 in favour of the legislation .
Miles discussed the proposed law , which would centralise currently devolved powers to the UK government in Westminster , and the implications for Wales with LabourList earlier this year .
The Welsh parliament in Cardiff currently has devolved control to legislate on areas such as environmental standards , food regulations and animal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill would stop it exercising those powers .
He explained that the legislation could stop the devolved Welsh Labour administration from banning single-use plastics , continuing to prevent “ hormone-injected beef ” being sold in supermarkets , or introducing landlord licensing .

Mark Drakeford has accused the Prime Minister this afternoon of having tried to “show off” to northern English Conservative MPs by describing devolution as a “disaster” on Monday evening.
Addressing members of the Senedd during First Minister Question’s this afternoon, the Welsh Labour leader argued that the comments by Johnson betrayed an “old hostility” on the part of the Tories towards devolution.
He said: “Devolution thrives when there is a Labour government to support it, and devolution comes under the sorts of pressures that it is now under when we have a Conservative government – when you scratch the surface of the Conservative Party and all its old hostility to devolution rises back to the surface.
“That’s what happened yesterday when the Prime Minister thought he could show off in front of a few Conservative MPs from the North of England.
“But we have the Senedd because of the Labour Party and this Labour Party will continue to make sure that we use all of the powers that we have here.”
Johnson sparked outrage on Monday evening when he said that “devolution has been a disaster north of the border”, and described it as Tony Blair’s “biggest mistake”, during a meeting of the northern research group MPs.
Scottish Conservatives leader Douglas Ross responded to the remarks by saying: “Devolution has not been a disaster. The SNP’s non-stop obsession with another referendum — above jobs, schools and everything else — has been a disaster.”
Shadow Scotland Secretary Ian Murray declared: “This confirms that Boris Johnson doesn’t believe in devolution and would put the future of the UK at risk.
“His government should have been working in partnership with the devolved governments during this crisis. Instead, people across the UK have been paying the price for his failings.
“Devolution is one of Labour’s proudest achievements and we will always fight for a strong Scotland in the UK. Scotland deserves better than two governments obsessed by division – Labour will work to bring our country together.”
Downing Street issued a clarification just hours after reports of the initial comments surfaced: “The Prime Minister has always supported devolution but Tony Blair failed to foresee the rise of separatists in Scotland.
“Devolution is great — but not when it’s used by separatists and nationalists to break up the UK.”
Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham criticised the comments from the Prime Minister this morning, emphasising during an interview the negative impacts of the “London-centric” style of government in the UK and calling for a more federal system.
Welsh Labour tweeted on Monday evening: “Labour created devolution to rebalance power across the UK, away from Whitehall and closer to communities in Wales. It has been endorsed by the people of Wales in two referendums.”
The party added: “You can’t trust the Tories. Welsh Labour will always stand up for Wales and for devolution.”
Jeremy Miles MS said: “The PM’s comments are shocking but sadly not surprising. It has been clear for some time that this Conservative government is not remotely interested in respecting the devolution settlements across the UK.
“The prime minister is also minister for the union – but the conduct of his government is actually the biggest threat to the future of the union.”
The Welsh general counsel added: “If they [the UK government] want to demonstrate that they are prepared to relent, and respect the will of the people in the devolved nations, they should immediately overhaul the internal market bill, with its assault on devolution, and finally commit to working with, not working around, the Welsh government when it comes to the shared prosperity fund [which is designed to replace EU funding] and future funding for Wales.”
The controversial internal market bill, which makes provisions to break international law, passed its third reading in the Commons with a majority of 84 in September as MPs voted 340 to 256 in favour of the legislation.
Miles discussed the proposed law, which would centralise currently devolved powers to the UK government in Westminster, and the implications for Wales with LabourList earlier this year.
The Welsh parliament in Cardiff currently has devolved control to legislate on areas such as environmental standards, food regulations and animal welfare, and Miles protested that this bill would stop it exercising those powers.
He explained that the legislation could stop the devolved Welsh Labour administration from banning single-use plastics, continuing to prevent “hormone-injected beef” being sold in supermarkets, or introducing landlord licensing.