labourlist--2020-05-20--Starmer and Lawrence call for “swift action” to protect BAME communities from Covid-19

Labour leader Keir Starmer and Labour ’ s new race relations adviser Doreen Lawrence have called for “ swift action ” from the government to protect BAME communities from Covid-19 .
Amid growing evidence that the coronavirus pandemic disproportionately affects Black , Asian and minority ethnic people , Labour has written to the Prime Minister raising fresh concerns .
Starmer and Lawrence have asked Boris Johnson to consider recommending to all employers that they “ risk-assess staff at potentially greater risk and make appropriate arrangements accordingly ” .
According to advice published by NHS England last month , all NHS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk assessments to protect staff from BAME backgrounds .
Extending this move to all employers – not just in the NHS – is “ particularly important as the government seeks to loosen the lockdown restrictions ” , the letter to Johnson says .
Labour launched its own review into the disproportionate impact of coronavirus on BAME communities last month and appointed Baroness Lawrence to the post of race relations adviser .
Public Health England is also undertaking a review , but London mayor Sadiq Khan has urged for data on the demographics of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and published in real time .
Below is the full text of the letter from Keir Starmer and Doreen Lawrence to Boris Johnson .
We welcomed the government ’ s decision to launch a Public Health England ( PHE ) inquiry into the impact of Covid-19 on BAME communities and will work constructively with ministers to ensure this inquiry is published as soon as possible .
In the meantime , we believe action can be taken now to help protect BAME communities from the coronavirus .
Advice published by NHS England last month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staff from BAME backgrounds , along with others who may be at higher risk .
It said : “ Emerging UK and international data suggest that people from Black , Asian and Minority Ethnic ( BAME ) backgrounds are also being disproportionately affected by Covid19 .
Public Health England have been asked by DHSC to investigate this .
“ In advance of their report and guidance , on a precautionary basis we recommend employers should risk-assess staff at potentially greater risk and make appropriate arrangements accordingly.
” We are writing to ask that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for all employers .
We recognise the huge pressures Covid-19 is placing on businesses and public services across the country .
However , there are steps that organisations can take to help care and support those who are disproportionately affected by the virus .
This is particularly important as the government seeks to loosen the lockdown restrictions and encourage some people to return to back to work .
We are concerned that ministers were too slow at the early stages of this pandemic .
It is important that the lessons are learnt from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help mitigate the impact of this virus .
We look forward to your reply .

Labour leader Keir Starmer and Labour’s new race relations adviser Doreen Lawrence have called for “swift action” from the government to protect BAME communities from Covid-19.
Amid growing evidence that the coronavirus pandemic disproportionately affects Black, Asian and minority ethnic people, Labour has written to the Prime Minister raising fresh concerns.
Starmer and Lawrence have asked Boris Johnson to consider recommending to all employers that they “risk-assess staff at potentially greater risk and make appropriate arrangements accordingly”.
According to advice published by NHS England last month, all NHS employers have been encouraged to conduct these risk assessments to protect staff from BAME backgrounds.
Extending this move to all employers – not just in the NHS – is “particularly important as the government seeks to loosen the lockdown restrictions”, the letter to Johnson says.
Labour launched its own review into the disproportionate impact of coronavirus on BAME communities last month and appointed Baroness Lawrence to the post of race relations adviser.
Public Health England is also undertaking a review, but London mayor Sadiq Khan has urged for data on the demographics of those affected by coronavirus to be collected and published in real time.
Below is the full text of the letter from Keir Starmer and Doreen Lawrence to Boris Johnson.
Dear Prime Minister,
We welcomed the government’s decision to launch a Public Health England (PHE) inquiry into the impact of Covid-19 on BAME communities and will work constructively with ministers to ensure this inquiry is published as soon as possible.
In the meantime, we believe action can be taken now to help protect BAME communities from the coronavirus.
Advice published by NHS England last month advised all NHS employers to risk assess staff from BAME backgrounds, along with others who may be at higher risk. It said:
“Emerging UK and international data suggest that people from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) backgrounds are also being disproportionately affected by Covid19. Public Health England have been asked by DHSC to investigate this.
“In advance of their report and guidance, on a precautionary basis we recommend employers should risk-assess staff at potentially greater risk and make appropriate arrangements accordingly.”
We are writing to ask that the government now consider including this advice for all employers.
We recognise the huge pressures Covid-19 is placing on businesses and public services across the country. However, there are steps that organisations can take to help care and support those who are disproportionately affected by the virus. This is particularly important as the government seeks to loosen the lockdown restrictions and encourage some people to return to back to work.
We are concerned that ministers were too slow at the early stages of this pandemic. It is important that the lessons are learnt from this and swift action is now taken to help mitigate the impact of this virus.
We look forward to your reply.
Yours sincerely,
Baroness Lawrence
Keir Starmer MP


labourlist--2020-05-20--General secretary appointment underway, plus concerns over Serco

David Evans has emerged as the Labour leadership ’ s favourite for the general secretary post .
There was talk earlier in the process that the leader ’ s office could remain neutral on the appointment , but insiders warned against that idea and a preference has now been expressed after the timetable was lengthened to allow for new possibilities to come through .
Who is Evans , why has he been picked out and are there alternatives with a good shot at succeeding Jennie Formby ( spoiler : yes , Karin Christiansen ) ?
That is all covered in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to watch out for is whether the national executive committee ( NEC ) officers group , which has a Labour left majority , agrees with the leadership on which candidates are up to the job .
Interviews and shortlisting will be done tomorrow .
Labour conference 2020 has been cancelled .
Due to coronavirus , the NEC ruled that the biggest political event of the year for Labour activists could not go ahead in September .
It is expected that some kind of virtual programme could be organised instead – to facilitate a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changes , and possibly policy debate – but the details have not yet been agreed .
Like the chances of NEC elections going ahead this summer , a decision that has been deferred to June along with the proposal to adopt a preferential voting system , online arrangements depend on whether the party can buy a tool that is good enough and can be used by local parties to meet virtually .
Other details of the NEC meeting can be found in Alice Perry ’ s latest report .
In light of conference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether the party can be so decisive on something set to take place four months away and yet slightly ambiguous on the issue of school reopening in less than two weeks .
Labour councillor and teacher James McAsh wrote for LabourList earlier this week on why he will be listening to his trade union and the British Medical Association over the government ( and he explained what his school is already doing , which was interesting ) .
The key to schools reopening is , of course , a mass testing and tracing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is being used to put that in place .
The company has already had to apologise for accidentally sharing the email addresses of hundreds of contact tracers .
And the Guardian report on how these tracers are being trained is pretty alarming .
Shadow health minister Justin Madders has raised in LabourList the importance of a comprehensive strategy including the use of “ local public health teams who know their communities ” , while Helen Hayes as new shadow minister for the Cabinet Office wrote for LabourList about whether “ outsourcing is necessary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deliver ” .
Perhaps these concerns will feature in PMQs today .
Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

David Evans has emerged as the Labour leadership’s favourite for the general secretary post. There was talk earlier in the process that the leader’s office could remain neutral on the appointment, but insiders warned against that idea and a preference has now been expressed after the timetable was lengthened to allow for new possibilities to come through. Who is Evans, why has he been picked out and are there alternatives with a good shot at succeeding Jennie Formby (spoiler: yes, Karin Christiansen)? That is all covered in my write-up here. The next thing to watch out for is whether the national executive committee (NEC) officers group, which has a Labour left majority, agrees with the leadership on which candidates are up to the job. Interviews and shortlisting will be done tomorrow.
Labour conference 2020 has been cancelled. Due to coronavirus, the NEC ruled that the biggest political event of the year for Labour activists could not go ahead in September. It is expected that some kind of virtual programme could be organised instead – to facilitate a leader’s speech, necessary rule changes, and possibly policy debate – but the details have not yet been agreed. Like the chances of NEC elections going ahead this summer, a decision that has been deferred to June along with the proposal to adopt a preferential voting system, online arrangements depend on whether the party can buy a tool that is good enough and can be used by local parties to meet virtually. Other details of the NEC meeting can be found in Alice Perry’s latest report.
In light of conference being cancelled, some activists are wondering whether the party can be so decisive on something set to take place four months away and yet slightly ambiguous on the issue of school reopening in less than two weeks. Labour councillor and teacher James McAsh wrote for LabourList earlier this week on why he will be listening to his trade union and the British Medical Association over the government (and he explained what his school is already doing, which was interesting). The key to schools reopening is, of course, a mass testing and tracing programme. Unfortunately, outsourcing firm Serco is being used to put that in place.
The company has already had to apologise for accidentally sharing the email addresses of hundreds of contact tracers. And the Guardian report on how these tracers are being trained is pretty alarming. Shadow health minister Justin Madders has raised in LabourList the importance of a comprehensive strategy including the use of “local public health teams who know their communities”, while Helen Hayes as new shadow minister for the Cabinet Office wrote for LabourList about whether “outsourcing is necessary instead of funding the public sector to deliver”. Perhaps these concerns will feature in PMQs today. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-05-20--“It’s not about a salary guide, it’s about skills”: Patel defends immigration bill

Priti Patel has said that the immigration bill is “ not about a salary guide , it ’ s about skills ” and that the “ majority of people who work in our NHS are British ” amid concerns that the new system will penalise health and care workers .
In an interview with LBC this morning , the Home Secretary answered questioned about the controversial legislation that would introduce an immigration system with an income requirement of £25,600 .
In the second reading of the bill , Shadow Home Secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds warned that it sends a signal to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of whom earn under £25,600 – that they are “ unskilled and unwelcome ” .
When asked about the impact of the bill on the health and care sectors , Patel said : “ The majority of people who work in our NHS are British citizens , followed actually by doctors and nurses from India , from the sub-continent , from Pakistan.
” She added : “ We ’ re talking about creating a level-playing field .
Fairness and equality.
” Discussing the wider reforms to the system , the Home Secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be for those individuals who absolutely need to be protected… If you come from a safe country , you will be going back to that safe country.
” The Royal College of Nursing has said that the proposed immigration system will “ exclude some health and care workers from entering the UK , primarily social care staff , and will have a devastating impact on the health and care sector ” .
The immigration bill passed its second reading on May 18th .
It makes provision to end freedom of movement at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powers on ministers to create a post-Brexit immigration system .
A number of Labour MPs abstained from the vote , including Yvette Cooper who said : “ I believe that this bill is flawed , but I recognise that legislation on immigration is now needed.
” 15 Labour MPs including Diane Abbott signed an amendment to the bill today that would decline to give it a second reading , partly because it “ contains no provisions to end the hostile environment ” .
The Home Secretary also told LBC that she would send @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that she thinks it is “ only a matter of time ” before the government publishes the advice given to it by SAGE .

Priti Patel has said that the immigration bill is “not about a salary guide, it’s about skills” and that the “majority of people who work in our NHS are British” amid concerns that the new system will penalise health and care workers.
In an interview with LBC this morning, the Home Secretary answered questioned about the controversial legislation that would introduce an immigration system with an income requirement of £25,600.
In the second reading of the bill, Shadow Home Secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds warned that it sends a signal to frontline workers in the coronavirus pandemic – many of whom earn under £25,600 – that they are “unskilled and unwelcome”.
When asked about the impact of the bill on the health and care sectors, Patel said: “The majority of people who work in our NHS are British citizens, followed actually by doctors and nurses from India, from the sub-continent, from Pakistan.”
She added: “We’re talking about creating a level-playing field. Fairness and equality.”
Discussing the wider reforms to the system, the Home Secretary said: “Asylum and refuge should be for those individuals who absolutely need to be protected… If you come from a safe country, you will be going back to that safe country.”
The Royal College of Nursing has said that the proposed immigration system will “exclude some health and care workers from entering the UK, primarily social care staff, and will have a devastating impact on the health and care sector”.
The immigration bill passed its second reading on May 18th. It makes provision to end freedom of movement at the end of the transition period and confers powers on ministers to create a post-Brexit immigration system.
A number of Labour MPs abstained from the vote, including Yvette Cooper who said: “I believe that this bill is flawed, but I recognise that legislation on immigration is now needed.”
15 Labour MPs including Diane Abbott signed an amendment to the bill today that would decline to give it a second reading, partly because it “contains no provisions to end the hostile environment”.
The Home Secretary also told LBC that she would send her child to school on June 1st, and that she thinks it is “only a matter of time” before the government publishes the advice given to it by SAGE.


labourlist--2020-05-20--Forget loan schemes. The state must take equity stakes to avoid bailouts

Much of the framework of support for business during the coronavirus pandemic has focused on a variety of loan schemes – principal amongst these being the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme ( CBILS ) for SMEs and the Covid-19 corporate financing facility for larger companies .
The debate on such schemes has tended to concentrate on whether the government guarantee to lenders should be 80 % or 100 % .
But nobody seems to ask the obvious question of whether the loan schemes are the correct solution in the first place .
Whatever the guarantee level to the lender , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the borrower .
Apart from direct government support – grants , tax breaks , etc – the sources of finance a company in difficulty should consider are loan finance or equity finance .
In the current situation , the choice should depend on whether Covid-19 and the lockdown has created a short term liquidity problem or an insolvency problem .
If the former , debt instruments may be appropriate ; if it ’ s the latter , equity finance is really the only viable solution .
I believe that for a very large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insolvency issue .
Saddling them with more unsustainable debt – which they can , ridiculously , obtain under these schemes on a business model that ignores the coronavirus impact – is not a sensible solution .
There is growing support for this view .
A survey by the Association of Practising Accountants showed that more than half of SMEs will run out of cash in 12 weeks .
Influential lobby group The City UK claimed that unsustainable debt held by UK private companies could reach between £90bn and £105bn by March 2021 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for between £10bn and £20bn of this .
It acknowledged that private equity sources would not be sufficient for the refinancing that will be needed , and floated the possibility of state-backed intervention .
The solution , when the chickens come home to roost , will undoubtedly be a haphazard series of bailouts and loan to equity conversion schemes – without the coherent strategic plan for the structure of the economy that we would like to see emerge and develop from the crisis .
What should be Labour ’ s response ?
First @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already over-leveraged corporate sector loans , to infinity , is not a good idea .
Instead , we should argue for state institutions to provide support by taking an equity stake .
Such equity support should be selective , focusing on companies and industries that fit with our image of a more desirable , greener post-coronavirus economy and assisting job preservation and creation in such companies .
Without such an approach , there is a danger that the Covid-19 recession will , like the 2008 banking crisis , be followed by a series @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private companies to retain profits made in good times while the state – and ultimately the taxpayer – assumes the burden of losses made as a result of a crisis .

Much of the framework of support for business during the coronavirus pandemic has focused on a variety of loan schemes – principal amongst these being the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme (CBILS) for SMEs and the Covid-19 corporate financing facility for larger companies. The debate on such schemes has tended to concentrate on whether the government guarantee to lenders should be 80% or 100%. But nobody seems to ask the obvious question of whether the loan schemes are the correct solution in the first place. Whatever the guarantee level to the lender, the loan remains 100% repayable by the borrower.
Apart from direct government support – grants, tax breaks, etc – the sources of finance a company in difficulty should consider are loan finance or equity finance. In the current situation, the choice should depend on whether Covid-19 and the lockdown has created a short term liquidity problem or an insolvency problem. If the former, debt instruments may be appropriate; if it’s the latter, equity finance is really the only viable solution. I believe that for a very large number of companies this has become an insolvency issue. Saddling them with more unsustainable debt – which they can, ridiculously, obtain under these schemes on a business model that ignores the coronavirus impact – is not a sensible solution.
There is growing support for this view. A survey by the Association of Practising Accountants showed that more than half of SMEs will run out of cash in 12 weeks. Influential lobby group The City UK claimed that unsustainable debt held by UK private companies could reach between £90bn and £105bn by March 2021, with government-backed loan schemes to SMEs accounting for between £10bn and £20bn of this. It acknowledged that private equity sources would not be sufficient for the refinancing that will be needed, and floated the possibility of state-backed intervention.
The solution, when the chickens come home to roost, will undoubtedly be a haphazard series of bailouts and loan to equity conversion schemes – without the coherent strategic plan for the structure of the economy that we would like to see emerge and develop from the crisis. What should be Labour’s response? First, we should assert that giving the already over-leveraged corporate sector loans, to infinity, is not a good idea. Instead, we should argue for state institutions to provide support by taking an equity stake.
Such equity support should be selective, focusing on companies and industries that fit with our image of a more desirable, greener post-coronavirus economy and assisting job preservation and creation in such companies. Without such an approach, there is a danger that the Covid-19 recession will, like the 2008 banking crisis, be followed by a series of haphazard bailouts. This would allow private companies to retain profits made in good times while the state – and ultimately the taxpayer – assumes the burden of losses made as a result of a crisis.


labourlist--2020-05-20--As a social worker, I’m ashamed of the way care workers are treated

I am a social worker in an adult social care team , and I have known for some time that the treatment of care workers is an absolute scandal .
Coronavirus has only served to make this more obvious .
Let me be clear , there has been no golden age of care .
Prior to the Community Care Act , which came into force in 1993 , there was little domiciliary care in the evenings or weekends and ‘ home helps ’ – as they used to be called – did not carry out the wide range of personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Those with significant care needs were expected to go into care homes .
Those with nursing needs may have been on long-term hospital wards until the NHS transferred long-term care to private nursing homes in the 1980s .
Against this background , the Community Care Act promised that money would be used to access a wide range of services from the private sector to create personalised care packages .
This appeared to have the potential to be very progressive .
People were no longer to be fitted into inflexible , one-size-fits-all state provision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stay at home with extensive care packages .
But what emerged over time were local authorities negotiating contracts with often very large companies , who bid for them by keeping prices down .
Carers employed on minimum wage or not much above it , and in some cases not paid for travel time between the homes of those they care for .
The legislation also made councils responsible for assessing all those going into care homes , with the help of state funding .
Again , these providers had to negotiate contracts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to drive prices down – resulting in care that was cheaper for the authority to buy than that found in homes run by the council .
For example , a care company in Leicestershire recently reported to be ending the better pay and conditions of those staff who were transferred in when the company bought local authority homes as going concerns .
Much of the press coverage of social care in recent years has been about the variable quality , and sometimes outright abuse .
Some undercover filming has revealed shocking abuse but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social worker , that the extent of wilful abuse or neglect is very low – though there must be processes to stop it .
There are real concerns about poor training , rushed visits and low staffing levels , but there is also an absolutely huge scandal regarding care agencies and care homes – and that is the treatment of those who work in them .
Yes , it is good that people can remain in their homes or have a wider choice of care homes , but has any thought been given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the services ?
How much they should be paid ?
Can caring be a career ?
It is shocking that care work can be considered to be minimum wage work .
This is the minimum someone can be paid , however unskilled the work .
Care work can involve use of moving and handling equipment , the care of those who are very frail or have advanced dementia , working alone in someone ’ s home and the keeping of records that could be referred to in safeguarding investigations or even inquests .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the skills required , the job has even become dangerous !
Carers can not practise social distancing and reports of inadequate personal protective equipment have been numerous .
In recent weeks , the media narrative around care workers has changed and instead of stories of abuse , we are told that they are saints .
I find this unhelpful .
A problem with sanctifying people is that one can then believe that they are somehow different from the rest of us – and more able to cope with pressures .
Carers are decent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , possibly not having had any other option .
It is clear from those speaking out that many do not feel brave and self sacrificing , but scared and abandoned .
What would be a fair settlement for care workers ?
I suggest , as a start , that they should get the same as those fulfilling comparable roles in the NHS such as healthcare assistants or unqualified community nurses , whose pay is a little higher and who also get pensions and better sick pay rights .
There should also be job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course the pay and conditions of care workers are largely decided by private companies , and the state has no direct say in this .
However , local authorities can decide to whom they award contracts , and could retain more in-house services .
Yes , this would all cost more , but the money has to be found .
My role as a social worker is to talk in a positive way about such concepts as ‘ personalisation ’ , ‘ co-production ’ , ‘ strength-based practice ’ and the like .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the services I commission and judge are based on the labour of those who are treated so badly – is an overwhelming sense of shame .

I am a social worker in an adult social care team, and I have known for some time that the treatment of care workers is an absolute scandal. Coronavirus has only served to make this more obvious. Let me be clear, there has been no golden age of care. Prior to the Community Care Act, which came into force in 1993, there was little domiciliary care in the evenings or weekends and ‘home helps’ – as they used to be called – did not carry out the wide range of personal care tasks that carers do now. Those with significant care needs were expected to go into care homes. Those with nursing needs may have been on long-term hospital wards until the NHS transferred long-term care to private nursing homes in the 1980s.
Against this background, the Community Care Act promised that money would be used to access a wide range of services from the private sector to create personalised care packages. This appeared to have the potential to be very progressive. People were no longer to be fitted into inflexible, one-size-fits-all state provision. More people were given the opportunity to stay at home with extensive care packages. But what emerged over time were local authorities negotiating contracts with often very large companies, who bid for them by keeping prices down. Carers employed on minimum wage or not much above it, and in some cases not paid for travel time between the homes of those they care for.
The legislation also made councils responsible for assessing all those going into care homes, with the help of state funding. Again, these providers had to negotiate contracts and local authorities used their bargaining power to drive prices down – resulting in care that was cheaper for the authority to buy than that found in homes run by the council. For example, a care company in Leicestershire recently reported to be ending the better pay and conditions of those staff who were transferred in when the company bought local authority homes as going concerns.
Much of the press coverage of social care in recent years has been about the variable quality, and sometimes outright abuse. Some undercover filming has revealed shocking abuse but it is my belief, as a social worker, that the extent of wilful abuse or neglect is very low – though there must be processes to stop it. There are real concerns about poor training, rushed visits and low staffing levels, but there is also an absolutely huge scandal regarding care agencies and care homes – and that is the treatment of those who work in them. Yes, it is good that people can remain in their homes or have a wider choice of care homes, but has any thought been given to the people who have to provide the services? How much they should be paid? Can caring be a career?
It is shocking that care work can be considered to be minimum wage work. This is the minimum someone can be paid, however unskilled the work. Care work can involve use of moving and handling equipment, the care of those who are very frail or have advanced dementia, working alone in someone’s home and the keeping of records that could be referred to in safeguarding investigations or even inquests. And now, on top of all the skills required, the job has even become dangerous! Carers cannot practise social distancing and reports of inadequate personal protective equipment have been numerous.
In recent weeks, the media narrative around care workers has changed and instead of stories of abuse, we are told that they are saints. I find this unhelpful. A problem with sanctifying people is that one can then believe that they are somehow different from the rest of us – and more able to cope with pressures. Carers are decent people doing a difficult and underpaid job, possibly not having had any other option. It is clear from those speaking out that many do not feel brave and self sacrificing, but scared and abandoned.
What would be a fair settlement for care workers? I suggest, as a start, that they should get the same as those fulfilling comparable roles in the NHS such as healthcare assistants or unqualified community nurses, whose pay is a little higher and who also get pensions and better sick pay rights. There should also be job security and increments for experience. Of course the pay and conditions of care workers are largely decided by private companies, and the state has no direct say in this. However, local authorities can decide to whom they award contracts, and could retain more in-house services. Yes, this would all cost more, but the money has to be found.
My role as a social worker is to talk in a positive way about such concepts as ‘personalisation’, ‘co-production’, ‘strength-based practice’ and the like. However, my feeling – when recognising that the services I commission and judge are based on the labour of those who are treated so badly – is an overwhelming sense of shame.


labourlist--2020-05-20--Labour puts forward 10 proposals for “test, track and protect” system

Jonathan Ashworth has put forward ten proposals for “ an effective test , track and protect system ” while asked the government a series of questions about its own approach to tracking and tracing .
In a letter to the Health Secretary Matt Hancock today , Ashworth wrote that the government must “ control the spread of the virus in the community ” and argued that “ track , trace and isolate must be central to this ” .
The Shadow Health Secretary said that with the right system in place “ we can avoid another damaging lockdown ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ government should : • Allow local government directors of public health lead on contact tracing ; • Work with tech companies and show greater flexibility developing an app ; • Quarantine people coming into the UK to cut infections ; and Ashworth told Hancock that “ people are rightly still anxious about what is going to happen ” , adding : “ Putting this new system in place is a huge opportunity to start restoring public confidence.
” He also declared that “ the decision to abandon tracing on March 12th is widely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mistakes of this crisis ” .
On the government ’ s approach , he asked that the Health Secretary : • “ Publish scientific advice that led to the abandonment of the contact tracing strategy in March ; • “ Provide public health services with the resources needed to deliver the test , trace and isolate strategy ; • “ Explain how local public health teams and directors of public health will be utilised in the contact tracing strategy ; • “ Share Covid-19 test results with directors of public health and GPs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take up of the contact tracing app , and to dispel concerns around data privacy ; and • “ Confirm that in line with the Prime Minister ’ s statement today , the contact tracing system will be fully operational by 1st June.
” Below is the text of the letter sent by Jon Ashworth to Matt Hancock today .
I am writing to you to raise a number of questions about the government ’ s approach to using track and trace to control the spread of Covid-19 , and to put forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategy for contact tracing .
Angela McLean , deputy chief scientific adviser said on 19 May 2020 that ‘ changes to our lockdown as we model them need an effective track and trace system to be in place ’ .
We agree .
We have always argued that the lockdown in itself is not a strategy and that the government need to build an effective strategy to control the spread of the virus in the community .
Track , trace and isolate must be central to this and is vital to easing lockdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tracing on 12 March 2020 is widely viewed as one of the most serious mistakes of this crisis .
This week the chair of science and technology wrote to the Prime Minister to express concerns that transparency around scientific advice has not always been as clear as it should have been .
The Committee recommended that the government publish promptly the papers on which SAGE draws for its advice after each relevant meeting ; and that you publish now and regularly a summary of the scientific advice which has informed government decisions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an immediate first step and in the interest of transparency , will you publish the evidence and analysis as to why contact tracing was abandoned on the 12th March 2020 ?
Ultimately , decisions to change strategy are the responsibility of ministers .
Despite this , the Work and Pensions Secretary Therese Coffey claimed “ You can only make judgements and decisions based on the information and the advice you have at the time…if the science was wrong if the advice at the time was wrong I am not surprised if people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I hope you will both agree that cabinet ministers are responsible for decisions and join me in calling out those who claim otherwise .
Placing the blame for any error in strategy with scientists is irresponsible and unnecessary .
At yesterday ’ s Downing Street press conference , Angela McClean said this was an issue of capacity – many of us who have warned of years of cuts to public health funding would not be surprised by this admission .
The Chancellor said on 8 March 2020 that the NHS would get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the pandemic .
The reality is that this hasn ’ t been the case when it comes to local public health services .
Will the government now commit to provide local public health services and Public Health England with ‘ whatever it needs ’ to build up the test , trace and isolate regime so obviously needed ?
What plans have the government put in place to use existing local public health teams , who know their communities and are best placed to respond to local outbreaks ?
These local teams , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must be fully utilised in the contact tracing strategy rather than Serco .
We are told that the results of tests completed at drive-through test centres such as those organised by Deloitte are sent only to the patient but not local Directors of Public Health , GPs or PHE .
Do you agree this hinders an effective contact tracing system and is potentially in conflicts with the 1984 Public Health Regulations requiring mandatory reporting of positive covid-19 cases ?
A number of concerns have been raised in recent days about the effectiveness of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spread of the virus .
What plan is in place to encourage take-up and usage of the app ?
And can you reassure the public that the data collected via the app is both secure , and only used for its intended purposes ?
Today at Prime Ministers Questions , the Prime Minister said : “ We have a growing confidence that we will have a test , track and trace operation that will be world beating and yes it will be in place by June 1st… .
there will be 25,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cope with 10,000 new cases a day ” .
However , this morning the Justice Secretary , Robert Buckland said “ I ’ m not going to pretend we ’ ll have a full system by the end of the month ” .
Confusion about the strategy , testing capability and number of contact tracers can not continue .
Can you therefore confirm that the testing , tracing and isolation strategy will be in place and operational in every local authority area by 1 June 2020 , with 25,000 contact tracers in place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minister earlier today ?
With the right test , trace , isolate and protect system in place we can avoid another damaging lockdown and reduce the risk to the public ’ s health .
People are rightly still anxious about what is going to happen .
Putting this new system in place is a huge opportunity to start restoring public confidence .
It is with this in mind that I set out Labour ’ s proposals .
Our proposals for an effective test , track and protect system has ten parts : 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local government Directors of Public Health in the lead for contact tracing .
They should be properly integrated with local primary care services .
This should be a priority over a centralised , outsourced , call centre focus run by external providers such as Serco .
Success will come from clarity of roles and responsibilities between all areas of government involved and these responsibilities must be matched with sufficient funding .
2 .
Include primary care .
GPs are the backbone of local health services .
They carry out blood tests , other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their patients yet they are not able to order a test or home test for patients , nor are coronavirus test results sent to GPs .
GPs should be able to request home tests and be provided with the PPE and swabs to test patients .
It is crucial that primary care is integrated into a locally-led test , trace and isolate regime .
3 .
Test , test , test .
For testing to be effective , government should provide capacity for widespread , regular community testing .
Everyone showing symptoms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within 24 hours .
Given how much of the spread of Covid-19 is pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic , testing must also include people not showing symptoms .
Health care workers , care staff , care home residents and other key public servants must be the priority for regular screening .
As well as increasing capacity , testing must be faster and easier for people to access , with more local community sites such as GP practices or town halls utilised as testing facilities .
Results must also be shared with local Directors of Public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more contact tracers .
We must recruit enough tracers to succeed .
We ’ re pleased the government has accepted our argument 18,000 tracers were never going to be enough .
Experts have suggested 50,000 or more would be most effective and this figure should be based on what each local area needs .
We must scale this up to succeed , including seeing whether some of the three quarters of a million NHS volunteers can play a role in their local area , especially those former health workers with specialist skills .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be redeployed if necessary .
5 .
Help people isolate .
Government should spell out the support for those who will need to self-isolate in the coming months as a result of contact with an infected person .
This will often be at short notice .
Government must guarantee protections and employment rights including sick pay .
Ministers should arrange local facilities , such as hotel rooms , for those who need to isolate away from family safely .
6 .
Clear public communication .
This strategy will have a big impact on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand how this will work and what will be required of them .
This also means having a responsive system designed to reflect the diverse community needs , such as language , inequalities or local characteristics .
7 .
Work with technology companies .
It was promised that the NHS app would be launched in mid-May .
This is now running increasingly late .
More countries such as Germany and Singapore are now moving to the Apple/Google-based system .
This approach has the benefit of better privacy , better functionality , and more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government should show greater flexibility in its approach to developing an app , including learning from technology companies .
8 .
Protect the public .
To protect the public , we must provide all key workers with necessary PPE .
It is also vital that all public spaces are regularly deep cleaned and sanitised , and we must ensure all public venues have adequate hand sanitiser , and all households have access to face masks .
9 .
Quarantine to cut infections .
It is welcome the government now accept we should quarantine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UK entered lockdown , well over 100,000 people have travelled into the UK without quarantining , unlike other countries who have acted faster to reduce infections .
Quarantine for all UK arrivals should start immediately without further delay .
10 .
Support social care to control infections : Social care services must have support from local public health teams and local clinicians .
Despite promises from the government , care homes still do not have named clinicians to support them with care of their residents .
Any strategy for contact tracing must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given the resources and support needed to protect recipients of care .
We want the government to succeed .
However , we believe that easing restrictions on the economy and reopening society safely will only work if there is an effective test , trace and isolate system in place .
People are rightly still anxious about the future .
Publishing a clear , detailed strategy is vital in restoring public confidence and keeping people safe .
Jonathan Ashworth Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

Jonathan Ashworth has put forward ten proposals for “an effective test, track and protect system” while asked the government a series of questions about its own approach to tracking and tracing.
In a letter to the Health Secretary Matt Hancock today, Ashworth wrote that the government must “control the spread of the virus in the community” and argued that “track, trace and isolate must be central to this”.
The Shadow Health Secretary said that with the right system in place “we can avoid another damaging lockdown”. The Labour Party has proposed that the government should:
Allow local government directors of public health lead on contact tracing; Include primary care; Test, test, test with widespread regular community testing; Recruit more contact tracers; Provide support to help people isolate; Ensure clear public communication; Work with tech companies and show greater flexibility developing an app; Provide key workers with necessary personal protective equipment; Quarantine people coming into the UK to cut infections; and Support social care to control infections.
Ashworth told Hancock that “people are rightly still anxious about what is going to happen”, adding: “Putting this new system in place is a huge opportunity to start restoring public confidence.”
He also declared that “the decision to abandon tracing on March 12th is widely viewed as one of the most serious mistakes of this crisis”. On the government’s approach, he asked that the Health Secretary:
“Publish scientific advice that led to the abandonment of the contact tracing strategy in March;
“Provide public health services with the resources needed to deliver the test, trace and isolate strategy;
“Explain how local public health teams and directors of public health will be utilised in the contact tracing strategy;
“Share Covid-19 test results with directors of public health and GPs;
“Share plans to increase take up of the contact tracing app, and to dispel concerns around data privacy; and
“Confirm that in line with the Prime Minister’s statement today, the contact tracing system will be fully operational by 1st June.”
Below is the text of the letter sent by Jon Ashworth to Matt Hancock today.
Re: Contact tracing strategy
Dear Matt,
I am writing to you to raise a number of questions about the government’s approach to using track and trace to control the spread of Covid-19, and to put forward Labour’s proposals for an effective strategy for contact tracing.
Angela McLean, deputy chief scientific adviser said on 19 May 2020 that ‘changes to our lockdown as we model them need an effective track and trace system to be in place’. We agree.
We have always argued that the lockdown in itself is not a strategy and that the government need to build an effective strategy to control the spread of the virus in the community. Track, trace and isolate must be central to this and is vital to easing lockdown measures. The UK decision to abandon tracing on 12 March 2020 is widely viewed as one of the most serious mistakes of this crisis.
This week the chair of science and technology wrote to the Prime Minister to express concerns that transparency around scientific advice has not always been as clear as it should have been. The Committee recommended that the government publish promptly the papers on which SAGE draws for its advice after each relevant meeting; and that you publish now and regularly a summary of the scientific advice which has informed government decisions. We wholeheartedly support these calls.
Therefore as an immediate first step and in the interest of transparency, will you publish the evidence and analysis as to why contact tracing was abandoned on the 12th March 2020?
Ultimately, decisions to change strategy are the responsibility of ministers. Despite this, the Work and Pensions Secretary Therese Coffey claimed “You can only make judgements and decisions based on the information and the advice you have at the time…if the science was wrong if the advice at the time was wrong I am not surprised if people think we made the wrong decision”.
I hope you will both agree that cabinet ministers are responsible for decisions and join me in calling out those who claim otherwise. Placing the blame for any error in strategy with scientists is irresponsible and unnecessary.
At yesterday’s Downing Street press conference, Angela McClean said this was an issue of capacity – many of us who have warned of years of cuts to public health funding would not be surprised by this admission.
The Chancellor said on 8 March 2020 that the NHS would get ‘whatever it needs’ to deal with the pandemic. The reality is that this hasn’t been the case when it comes to local public health services. Will the government now commit to provide local public health services and Public Health England with ‘whatever it needs’ to build up the test, trace and isolate regime so obviously needed?
What plans have the government put in place to use existing local public health teams, who know their communities and are best placed to respond to local outbreaks? These local teams, and local Directors of Public Health, must be fully utilised in the contact tracing strategy rather than Serco.
We are told that the results of tests completed at drive-through test centres such as those organised by Deloitte are sent only to the patient but not local Directors of Public Health, GPs or PHE. Do you agree this hinders an effective contact tracing system and is potentially in conflicts with the 1984 Public Health Regulations requiring mandatory reporting of positive covid-19 cases?
A number of concerns have been raised in recent days about the effectiveness of the NHS contact tracing app in controlling the spread of the virus. What plan is in place to encourage take-up and usage of the app? And can you reassure the public that the data collected via the app is both secure, and only used for its intended purposes?
Today at Prime Ministers Questions, the Prime Minister said: “We have a growing confidence that we will have a test, track and trace operation that will be world beating and yes it will be in place by June 1st…. there will be 25,000 trackers and they will be able to cope with 10,000 new cases a day”.
However, this morning the Justice Secretary, Robert Buckland said “I’m not going to pretend we’ll have a full system by the end of the month”.
Confusion about the strategy, testing capability and number of contact tracers cannot continue. Can you therefore confirm that the testing, tracing and isolation strategy will be in place and operational in every local authority area by 1 June 2020, with 25,000 contact tracers in place, as was suggested by the Prime Minister earlier today?
With the right test, trace, isolate and protect system in place we can avoid another damaging lockdown and reduce the risk to the public’s health. People are rightly still anxious about what is going to happen. Putting this new system in place is a huge opportunity to start restoring public confidence.
It is with this in mind that I set out Labour’s proposals. Our proposals for an effective test, track and protect system has ten parts:
1. Right leadership. government should put local government Directors of Public Health in the lead for contact tracing. They should be properly integrated with local primary care services. This should be a priority over a centralised, outsourced, call centre focus run by external providers such as Serco. Success will come from clarity of roles and responsibilities between all areas of government involved and these responsibilities must be matched with sufficient funding.
2. Include primary care. GPs are the backbone of local health services. They carry out blood tests, other swab tests, and monitor the health of their patients yet they are not able to order a test or home test for patients, nor are coronavirus test results sent to GPs. GPs should be able to request home tests and be provided with the PPE and swabs to test patients. It is crucial that primary care is integrated into a locally-led test, trace and isolate regime.
3. Test, test, test. For testing to be effective, government should provide capacity for widespread, regular community testing. Everyone showing symptoms should be able to access a test within 24 hours. Given how much of the spread of Covid-19 is pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic, testing must also include people not showing symptoms. Health care workers, care staff, care home residents and other key public servants must be the priority for regular screening. As well as increasing capacity, testing must be faster and easier for people to access, with more local community sites such as GP practices or town halls utilised as testing facilities. Results must also be shared with local Directors of Public Health and GPs.
4. Recruit more contact tracers. We must recruit enough tracers to succeed. We’re pleased the government has accepted our argument 18,000 tracers were never going to be enough. Experts have suggested 50,000 or more would be most effective and this figure should be based on what each local area needs. We must scale this up to succeed, including seeing whether some of the three quarters of a million NHS volunteers can play a role in their local area, especially those former health workers with specialist skills. CCG and commissioning support unit staff should be redeployed if necessary.
5. Help people isolate. Government should spell out the support for those who will need to self-isolate in the coming months as a result of contact with an infected person. This will often be at short notice. Government must guarantee protections and employment rights including sick pay. Ministers should arrange local facilities, such as hotel rooms, for those who need to isolate away from family safely.
6. Clear public communication. This strategy will have a big impact on our lives. People need clarity to understand how this will work and what will be required of them. This also means having a responsive system designed to reflect the diverse community needs, such as language, inequalities or local characteristics.
7. Work with technology companies. It was promised that the NHS app would be launched in mid-May. This is now running increasingly late. More countries such as Germany and Singapore are now moving to the Apple/Google-based system. This approach has the benefit of better privacy, better functionality, and more compatible with other countries apps. The government should show greater flexibility in its approach to developing an app, including learning from technology companies.
8. Protect the public. To protect the public, we must provide all key workers with necessary PPE. It is also vital that all public spaces are regularly deep cleaned and sanitised, and we must ensure all public venues have adequate hand sanitiser, and all households have access to face masks.
9. Quarantine to cut infections. It is welcome the government now accept we should quarantine people coming into the UK. Since the UK entered lockdown, well over 100,000 people have travelled into the UK without quarantining, unlike other countries who have acted faster to reduce infections. Quarantine for all UK arrivals should start immediately without further delay.
10. Support social care to control infections: Social care services must have support from local public health teams and local clinicians. Despite promises from the government, care homes still do not have named clinicians to support them with care of their residents. Any strategy for contact tracing must include social care, which must be given the resources and support needed to protect recipients of care.
We want the government to succeed. However, we believe that easing restrictions on the economy and reopening society safely will only work if there is an effective test, trace and isolate system in place. People are rightly still anxious about the future. Publishing a clear, detailed strategy is vital in restoring public confidence and keeping people safe.
Yours sincerely,
Jonathan Ashworth
Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care


labourlist--2020-05-20--Unite’s Anneliese Midgley appointed as senior special adviser to Keir Starmer

Unite the Union ’ s political director Anneliese Midgley has been appointed as a senior special adviser to Labour leader Keir Starmer after choosing not to apply for the general secretary job .
Commenting on the news revealed by HuffPost UK today , a spokesperson for Starmer said : “ Anneliese brings a wealth of talent and experience to the Labour Party .
She will have a crucial role to play in uniting our movement so we can win the next general election.
” Midgley tweeted : “ I am delighted to be joining Keir Starmer ’ s team to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Thank you to everyone @ unitetheunion & especially to the wonderful @ unitepolitics [ team ] which is brimming with talent ” .
Unite general secretary Len McCluskey tweeted : “ Anneliese Midgley has been an invaluable adviser to me and helped extend Unite ’ s political influence and advance our political strategy .
“ We all wish her the very best in her new post .
Many congratulations @ anneliese_midge and I look forward to keeping in touch !
” Midgley was considered to be a frontrunner among those hoping to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general secretary .
She had support from members of the parliamentary party and from a breadth of party insiders .
But , while she was seen as a unity candidate , it was thought that she did not apply because the leader ’ s office settled on a different favourite for the post – former assistant general secretary David Evans .
Currently at Unite , Midgley previously worked for Ken Livingstone as London mayor .
She also worked on Jeremy Corbyn ’ s 2015 leadership campaign and became his deputy chief of staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsibilities for mobilising activists and developing engagement with party and trade union members .

Unite the Union’s political director Anneliese Midgley has been appointed as a senior special adviser to Labour leader Keir Starmer after choosing not to apply for the general secretary job.
Commenting on the news revealed by HuffPost UK today, a spokesperson for Starmer said: “Anneliese brings a wealth of talent and experience to the Labour Party. She will have a crucial role to play in uniting our movement so we can win the next general election.”
Midgley tweeted: “I am delighted to be joining Keir Starmer’s team to help deliver a Labour government in 2024. Thank you to everyone @unitetheunion & especially to the wonderful @unitepolitics [team] which is brimming with talent”.
Unite general secretary Len McCluskey tweeted: “Anneliese Midgley has been an invaluable adviser to me and helped extend Unite’s political influence and advance our political strategy.
“We all wish her the very best in her new post. Many congratulations @anneliese_midge and I look forward to keeping in touch!”
Midgley was considered to be a frontrunner among those hoping to be selected as Labour’s next general secretary. She had support from members of the parliamentary party and from a breadth of party insiders.
But, while she was seen as a unity candidate, it was thought that she did not apply because the leader’s office settled on a different favourite for the post – former assistant general secretary David Evans.
Currently at Unite, Midgley previously worked for Ken Livingstone as London mayor. She also worked on Jeremy Corbyn’s 2015 leadership campaign and became his deputy chief of staff.
Her new Labour role will involve responsibilities for mobilising activists and developing engagement with party and trade union members.


labourlist--2020-05-20--Momentum launch socialist councillor recruitment programme

Labour left organisation Momentum has launched a councillor recruitment programme to boost the number of socialist representatives in local government .
In an email to members this afternoon , Team Momentum said : “ We know our movement has the ideas and energy to build a better world from the rubble of this crisis .
And , in local government , we have the opportunity .
“ Already , socialist councillors in Salford , Preston , Brighton and elsewhere are delivering progressive change in their communities .
With selections to become a Labour councillor in 2022 coming up fast , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Activists have been invited to join the new ‘ future councillors programme ‘ , which will be run by a network of “ experienced ” people in local government from the left of the Labour Party .
Momentum has said that the initiative will help party members get selected as council candidates in their local areas and “ start building socialism in your community ” .
Joining the programme will offer access to briefings , trainings run by Momentum councillors , coaching through the selection process , support on campaigning and networking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ participate in “ regional taster meet-ups ” in June consisting of calls with left-wing councillors that will provide information and respond to questions .
“ Councils play a huge role in providing services to the most vulnerable , so you ’ ll make a real difference on the frontline , ” the email reads .
“ From the Greater London Council in the 1980s to Preston ’ s community wealth building , there ’ s a long history of building socialism at the council level.
” Momentum founder and current chair Jon Lansman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would not be standing for the forthcoming internal national coordinating group ( NCG ) elections .
The new ‘ Forward Momentum ’ campaign unveiled its slate of candidates for the contests this week , and another slate is expected to be released by ‘ Momentum Renewal ‘ in the coming days NCG nominations will open on May 28th and close on June 11th , then a one-member-one-vote ballot will be conducted by Momentum from June 16th to June 30th .

Labour left organisation Momentum has launched a councillor recruitment programme to boost the number of socialist representatives in local government.
In an email to members this afternoon, Team Momentum said: “We know our movement has the ideas and energy to build a better world from the rubble of this crisis. And, in local government, we have the opportunity.
“Already, socialist councillors in Salford, Preston, Brighton and elsewhere are delivering progressive change in their communities. With selections to become a Labour councillor in 2022 coming up fast, this is your chance to join them.”
Activists have been invited to join the new ‘future councillors programme‘, which will be run by a network of “experienced” people in local government from the left of the Labour Party.
Momentum has said that the initiative will help party members get selected as council candidates in their local areas and “start building socialism in your community”.
Joining the programme will offer access to briefings, trainings run by Momentum councillors, coaching through the selection process, support on campaigning and networking opportunities.
Those interested in joining can participate in “regional taster meet-ups” in June consisting of calls with left-wing councillors that will provide information and respond to questions.
“Councils play a huge role in providing services to the most vulnerable, so you’ll make a real difference on the frontline,” the email reads.
“From the Greater London Council in the 1980s to Preston’s community wealth building, there’s a long history of building socialism at the council level.”
Momentum founder and current chair Jon Lansman announced via a LabourList piece that he would not be standing for the forthcoming internal national coordinating group (NCG) elections.
The new ‘Forward Momentum’ campaign unveiled its slate of candidates for the contests this week, and another slate is expected to be released by ‘Momentum Renewal‘ in the coming days
NCG nominations will open on May 28th and close on June 11th, then a one-member-one-vote ballot will be conducted by Momentum from June 16th to June 30th.


labourlist--2020-05-20--PMQs: Starmer urges PM to scrap immigration charge for NHS and care workers

Keir Starmer has called on Boris Johnson to scrap the immigration surcharge for NHS health professionals and care workers , emphasising that “ many of them are risking their lives for the sake of all of us ” .
At Prime Minister ’ s Questions today , the Labour leader highlighted that the current charge is £400 per year , and will rise to £624 from October – a sum that he said would require working 70 hours on the national living wage to pay off .
Starmer told the House that Labour would table an amendment to the immigration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having just passed the second reading stage , to abolish the charge .
He asked Johnson : “ Does the Prime Minister think it ’ s right that care workers coming from abroad and working on our frontline should have to pay a surcharge of hundreds – sometimes thousands of pounds – to use the NHS themselves ?
” Commenting on the amendment to the immigration bill , the Shadow Home Secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds declared : “ This amendment is about making a bad bill better .
“ Overseas professionals have been at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for our loved ones , as if they were their own .
It is an insult and injustice to have this charge in place for them .
That is why I would urge Tory MPs to back this amendment.
” And this is revealing of Starmer ’ s wider approach to holding the government to account .
The Labour membership , largely pro-immigration , will no doubt demand that the new Labour leader goes further in his intervention on this issue .
The whole basis of the bill – allowing the government to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an income requirement of £25,600 – unsurprisingly does not sit well with members .
The distinction between migrants who work in the health and care sector and those who don ’ t is the exact sort of distinction the left hates , and for good reason .
For one thing , it forgets the other key workers – from delivery drivers to shop staff – who are keeping the country running .
It also draws a classic ‘ good immigrant/bad immigrant ’ divide .
Implying that a migrant should be willing to risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the same way as British citizens .
Given the parliamentary arithmetic , however , Labour is not going to be able to prevent the bill from passing .
The Home Secretary roundly condemned the bill yesterday , and the leadership whipped MPs to vote against the bill .
But with a government majority of 80 , it passed easily .
The Labour leadership recognises that and Starmer is taking a pragmatic approach .
Chipping away at government policy by focusing on what he feels he can realistically achieve .
By highlighting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attainable target – with the possibility that he might be able to pick off some Tory rebels .
The move also forced Johnson to defend the surcharge .
The PM replied : the NHS “ needs funding and those contributions actually allow us to raise £900m ” .
Starmer will hope he has highlighted the hypocrisy from the Tories , and struck a note which will chime with the vast majority public opinion .
The past four weeks have seen an outpouring of gratitude for our health and care workers – and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this too , joining the ‘ clap for our carers/NHS ’ every Thursday .
But the immigration bill , and this surcharge , reveal the lie .
By tabling an amendment on this particular point , the Labour leader will lay bare the hypocrisy .

Keir Starmer has called on Boris Johnson to scrap the immigration surcharge for NHS health professionals and care workers, emphasising that “many of them are risking their lives for the sake of all of us”.
At Prime Minister’s Questions today, the Labour leader highlighted that the current charge is £400 per year, and will rise to £624 from October – a sum that he said would require working 70 hours on the national living wage to pay off.
Starmer told the House that Labour would table an amendment to the immigration bill, currently going through parliament and having just passed the second reading stage, to abolish the charge.
He asked Johnson: “Does the Prime Minister think it’s right that care workers coming from abroad and working on our frontline should have to pay a surcharge of hundreds – sometimes thousands of pounds – to use the NHS themselves?”
Commenting on the amendment to the immigration bill, the Shadow Home Secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds declared: “This amendment is about making a bad bill better.
“Overseas professionals have been at the frontline of this crisis and cared for our loved ones, as if they were their own. It is an insult and injustice to have this charge in place for them. That is why I would urge Tory MPs to back this amendment.”
And this is revealing of Starmer’s wider approach to holding the government to account. The Labour membership, largely pro-immigration, will no doubt demand that the new Labour leader goes further in his intervention on this issue.
The whole basis of the bill – allowing the government to construct its ‘points-based’ system with an income requirement of £25,600 – unsurprisingly does not sit well with members.
The distinction between migrants who work in the health and care sector and those who don’t is the exact sort of distinction the left hates, and for good reason. For one thing, it forgets the other key workers – from delivery drivers to shop staff – who are keeping the country running.
It also draws a classic ‘good immigrant/bad immigrant’ divide. Implying that a migrant should be willing to risk their lives to be deserving of healthcare in the same way as British citizens.
Given the parliamentary arithmetic, however, Labour is not going to be able to prevent the bill from passing. The Shadow Home Secretary roundly condemned the bill yesterday, and the leadership whipped MPs to vote against it. But with a government majority of 80, it passed easily.
The Labour leadership recognises that and Starmer is taking a pragmatic approach. Chipping away at government policy by focusing on what he feels he can realistically achieve. By highlighting the surcharge, he has identified a more attainable target – with the possibility that he might be able to pick off some Tory rebels.
The move also forced Johnson to defend the surcharge. The PM replied that the NHS “needs funding and those contributions actually allow us to raise £900m”. Starmer will hope he has highlighted the hypocrisy from the Tories, and struck a note that will chime with majority public opinion.
The past four weeks have seen an outpouring of gratitude for our health and care workers – and the Tories have tried to make capital on this too, joining the ‘clap for our carers/NHS’ every Thursday. But the immigration bill, and this surcharge, highlight the reality of the ‘nasty party’. By tabling an amendment on this particular point, the Labour leader will lay bare that hypocrisy.


labourlist--2020-05-21--PM “poorly briefed or deliberately misleading” on health charge, says Labour MP

The Prime Minister was either “ poorly briefed or deliberately misleading ” on the cost of scrapping the immigration health surcharge for NHS and care workers , a Labour MP has said .
Keir Starmer announced during Prime Minister ’ s Question that Labour would table an amendment to the immigration bill to exempt NHS and care workers from the immigration charge .
Boris Johnson appeared to claim in response to the proposal that such a move would cost the UK £900m and “ it ’ s very difficult in the current circumstances to find alternative sources [ of NHS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Malhotra has obtained information on the cost of the exemption from the House of Commons library following the exchange in parliament on Wednesday .
The opposition frontbencher says the analysis shows the true cost is “ somewhere between £1.2m and £35m ” , depending on who exactly would be exempted among health and care workers .
The response to the MP from the library said that the £900m number quoted by Johnson “ is in line with a recent figure attributed to the Home Office by The Guardian for the total revenue from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
The research added : “ Making permanent the temporary exemption which has been granted to 3,000 healthcare professionals would currently cost around £1.2m per year on the basis of the current £400 IHS rate and £2m at the £624.
” Commenting on the figures , Malhotra said : “ Either the Prime Minister was poorly briefed or deliberately misleading at Prime Minister ’ s Questions .
This isn ’ t about cost , it ’ s a political choice and hypocritical of a government that weekly claps for carers .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would we want those who are coming to work in our NHS to support us and save our lives , to be paying for NHS care themselves ?
With these new figures , it ’ s time for the government to change its mind.
” According to the information issued by the Commons library , there are 88,000 non-EU workers in the NHS , but many of these will have permanent residence or indefinite leave to remain and won ’ t need to apply for a visa .
The upper absolute cost of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and care workers – calculated by multiplying the £400 charge by 88,000 – is therefore only “ theoretical ” , the library response explains .
During PMQs , the Labour leader Starmer had asked Johnson : “ Does the PM think it is right that care workers coming from abroad and working on our frontline should have to pay a surcharge of hundreds , sometimes thousands of pounds to use the NHS themselves ?
” In response , Johnson said : “ We must look at the realities .
This is a great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ institution – that needs funding , and those contributions help us to raise about £900m .
“ It is very difficult in the current circumstances to find alternative sources , so with great respect for the Right Honourable and learned gentleman ’ s point , I think it is the right way forward.
” The IHS fee is set to increase from £400 a year to £624 in October .
The Tories have granted health professionals whose visas expire before then a one-year automatic extension , which will exempt some from paying the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proportion of workers .

The Prime Minister was either “poorly briefed or deliberately misleading” on the cost of scrapping the immigration health surcharge for NHS and care workers, a Labour MP has said.
Keir Starmer announced during Prime Minister’s Question that Labour would table an amendment to the immigration bill to exempt NHS and care workers from the immigration charge.
Boris Johnson appeared to claim in response to the proposal that such a move would cost the UK £900m and “it’s very difficult in the current circumstances to find alternative sources [of NHS funding]”.
Labour MP Seema Malhotra has obtained information on the cost of the exemption from the House of Commons library following the exchange in parliament on Wednesday.
The opposition frontbencher says the analysis shows the true cost is “somewhere between £1.2m and £35m”, depending on who exactly would be exempted among health and care workers.
The response to the MP from the library said that the £900m number quoted by Johnson “is in line with a recent figure attributed to the Home Office by The Guardian for the total revenue from the IHS over the last four years”.
The research added: “Making permanent the temporary exemption which has been granted to 3,000 healthcare professionals would currently cost around £1.2m per year on the basis of the current £400 IHS rate and £2m at the £624.”
Commenting on the figures, Malhotra said: “Either the Prime Minister was poorly briefed or deliberately misleading at Prime Minister’s Questions. This isn’t about cost, it’s a political choice and hypocritical of a government that weekly claps for carers.
“In a fair immigration system, why would we want those who are coming to work in our NHS to support us and save our lives, to be paying for NHS care themselves? With these new figures, it’s time for the government to change its mind.”
According to the information issued by the Commons library, there are 88,000 non-EU workers in the NHS, but many of these will have permanent residence or indefinite leave to remain and won’t need to apply for a visa.
The upper absolute cost of £35m to abolish the fee for health and care workers – calculated by multiplying the £400 charge by 88,000 – is therefore only “theoretical”, the library response explains.
During PMQs, the Labour leader Starmer had asked Johnson: “Does the PM think it is right that care workers coming from abroad and working on our frontline should have to pay a surcharge of hundreds, sometimes thousands of pounds to use the NHS themselves?”
In response, Johnson said: “We must look at the realities. This is a great national service – it is a national institution – that needs funding, and those contributions help us to raise about £900m.
“It is very difficult in the current circumstances to find alternative sources, so with great respect for the Right Honourable and learned gentleman’s point, I think it is the right way forward.”
The IHS fee is set to increase from £400 a year to £624 in October. The Tories have granted health professionals whose visas expire before then a one-year automatic extension, which will exempt some from paying the fee, but this is a small proportion of workers.


labourlist--2020-05-21--Exclusive: FBU leader warns against “factional” general secretary frontrunner

David Evans – a frontrunner among candidates to become Labour ’ s next general secretary – is a “ factional figure ” and “ likely to be extremely divisive ” , the Fire Brigades Union leader Matt Wrack has said .
Ahead of the interviewing and shortlisting of candidates for the top party post today , LabourList can reveal that the left-wing FBU general secretary has warned trade unions against picking the Blair-era official .
Evans emerged as the Labour leadership ’ s preferred candidate to succeed Jennie Formby this week .
He was assistant general secretary of the party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secretary from 1995 to 1999 .
Currently the director of a political consultancy firm , The Campaign Company , it is understood that Evans was longlisted by the appointment panel comprising officers of Labour ’ s national executive committee ( NEC ) .
But the Labour left has expressed alarm over his candidacy , with concerns raised over a 1999 report he authored that described local parties as “ dysfunctional ” and said in terms of “ high street presence ” they were “ more like Trotters Independent Traders than Marks & Spencer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leader of the party-affiliated FBU , which has a seat on the NEC and on the panel responsible for longlisting and shortlisting – has said Evans is “ likely to be an extremely divisive figure who will antagonise Labour Party members and the trade unions ” .
The FBU general secretary said : “ David Evans has attacked the reputation of hard-working Labour Party activists , authored a report which called for representative democracy in the party to be abolished , and played a key role in the party in the Tony Blair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Wrack added : “ Keir Starmer rightly said when running for leader that he would unite the party .
Now he must ensure that a factional figure like Evans does not become general secretary .
“ We need someone who believes in the power of all of our movement , including the membership and trade unions .
The trade unions were central to the creation of the Labour Party , we will not be silenced once again.
” Ian Hodson – national president of the Bakers , Food and Allied Workers ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affiliated trade union with a seat on Labour ’ s NEC – has made a similar intervention .
“ David Evans was Margaret McDonagh ’ s right-hand man in an era defined by contempt for trade unions , contempt for members and contempt for democracy , ” Hodson said .
“ His candidacy will sound alarm bells across the union movement , who will never vote for one of the key figures involved in our isolation under New Labour .
“ After years of factional strife and after the explosive revelations about toxic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Keir and Angela must choose a general secretary who is a unifying figure , who can bring our party together and command confidence across our broad church.
” The 1999 internal report authored by Evans argued for a “ radical overhaul ” of the Labour Party that could “ empower modernising forces within the party and marginalise Old Labour ” – sidelining the Labour left and unions .
It stated that “ representative democracy should as far as possible be abolished in the party ” , with general committees in constituency parties replaced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Campaign for Labour Party Democracy at the time described the proposal as “ a bid to remove all intermediate structures in the party so that we ’ re left with a passive , powerless membership and an all-powerful leadership ” .
Friends of Evans have said he is an excellent party organiser , having overseen the campaign that allowed Labour to regain control of Croydon in 2014 and helped Labour beat the BNP in Barking in 2010 .
Other applicants in the running to be Labour ’ s next general secretary include @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Co-operative Party from 2012 to 2015 , and former trade union liaison organisation officer Byron Taylor .
After shortlisting is completed today , Labour ’ s full NEC is set to hold a vote on Tuesday and choose a new general secretary from the narrowed field of candidates .

David Evans – a frontrunner among candidates to become Labour’s next general secretary – is a “factional figure” and “likely to be extremely divisive”, the Fire Brigades Union leader Matt Wrack has said.
Ahead of the interviewing and shortlisting of candidates for the top party post today, LabourList can reveal that the left-wing FBU general secretary has warned trade unions against picking the Blair-era official.
Evans emerged as the Labour leadership’s preferred candidate to succeed Jennie Formby this week. He was assistant general secretary of the party from 1999 to 2001 and a regional secretary from 1995 to 1999.
Currently the director of a political consultancy firm, The Campaign Company, it is understood that Evans was longlisted by the appointment panel comprising officers of Labour’s national executive committee (NEC).
But the Labour left has expressed alarm over his candidacy, with concerns raised over a 1999 report he authored that described local parties as “dysfunctional” and said in terms of “high street presence” they were “more like Trotters Independent Traders than Marks & Spencer”.
Matt Wrack – the left-wing leader of the party-affiliated FBU, which has a seat on the NEC and on the panel responsible for longlisting and shortlisting – has said Evans is “likely to be an extremely divisive figure who will antagonise Labour Party members and the trade unions”.
The FBU general secretary said: “David Evans has attacked the reputation of hard-working Labour Party activists, authored a report which called for representative democracy in the party to be abolished, and played a key role in the party in the Tony Blair era when trade unions were sidelined”.
Wrack added: “Keir Starmer rightly said when running for leader that he would unite the party. Now he must ensure that a factional figure like Evans does not become general secretary.
“We need someone who believes in the power of all of our movement, including the membership and trade unions. The trade unions were central to the creation of the Labour Party, we will not be silenced once again.”
Ian Hodson – national president of the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers’ Union (BFAWU), another left-wing affiliated trade union with a seat on Labour’s NEC – has made a similar intervention.
“David Evans was Margaret McDonagh’s right-hand man in an era defined by contempt for trade unions, contempt for members and contempt for democracy,” Hodson said.
“His candidacy will sound alarm bells across the union movement, who will never vote for one of the key figures involved in our isolation under New Labour.
“After years of factional strife and after the explosive revelations about toxic right-wing factionalism in the leaked report, Keir and Angela must choose a general secretary who is a unifying figure, who can bring our party together and command confidence across our broad church.”
The 1999 internal report authored by Evans argued for a “radical overhaul” of the Labour Party that could “empower modernising forces within the party and marginalise Old Labour” – sidelining the Labour left and unions.
It stated that “representative democracy should as far as possible be abolished in the party”, with general committees in constituency parties replaced with all-member meetings and executive committees.
The Campaign for Labour Party Democracy at the time described the proposal as “a bid to remove all intermediate structures in the party so that we’re left with a passive, powerless membership and an all-powerful leadership”.
Friends of Evans have said he is an excellent party organiser, having overseen the campaign that allowed Labour to regain control of Croydon in 2014 and helped Labour beat the BNP in Barking in 2010.
Other applicants in the running to be Labour’s next general secretary include Karin Christiansen, who was general secretary of the Co-operative Party from 2012 to 2015, and former trade union liaison organisation officer Byron Taylor.
After shortlisting is completed today, Labour’s full NEC is set to hold a vote on Tuesday and choose a new general secretary from the narrowed field of candidates.


labourlist--2020-05-21--Labour pushes to exempt NHS and care workers from the immigration health surcharge

Keir Starmer again used Prime Minister ’ s Questions this week to push along the news agenda and potentially government policy too .
Boris Johnson appeared to commit to having a testing and tracing operation in place by June 1st , with 25,000 contact tracers able to track 10,000 new cases a day , although ministers had previously said this would not be possible .
The new target will offer another metric by which the Labour leader can hold the government to account on its own terms , allowing him to be critical without appearing to make those “ impossible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first elected .
The opposition leader then announced that Labour would table an amendment to the immigration bill to exempt NHS and care workers from the immigration health surcharge .
( This is the payment , required by some visa applications , that is due to increase from £400 a year to £624 in October . )
When confronted with the idea , the Prime Ministers panicked and claimed it would cost the UK £900m .
But Labour ’ s Seema Malhotra has said Johnson was either “ poorly briefed or deliberately misleading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Commons library shows the potential cost is “ somewhere between £1.2m and £35m ” depending on the scope of the exemption .
With a Tory majority of 80 in the Commons , the immigration bill passed easily at second reading and will do so at the third .
Already , however , a Tory MP has publicly backed the call for the NHS and care worker exemption .
Whether Starmer ’ s proposal chips away at Conservative consensus , highlights the true nature of the ‘ nasty party ’ or actually changes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Labour leadership .
Party members might take a different view , however .
Activists have raised concerns over the possibility that this amendment promotes ‘ divide and rule ’ tactics and implies that migrants must literally put their lives on the line to be seen as ‘ deserving ’ .
( Not to mention that other key workers taking risks are not included in the exemption . )
Asked whether Labour was in favour of scrapping the charge altogether , Starmer ’ s spokesperson confirmed that it was , “ but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bad bill better ” .
The party hasn ’ t retreated policy-wise , it ’ s just that the new Labour leader reckons he should only pick fights that he has a chance of winning .
Labour ’ s general secretary appointment panel will interview and shortlist candidates today .
There is much nervousness around the process because the national executive committee officers group has a clear left majority , and these are the members who form the panel .
The leadership has only managed to add one ally , Shabana Mahmood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s right is pushing for David Evans , who held senior posts during the Blair era , and they are concerned that he might not be shortlisted .
It is certainly true that left unions are not keen on him .
But there are other candidates that the leadership would be happy with – indeed , Jon Lansman has suggested that Evans is a red herring .
Follow LabourList today for all the developments .
Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

Keir Starmer again used Prime Minister’s Questions this week to push along the news agenda and potentially government policy too. Boris Johnson appeared to commit to having a testing and tracing operation in place by June 1st, with 25,000 contact tracers able to track 10,000 new cases a day, although ministers had previously said this would not be possible. The new target will offer another metric by which the Labour leader can hold the government to account on its own terms, allowing him to be critical without appearing to make those “impossible demands” that he warned against when first elected.
The opposition leader then announced that Labour would table an amendment to the immigration bill to exempt NHS and care workers from the immigration health surcharge. (This is the payment, required by some visa applications, that is due to increase from £400 a year to £624 in October.) When confronted with the idea, the Prime Ministers panicked and claimed it would cost the UK £900m. But Labour’s Seema Malhotra has said Johnson was either “poorly briefed or deliberately misleading” as analysis that she obtained from the Commons library shows the potential cost is “somewhere between £1.2m and £35m” depending on the scope of the exemption.
With a Tory majority of 80 in the Commons, the immigration bill passed easily at second reading and will do so at the third. Already, however, a Tory MP has publicly backed the call for the NHS and care worker exemption. Whether Starmer’s proposal chips away at Conservative consensus, highlights the true nature of the ‘nasty party’ or actually changes policy, there is no clear downside for the Labour leadership. Party members might take a different view, however.
Activists have raised concerns over the possibility that this amendment promotes ‘divide and rule’ tactics and implies that migrants must literally put their lives on the line to be seen as ‘deserving’. (Not to mention that other key workers taking risks are not included in the exemption.) Asked whether Labour was in favour of scrapping the charge altogether, Starmer’s spokesperson confirmed that it was, “but this amendment is specifically targeted at making a bad bill better”. The party hasn’t retreated policy-wise, it’s just that the new Labour leader reckons he should only pick fights that he has a chance of winning.
Labour’s general secretary appointment panel will interview and shortlist candidates today. There is much nervousness around the process because the national executive committee officers group has a clear left majority, and these are the members who form the panel. The leadership has only managed to add one ally, Shabana Mahmood, to it. The party’s right is pushing for David Evans, who held senior posts during the Blair era, and they are concerned that he might not be shortlisted. It is certainly true that left unions are not keen on him. But there are other candidates that the leadership would be happy with – indeed, Jon Lansman has suggested that Evans is a red herring. Follow LabourList today for all the developments. Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-05-21--“Now is the time to act” to end rough sleeping, says Labour

Labour has said that “ now is the time to act ” to end rough sleeping in the UK , and declared that the coronavirus pandemic represents a “ once in a generation opportunity ” .
The party today issued a statement signed by Keir Starmer , mayors Sadiq Khan , Andy Burnham , Steve Rotheram , Dan Jarvis , Jamie Driscoll and Shadow Housing Secretary Thangam Debbonaire .
The Labour leader and elected ‘ metro mayors ’ warned that the 5,000 homeless people who have been accommodated during the Covid-19 crisis could end up back on the street and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funding arrangements ” .
In response to the pandemic , the government implemented its ‘ Everyone In ’ policy – allocating £3.2m to local authorities to expand the provision of emergency hotel and hostel accommodation for rough sleepers .
But a document leaked earlier this month revealed that the government had “ drawn a line ” under this programme and that it would no longer be receiving funding .
However , no ministerial statement has been made .
London Councils has called for the government to provide “ urgent clarity ” on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ St Mungo ’ s has published a set of five demands to ensure rough sleepers don ’ t end up back on the street after lockdown .
Below is the full text of the statement issued by Labour today .
Coronavirus is the biggest crisis our country has faced for a generation .
But it has also presented us with a once in a generation opportunity : to help thousands of rough sleepers off the streets for good .
Thanks to the incredible work of local government , and dedicated funding from central @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grasp .
The government has rightly committed to protecting vulnerable rough sleepers for the duration of the pandemic .
However , the dedicated funding to house rough sleepers is set to run out and no clear plans or resources have been put in place by government for what happens next .
The government needs to provide clarity on their ‘ Everyone In ’ policy , to include those made homeless during the lockdown , and certainty over the future funding arrangements .
Without this we could see rough sleepers ending up back on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see policy changes for those with no recourse to public funds , and changes to Local Housing Allowance and Housing Benefit .
These changes will help us move rough sleepers into longer-term accommodation and provide wrap-around support to help them stay there .
We restate today our commitment to doing everything in our power to ensure that no one who has been helped off the streets during this period is forced to return .
That includes non-UK nationals who wouldn ’ t normally be able to access welfare and other support .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make the same pledge – and to back it up with actions .
Warm words are worth nothing to those who were sleeping on the streets , and people across the country will not forgive us if this opportunity is missed .
Mayors and council leaders are doing everything possible , but we need that commitment to be matched by government .
When this crisis is over , we can not return to business as usual .
Rough sleepers , some of whom are receiving support for the first time , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We can not let that progress go to waste .
This is an unprecedented opportunity to ‘ build back better ’ and avoid a return to business as usual .
If the government is serious about its commitment to end rough sleeping , now is the time to act .
Keir Starmer MP , leader of the Labour Party ; Thangam Debbonaire MP , Shadow Housing Secretary ; Sadiq Khan , mayor of London ; Andy Burnham , mayor of Greater Manchester ; Steve Rotheram , mayor of Liverpool City Region ; Dan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Region ; and Jamie Driscoll , mayor of North Tyne .

Labour has said that “now is the time to act” to end rough sleeping in the UK, and declared that the coronavirus pandemic represents a “once in a generation opportunity”.
The party today issued a statement signed by Keir Starmer, mayors Sadiq Khan, Andy Burnham, Steve Rotheram, Dan Jarvis, Jamie Driscoll and Shadow Housing Secretary Thangam Debbonaire.
The Labour leader and elected ‘metro mayors’ warned that the 5,000 homeless people who have been accommodated during the Covid-19 crisis could end up back on the street and called for “certainty over the future funding arrangements”.
In response to the pandemic, the government implemented its ‘Everyone In’ policy – allocating £3.2m to local authorities to expand the provision of emergency hotel and hostel accommodation for rough sleepers.
But a document leaked earlier this month revealed that the government had “drawn a line” under this programme and that it would no longer be receiving funding. However, no ministerial statement has been made.
London Councils has called for the government to provide “urgent clarity” on the next steps, while the homelessness charity St Mungo’s has published a set of five demands to ensure rough sleepers don’t end up back on the street after lockdown.
Below is the full text of the statement issued by Labour today.
Coronavirus is the biggest crisis our country has faced for a generation. But it has also presented us with a once in a generation opportunity: to help thousands of rough sleepers off the streets for good.
Thanks to the incredible work of local government, and dedicated funding from central government, that opportunity is within our grasp.
The government has rightly committed to protecting vulnerable rough sleepers for the duration of the pandemic. However, the dedicated funding to house rough sleepers is set to run out and no clear plans or resources have been put in place by government for what happens next.
The government needs to provide clarity on their ‘Everyone In’ policy, to include those made homeless during the lockdown, and certainty over the future funding arrangements. Without this we could see rough sleepers ending up back on the streets. We also need to see policy changes for those with no recourse to public funds, and changes to Local Housing Allowance and Housing Benefit. These changes will help us move rough sleepers into longer-term accommodation and provide wrap-around support to help them stay there.
We restate today our commitment to doing everything in our power to ensure that no one who has been helped off the streets during this period is forced to return. That includes non-UK nationals who wouldn’t normally be able to access welfare and other support.
But to achieve this we need the government to make the same pledge – and to back it up with actions. Warm words are worth nothing to those who were sleeping on the streets, and people across the country will not forgive us if this opportunity is missed. Mayors and council leaders are doing everything possible, but we need that commitment to be matched by government.
When this crisis is over, we cannot return to business as usual. Rough sleepers, some of whom are receiving support for the first time, have been brought safely off the streets. We cannot let that progress go to waste.
This is an unprecedented opportunity to ‘build back better’ and avoid a return to business as usual. If the government is serious about its commitment to end rough sleeping, now is the time to act.
Signed by:
Keir Starmer MP, leader of the Labour Party;
Thangam Debbonaire MP, Shadow Housing Secretary;
Sadiq Khan, mayor of London;
Andy Burnham, mayor of Greater Manchester;
Steve Rotheram, mayor of Liverpool City Region;
Dan Jarvis MP, mayor of Sheffield City Region; and
Jamie Driscoll, mayor of North Tyne.