labourlist--2020-07-08--Just as the NHS emerged from WWII, so must a National Care Service from Covid

On the 72nd birthday of the NHS , its chief executive Sir Simon Stevens called for a properly funded adult social care system .
It was a salutary reminder of the desperate state of social care in England .
40 % of Covid deaths were in care homes , and yet the sector still struggles for personal protective equipment , for testing and for proper pay and conditions for its staff .
Over 30 years of privatisation has resulted in a profusion of fragmented and competing providers .
The social care market is fragile and many providers are at risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and inconsistent care .
Government funding for adult social care has plummeted – current expenditure is below the 2010/11 level – without acknowledging the increase in population and levels of demand .
This burden has not been evenly distributed ; between 2010/11 and 2017/18 , the 30 councils with the highest levels of deprivation cut services by 17 % per person , compared to cuts of 3 % per person in the 30 least-deprived areas .
A recent health and social care select committee heard how undervalued and demoralised care staff feel – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the minute , with travel and training unpaid for , while others report being monitored by electronic tags .
It is a national disgrace that those we call upon to look after our most vulnerable citizens are treated with such contempt .
Successive governments have failed to confront this issue , but the coronavirus pandemic has shone a light on it like never before .
Until we stop thinking of social care as a burden and think of it as a genuine investment in our society , then real change will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to embrace change and invest in our future , there is a clear way forward .
Here are four proposals to reform the sector : • • Poverty wages must end .
Years of market competition have driven down both wages and quality .
Care staff are public servants and deserve to be paid in line with their counterparts in the NHS .
Besides the moral imperative to pay properly , decent wages would make a career in care a more attractive proposition – drawing in new recruits and addressing the horrendous current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , more permanent staff will drive up the quality of care across the sector .
• Introduce universal free personal care .
The current system encourages those who can not afford to pay for social care themselves to either avoid seeking help at all or accessing , free at the point of use ( but to the state far more expensive ) NHS support instead .
A universal service would relieve pressure on the NHS by enabling people to stay in their own homes for longer , and to access preventive services sooner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ army of unpaid carers who dedicate their lives to looking after loved ones at home .
• We must reverse the privatisation in the sector .
The coronavirus pandemic has shown outsourced provision to be expensive , fragile and badly suited to meeting public need .
A publicly owned system would not only be cheaper to the tax payer but would also ensure care homes were backed up by state institutions , guaranteeing the stability and agility necessary to negotiate the public health challenges we will face in the coming years .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fund social care must end .
This risks further exacerbating regional inequality .
We must fund social care the same way as we fund our NHS – through general taxation , distributed on the basis of need .
The state of the social care sector in this country is a national scandal .
The coronavirus pandemic has brought the nation ’ s focus to bear on it .
As a movement we must seize this opportunity to address the problems the sector faces , problems that have been so scandalously ignored by successive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country ’ s finest achievement of the 20th century , was born out of the crisis of the second world war .
Let ’ s work together to ensure that a National Care Service emerges from the wreckage of this major crisis of the 21st .
Sign my petition here for fully funded adult social care .

On the 72nd birthday of the NHS, its chief executive Sir Simon Stevens called for a properly funded adult social care system. It was a salutary reminder of the desperate state of social care in England. 40% of Covid deaths were in care homes, and yet the sector still struggles for personal protective equipment, for testing and for proper pay and conditions for its staff. Over 30 years of privatisation has resulted in a profusion of fragmented and competing providers. The social care market is fragile and many providers are at risk of financial collapse, resulting in instability and inconsistent care.
Government funding for adult social care has plummeted – current expenditure is below the 2010/11 level – without acknowledging the increase in population and levels of demand. This burden has not been evenly distributed; between 2010/11 and 2017/18, the 30 councils with the highest levels of deprivation cut services by 17% per person, compared to cuts of 3% per person in the 30 least-deprived areas.
A recent health and social care select committee heard how undervalued and demoralised care staff feel – some 685,000 home care workers are paid by the minute, with travel and training unpaid for, while others report being monitored by electronic tags. It is a national disgrace that those we call upon to look after our most vulnerable citizens are treated with such contempt.
Successive governments have failed to confront this issue, but the coronavirus pandemic has shone a light on it like never before. Until we stop thinking of social care as a burden and think of it as a genuine investment in our society, then real change will not happen. If we are bold enough to embrace change and invest in our future, there is a clear way forward. Here are four proposals to reform the sector:
Poverty wages must end. Years of market competition have driven down both wages and quality. Care staff are public servants and deserve to be paid in line with their counterparts in the NHS. Besides the moral imperative to pay properly, decent wages would make a career in care a more attractive proposition – drawing in new recruits and addressing the horrendous current rates of staff turnover. A happier, more permanent staff will drive up the quality of care across the sector. Introduce universal free personal care. The current system encourages those who cannot afford to pay for social care themselves to either avoid seeking help at all or accessing, free at the point of use (but to the state far more expensive) NHS support instead. A universal service would relieve pressure on the NHS by enabling people to stay in their own homes for longer, and to access preventive services sooner. It would provide support to the army of unpaid carers who dedicate their lives to looking after loved ones at home. We must reverse the privatisation in the sector. The coronavirus pandemic has shown outsourced provision to be expensive, fragile and badly suited to meeting public need. A publicly owned system would not only be cheaper to the tax payer but would also ensure care homes were backed up by state institutions, guaranteeing the stability and agility necessary to negotiate the public health challenges we will face in the coming years. The increasing reliance on council tax to fund social care must end. This risks further exacerbating regional inequality. We must fund social care the same way as we fund our NHS – through general taxation, distributed on the basis of need.
The state of the social care sector in this country is a national scandal. The coronavirus pandemic has brought the nation’s focus to bear on it. As a movement we must seize this opportunity to address the problems the sector faces, problems that have been so scandalously ignored by successive governments. The NHS, perhaps our country’s finest achievement of the 20th century, was born out of the crisis of the second world war. Let’s work together to ensure that a National Care Service emerges from the wreckage of this major crisis of the 21st.
Sign my petition here for fully funded adult social care.


labourlist--2020-07-08--How trade unions reacted to the Chancellor’s summer statement

Chancellor Rishi Sunak made a series of announcements in his summer economic update in parliament this afternoon .
Here ’ s how the trade unions reacted… General secretary Dave Prentis concluded that “ the Chancellor has firmly closed the door on the damaging austerity of the past decade ” – but warned that while there was a lot for young people , there was “ next to nothing for public services ” .
He argued that “ investment in our public services would help speed the country back to recovery ” , and said that “ with extra funds , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many more jobs ” .
Prentis added : “ Covid-19 has shown how much we all need public services .
Funding them properly can help the economy and bring back the support and security to every community that ’ s long been missing.
” Unite pointed out that the Chancellor made no mention of the aviation or aerospace sectors in his statement , highlighting that thousands of job losses had been seen across both in recent weeks .
The union supported Labour ’ s Darren Jones MP when he argued that “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help for British manufacturing ” in his contribution to the debate in parliament .
Unite also backed the intervention from Sarah Owens MP , who compared the government ’ s support for aviation to that of other countries : “ If the governments of France and Germany are protecting their aviation workers , why isn ’ t this government ?
” General secretary Frances O ’ Grady said that ‘ kickstart ’ – a scheme to subsidise work placements for young people outlined today – is a “ good first step ” , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have announced extra investment in jobs across all public services.
” She said : “ The Chancellor should have announced targeted support for the hardest-hit sectors like manufacturing and aviation .
Struggling businesses will need more than a one-off job retention bonus to survive and save jobs in the long-term .
“ Unions campaigned for a job guarantee scheme .
Kickstart is a good first step .
But if the government allows vital industries to go the wall , unemployment will surge and the recession will last far longer.
” She added : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the confidence to eat out , he should have announced a pay rise for hard-pressed key workers rather than dining out discounts for the well-off.
” John Phillips , GMB acting general secretary , described the package as a “ good start ” and welcomed the investment .
But he stressed that the new jobs must be good jobs and the training opportunities “ real ” .
The GMB also warned that sectors not mentioned , such as public services and aviation , “ risk being left behind ” , and said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up in the pockets of those who need it – the workers – not the offshore accounts of shareholders and CEOs.
” TSSA general secretary Manuel Cortes welcomed the “ additional support for the tourism industry ” , but highlighted that there had been “ no clarity whatsoever on whether this support will be available for our high-street shops ” .
He said : “ We are also bitterly disappointed by the gaping hole in the statement with no mention of further support for our public transport networks – even though we know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trade union said it was “ shocked that no mention was made of the tens of thousands of retail jobs already lost or the difficulties the high street is facing , let alone any suggestion of a recovery plan ” .
General secretary Paddy Lillis argued that the VAT cut for hospitality “ should have been extended to retail ” , called for government to work with unions and employers “ to develop a much needed retail recovery plan ” .
FBU warned that “ coronavirus is threatening to bankrupt our local authorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ another wave of austerity for our public services , including the fire service , could be inevitable ” .
The fire brigades union added : “ And what does the Chancellor give us in his summer statement ?
Half price pizzas.
” Dr Faiza Shaheen , director of the Centre for Labour and Social Studies ( CLASS ) , said it was a “ sticking plaster on the same old failing economic system ” and “ extremely timid ” rather than a “ new deal for the planet , workers and public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This ‘ mini-budget ’ is more about political insulation from future public anger at rocketing unemployment rather than learning the lessons of the pandemic.
” Carys Roberts , executive director of IPPR , said : “ The Chancellor has listened to calls to invest in young people and in green homes .
But as a package , this was more of a cut-price deal than a new deal .
“ We ’ re facing a deep and uncertain recession that could leave one in ten unemployed by the end of the year .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ short of the investment needed to both protect viable businesses and create new jobs.
” She added that the Chancellor had made some “ strange choices in his priorities ” , pointing out that the £3.8bn stamp duty holiday would “ push up prices and amounts to more than all the support announced for young people today ” .
Acting director of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation Helen Barnard argued that the ‘ mini Budget ’ did not do enough to tackle poverty and warned that many families are “ being pulled deeper into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She urged the Chancellor to “ urgently reconsider increasing the child element of Universal Credit and child tax credits by £20 a week to help families stay afloat during this period of considerable anxiety ” .
Director of Generation Rent Alicia Kennedy condemned the lack of help for renters : “ It is tragic the Chancellor did not take the chance to help the half a million renters who have got behind on their rent in the last few months.
” Andy Chamberlain , director of policy at the Association of Independent Professionals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-employed were “ noticeable by their absence ” .
He urged the Chancellor to introduce a “ tapered end ” to the self-employment income support scheme and to back those who missed out on support during lockdown .

Chancellor Rishi Sunak made a series of announcements in his summer economic update in parliament this afternoon. Here’s how the trade unions reacted…
UNISON
General secretary Dave Prentis concluded that “the Chancellor has firmly closed the door on the damaging austerity of the past decade” – but warned that while there was a lot for young people, there was “next to nothing for public services”.
He argued that “investment in our public services would help speed the country back to recovery”, and said that “with extra funds, national and local public services could provide many more jobs”.
Prentis added: “Covid-19 has shown how much we all need public services. Funding them properly can help the economy and bring back the support and security to every community that’s long been missing.”
Unite
Unite pointed out that the Chancellor made no mention of the aviation or aerospace sectors in his statement, highlighting that thousands of job losses had been seen across both in recent weeks.
The union supported Labour’s Darren Jones MP when he argued that “the Chancellor failed today to set out sector-specific help for British manufacturing” in his contribution to the debate in parliament.
Unite also backed the intervention from Sarah Owens MP, who compared the government’s support for aviation to that of other countries: “If the governments of France and Germany are protecting their aviation workers, why isn’t this government?”
TUC
General secretary Frances O’Grady said that ‘kickstart’ – a scheme to subsidise work placements for young people outlined today – is a “good first step”, but argued: “The government should have announced extra investment in jobs across all public services.”
She said: “The Chancellor should have announced targeted support for the hardest-hit sectors like manufacturing and aviation. Struggling businesses will need more than a one-off job retention bonus to survive and save jobs in the long-term.
“Unions campaigned for a job guarantee scheme. Kickstart is a good first step. But if the government allows vital industries to go the wall, unemployment will surge and the recession will last far longer.”
She added: “If the chancellor wants people to have the confidence to eat out, he should have announced a pay rise for hard-pressed key workers rather than dining out discounts for the well-off.”
GMB
John Phillips, GMB acting general secretary, described the package as a “good start” and welcomed the investment. But he stressed that the new jobs must be good jobs and the training opportunities “real”.
The GMB also warned that sectors not mentioned, such as public services and aviation, “risk being left behind”, and said: “This cash boost must end up in the pockets of those who need it – the workers – not the offshore accounts of shareholders and CEOs.”
TSSA
TSSA general secretary Manuel Cortes welcomed the “additional support for the tourism industry”, but highlighted that there had been “no clarity whatsoever on whether this support will be available for our high-street shops”.
He said: “We are also bitterly disappointed by the gaping hole in the statement with no mention of further support for our public transport networks – even though we know private providers are struggling.”
Usdaw
The retail trade union said it was “shocked that no mention was made of the tens of thousands of retail jobs already lost or the difficulties the high street is facing, let alone any suggestion of a recovery plan”.
General secretary Paddy Lillis argued that the VAT cut for hospitality “should have been extended to retail”, called for government to work with unions and employers “to develop a much needed retail recovery plan”.
FBU
FBU warned that “coronavirus is threatening to bankrupt our local authorities” and said that without government support “another wave of austerity for our public services, including the fire service, could be inevitable”.
The fire brigades union added: “And what does the Chancellor give us in his summer statement? Half price pizzas.”
And others…
Dr Faiza Shaheen, director of the Centre for Labour and Social Studies (CLASS), said it was a “sticking plaster on the same old failing economic system” and “extremely timid” rather than a “new deal for the planet, workers and public services”.
She added: “This ‘mini-budget’ is more about political insulation from future public anger at rocketing unemployment rather than learning the lessons of the pandemic.”
Carys Roberts, executive director of IPPR, said: “The Chancellor has listened to calls to invest in young people and in green homes. But as a package, this was more of a cut-price deal than a new deal.
“We’re facing a deep and uncertain recession that could leave one in ten unemployed by the end of the year. But today’s announcements fall far short of the investment needed to both protect viable businesses and create new jobs.”
She added that the Chancellor had made some “strange choices in his priorities”, pointing out that the £3.8bn stamp duty holiday would “push up prices and amounts to more than all the support announced for young people today”.
Acting director of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation Helen Barnard argued that the ‘mini Budget’ did not do enough to tackle poverty and warned that many families are “being pulled deeper into poverty and debt right now”.
She urged the Chancellor to “urgently reconsider increasing the child element of Universal Credit and child tax credits by £20 a week to help families stay afloat during this period of considerable anxiety”.
Director of Generation Rent Alicia Kennedy condemned the lack of help for renters: “It is tragic the Chancellor did not take the chance to help the half a million renters who have got behind on their rent in the last few months.”
Andy Chamberlain, director of policy at the Association of Independent Professionals and the Self-Employed, observed that the self-employed were “noticeable by their absence”.
He urged the Chancellor to introduce a “tapered end” to the self-employment income support scheme and to back those who missed out on support during lockdown.


labourlist--2020-07-08--Labour Business: 10 principles for a positive future with the EU

The right to request an extension of the Brexit transition period , which would have allowed negotiations to continue beyond December 31st , expired on June 30th .
Prime Minister Boris Johnson is on the rack .
Labour ’ s job is to tighten it .
The electorate needs to hear what ’ s at stake at a time when jobs are being lost in their thousands and economic activity has collapsed due to the Covid-19 pandemic .
Labour Business members would have preferred an extension , as our latest survey showed .
But Keir Starmer has been clear since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson says he can get a deal , it ’ s up him to deliver .
We understand why Labour , aiming to win at the next general election , must not be seen to be thwarting Brexit now .
Brexit will happen .
Despite Johnson ’ s boasts of ‘ getting Brexit done ’ , nothing could be further from the truth .
Businesses still have no idea about future trading terms other than the worst-case scenario of ‘ no deal ’ .
Our members expect the government to be challenged about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as possible from the EU within a trade agreement , or even a no-deal Brexit .
Discussion in our international policy group proposes three challenges from Labour to the Tories : • A letter from Starmer to Johnson outlining a set of principles that the government should be adopting in the negotiations , and which Labour in government would apply to any future trade agreements , including with the EU ; • A statement by the Labour leader at an appropriate time pinning ownership of the eventual outcome of the UK/EU negotiations on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the impact of divergence on the main sectors of the economy .
We welcome news that more than 100 UK company chiefs , entrepreneurs and business groups have written , belatedly , to the Prime Minister warning that it would be “ hugely damaging ” to the economy if Britain leaves the EU without a deal at the end of this year – as reported in The Financial Times .
This strengthens the case for Labour to remind the electorate now about Tory promises to secure a deal , what it should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divergence or no deal .
Our future relationship with the EU should be a mutually beneficial arrangement , characterised by a spirit of collaboration and underpinned by progressive values .
The ten principles for a positive future with the EU are : Workers ’ rights and protections are maintained and improved .
There must also be guarantees that these rights and protections meet the highest standards in the world .
British businesses and the livelihoods that depend upon them – from major manufacturing to agriculture and the livelihoods of our rural communities – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undermined by a race to the bottom with cheaper sub-standard imports entering the UK .
Our service industries make up 80 % of our economy , so non-tariff barriers – such as data sharing and access to talent – must not be imposed on this sector as a result of any future deals .
Nor must emerging industries be prevented from flourishing through protectionist practices that prevent access to a digital single market .
Our climate change goals of net zero by 2050 must be adhered to and any future deals should accelerate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our commitment to the United Nation ’ s 17 sustainable development goals .
Our food and consumer standards should be protected to ensure that every British shopper knows they have the best quality product choice in the world , achieved through the highest and most humane standards .
Our public services , like the NHS , are our greatest asset and any trade deals or policies must not interfere with the quality of services provided to our citizens from our staff and facilities , or with access to medicines and medical research .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ talent and institutions in the world , so we must continue to participate in global organisations at the forefront of scientific and technological discovery as well as key security organisations .
Our democracy is at the heart of our freedoms – trade deals must be transparent and open to scrutiny to ensure that human rights and citizens ’ rights are protected and improved where necessary .
Our immigration policy is based on fairness , skills needed , opportunities for our citizens and the recognition that immigration makes a positive contribution to our economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn , we must ensure that UK citizens do not lose opportunities to work and study abroad .
A just and fair society is at the heart of our values , so future arrangements must support greater equality and prosperity across the regions and peoples of the UK , regardless of gender , race , ability , religion or lifestyle .

The right to request an extension of the Brexit transition period, which would have allowed negotiations to continue beyond December 31st, expired on June 30th. Prime Minister Boris Johnson is on the rack. Labour’s job is to tighten it. The electorate needs to hear what’s at stake at a time when jobs are being lost in their thousands and economic activity has collapsed due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Labour Business members would have preferred an extension, as our latest survey showed. But Keir Starmer has been clear since he was elected Labour leader: if Johnson says he can get a deal, it’s up him to deliver. We understand why Labour, aiming to win at the next general election, must not be seen to be thwarting Brexit now. Brexit will happen. Despite Johnson’s boasts of ‘getting Brexit done’, nothing could be further from the truth. Businesses still have no idea about future trading terms other than the worst-case scenario of ‘no deal’.
Our members expect the government to be challenged about its apparent preference for as much divergence as possible from the EU within a trade agreement, or even a no-deal Brexit. Discussion in our international policy group proposes three challenges from Labour to the Tories:
A letter from Starmer to Johnson outlining a set of principles that the government should be adopting in the negotiations, and which Labour in government would apply to any future trade agreements, including with the EU; A statement by the Labour leader at an appropriate time pinning ownership of the eventual outcome of the UK/EU negotiations on the government; and A review of the impact of divergence on the main sectors of the economy.
We welcome news that more than 100 UK company chiefs, entrepreneurs and business groups have written, belatedly, to the Prime Minister warning that it would be “hugely damaging” to the economy if Britain leaves the EU without a deal at the end of this year – as reported in The Financial Times. This strengthens the case for Labour to remind the electorate now about Tory promises to secure a deal, what it should look like, and the consequences of divergence or no deal.
Our future relationship with the EU should be a mutually beneficial arrangement, characterised by a spirit of collaboration and underpinned by progressive values. The ten principles for a positive future with the EU are:
1. Workers’ protection
Workers’ rights and protections are maintained and improved. There must also be guarantees that these rights and protections meet the highest standards in the world.
2. Livelihoods protected
British businesses and the livelihoods that depend upon them – from major manufacturing to agriculture and the livelihoods of our rural communities – must be protected and must not be undermined by a race to the bottom with cheaper sub-standard imports entering the UK.
3. World-leading service sector protected
Our service industries make up 80% of our economy, so non-tariff barriers – such as data sharing and access to talent – must not be imposed on this sector as a result of any future deals. Nor must emerging industries be prevented from flourishing through protectionist practices that prevent access to a digital single market.
4. Care for our planet
Our climate change goals of net zero by 2050 must be adhered to and any future deals should accelerate our ability to achieve them along with our commitment to the United Nation’s 17 sustainable development goals.
5. Preserve consumer standards
Our food and consumer standards should be protected to ensure that every British shopper knows they have the best quality product choice in the world, achieved through the highest and most humane standards.
6. Protection for our public services
Our public services, like the NHS, are our greatest asset and any trade deals or policies must not interfere with the quality of services provided to our citizens from our staff and facilities, or with access to medicines and medical research.
7. Reinforce UK science, technology and security leadership
The UK has some of the best talent and institutions in the world, so we must continue to participate in global organisations at the forefront of scientific and technological discovery as well as key security organisations.
8. Transparency and accountability
Our democracy is at the heart of our freedoms – trade deals must be transparent and open to scrutiny to ensure that human rights and citizens’ rights are protected and improved where necessary.
9. Positive immigration approach
Our immigration policy is based on fairness, skills needed, opportunities for our citizens and the recognition that immigration makes a positive contribution to our economy, public services and culture. In turn, we must ensure that UK citizens do not lose opportunities to work and study abroad.
10. Justice, equality and shared prosperity
A just and fair society is at the heart of our values, so future arrangements must support greater equality and prosperity across the regions and peoples of the UK, regardless of gender, race, ability, religion or lifestyle.


labourlist--2020-07-08--Rishi Sunak’s announcements – and what’s missing from his economic update

Rishi Sunak made a series of announcements in his summer economic update delievered to the House of Commons this afternoon .
We ’ ve pulled together lists of the measures revealed and what was missing from his statement .
The Chancellor kicked off his speech with an outline of what the government has done so far and an explanation of how the plan has progressed as they now “ enter the second phase ” – focused on jobs .
He has certainly taken on board Labour ’ s “ jobs , jobs , jobs ” slogan .
Job retention bonus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ furloughed employee that they bring back to work until at least January .
The workers must be paid at least £520 each month on average .
If all furloughed employees were brought back this way , the scheme would cost £9bn .
Kickstart scheme .
For a six-month period , the government is offering to pay wages and overhead costs when employers give new jobs to 16- to 24-year-olds at risk of long-term unemployment .
They must be paid at least the minimum wage and work minimum 25 hours a week .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of places .
£2bn is being made available to start off .
Apprenticeships .
The government will offer £2,000 to employers for every under-25 apprentice they hire , and £1,500 for every 25+ apprentice from August 1st to January 31st .
( This is additional to the existing £1,000 payment for 16- to 18-year-old apprentices . )
Green homes grant .
From September , home owners and landlords can apply for vouchers to boost energy efficiency , up to £5,000 per household ( and up to £10,000 per low-income household ) .
Worth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The current threshold for stamp duty is £125,000 ( but £500,000 for first-time buyers ) .
It will now be increased to £500,000 for everyone .
This takes effect immediately , and until March 31st .
VAT cut for hospitality and tourism .
From July 15th to January 12th , VAT will be reduced to 5 % on food and non-alcoholic drinks from restaurants , pubs , bars , cafés and similar across the UK , and on supplies of accommodation and admission to attractions .
‘ Eat Out to Help Out ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wednesday each week , everyone will be given a 50 % discount of up to £10 per head on meals at participating food establishments .
Businesses will need to register on a website , which will be up on Monday .
The response provided by Labour ’ s Anneliese Dodds accused the Chancellor of delivering a statement “ with many of the big decisions put off until later ” .
She pointed out that there was little said for manufacturing , small and medium-sized businesses , and a lack of detail on Project @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the green insulation scheme being proposed here , worth £2bn , is just a fraction of what is being done in other countries such as Germany .
There , £36bn for a green recovery was announced , while France has unveiled £13.5bn .
Jonathan Ashworth told LabourList in an interview on Tuesday that funding for the NHS and social care would be a major test for the statement .
But there was no extra funding announced – despite the possibility of a second wave of coronavirus .
We also know that local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have had less money coming in and they have spent huge amounts on supporting people through the pandemic .
But they were not mentioned by the Chancellor this afternoon .
There was nothing in the summer statement for renters , nor for the self-employed .
Renters have been forgotten throughout the crisis , and many self-employed have been excluded from economic support schemes for poor reasons – such as having only become self-employed recently .
The ‘ Eat Out to Help Out ’ scheme was probably carefully named to go viral on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as possible .
But discounts over 17 days severely underestimates the scale of the crisis in the hospitality sector .
Sunak defended his package of measures by saying that he was prioritising speed over targeted policies .
But many of these moves are targeted – just not in the right places .
There could have been an early pay rise for those who ’ ve helped keep the country going at great risk to themselves .
Also missing was a recognition that the pandemic is still here , and people are perfectly aware @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to boost consumption will only be successful if public confidence also increases .
And that can only happen if the government gets a grip on the public health situation .
We needed extra funding for health , social care and local government ; we needed the government to fill the gaps in support seen since the start of the crisis ; we needed serious help for social security , including legacy benefits to be uprated .
None of this was delivered .

Rishi Sunak made a series of announcements in his summer economic update delievered to the House of Commons this afternoon. We’ve pulled together lists of the measures revealed and what was missing from his statement.
The Chancellor kicked off his speech with an outline of what the government has done so far and an explanation of how the plan has progressed as they now “enter the second phase” – focused on jobs. He has certainly taken on board Labour’s “jobs, jobs, jobs” slogan, if not the rest of its advice.
Job retention bonus. Employers will receive £1,000 for every furloughed employee that they bring back to work until at least January. The workers must be paid at least £520 each month on average. If all furloughed employees were brought back this way, the scheme would cost £9bn.
Kickstart scheme. For a six-month period, the government is offering to pay wages and overhead costs when employers give new jobs to 16- to 24-year-olds at risk of long-term unemployment. They must be paid at least the minimum wage and work minimum 25 hours a week. There will be no cap on the number of places. £2bn is being made available to start off.
Apprenticeships. The government will offer £2,000 to employers for every under-25 apprentice they hire, and £1,500 for every 25+ apprentice from August 1st to January 31st. (This is additional to the existing £1,000 payment for 16- to 18-year-old apprentices.)
Green homes grant. From September, home owners and landlords can apply for vouchers to boost energy efficiency, up to £5,000 per household (and up to £10,000 per low-income household). Worth £2bn.
Temporary stamp duty cut. The current threshold for stamp duty is £125,000 (but £500,000 for first-time buyers). It will now be increased to £500,000 for everyone. This takes effect immediately, and until March 31st.
VAT cut for hospitality and tourism. From July 15th to January 12th, VAT will be reduced to 5% on food and non-alcoholic drinks from restaurants, pubs, bars, cafés and similar across the UK, and on supplies of accommodation and admission to attractions.
‘Eat Out to Help Out’. Throughout August, between Monday and Wednesday each week, everyone will be given a 50% discount of up to £10 per head on meals at participating food establishments. Businesses will need to register on a website, which will be up on Monday.
The response provided by Labour’s Anneliese Dodds accused the Chancellor of delivering a statement “with many of the big decisions put off until later”. She pointed out that there was little said for manufacturing, small and medium-sized businesses, and a lack of detail on Project Birch.
The Shadow Chancellor pointed out that the green insulation scheme being proposed here, worth £2bn, is just a fraction of what is being done in other countries such as Germany. There, £36bn for a green recovery was announced, while France has unveiled £13.5bn.
Jonathan Ashworth told LabourList in an interview on Tuesday that funding for the NHS and social care would be a major test for the statement. But there was no extra funding announced – despite the possibility of a second wave of coronavirus.
We also know that local authorities are struggling during this crisis as they have had less money coming in and they have spent huge amounts on supporting people through the pandemic. But they were not mentioned by the Chancellor this afternoon.
There was nothing in the summer statement for renters, nor for the self-employed. Renters have been forgotten throughout the crisis, and many self-employed have been excluded from economic support schemes for poor reasons – such as having only become self-employed recently.
The ‘Eat Out to Help Out’ scheme was probably carefully named to go viral on social media and hit as many headlines as possible. But discounts over 17 days severely underestimates the scale of the crisis in the hospitality sector.
Sunak defended his package of measures by saying that he was prioritising speed over targeted policies. But many of these moves are targeted – just not in the right places. There could have been an early pay rise for those who’ve helped keep the country going at great risk to themselves.
Also missing was a recognition that the pandemic is still here, and people are perfectly aware of that. This means any measures to boost consumption will only be successful if public confidence also increases. And that can only happen if the government gets a grip on the public health situation.
We needed extra funding for health, social care and local government; we needed the government to fill the gaps in support seen since the start of the crisis; we needed serious help for social security, including legacy benefits to be uprated. None of this was delivered.


labourlist--2020-07-08--“Today, Britain should have had a back-to-work Budget” – Dodds’ full speech

Below is the full text of the speech delivered by Anneliese Dodds in response to the Chancellor ’ s summer economic update in parliament today .
Our country has been through a great deal over these past few months .
Hundreds of thousands have wrestled with this terrible disease .
For many months , people have had to go without being able to embrace their loved ones – even to say goodbye .
Tens of thousands have died .
Our NHS , social care and other workers have made extraordinary sacrifices .
We owe them so much .
The government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We acknowledge that .
But today , Mr Speaker , should have been the day , when our government chose to build a bridge – between what has been done so far and what needs to be done to get our economy moving again .
It should have been the day when the millions of British people worried about their jobs and their future prospects had a load taken off their shoulders .
It should have been the day when we got the UK economy firing again .
Today , Britain should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead , we got this summer statement with many of the big decisions put off until later as the benches opposite know full well .
Labour is a constructive opposition during this time of crisis .
We won ’ t criticise for criticism ’ s sake .
But when the government falls short , we will speak up .
And the blunt truth is we have one of the highest death rates in the world , and among the deepest economic damage in the industrialised world from coronavirus .
So the very first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent additional economic damage due to the slow public health response of his government .
As we have seen throughout this crisis , the failure to match soaring rhetoric with meaningful action has consequences for people across the country .
Despite all its talk , the government has failed to create a fully functioning ‘ test , track and isolate ’ system .
This has damaged public confidence and in turn harmed consumer demand .
Despite all its talk , the government has failed to produce a clear system for local lockdowns .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ led as we all know to the imposition of an additional , wide scale lockdown in Leicester .
The government ’ s contracts with outsourcing firms amount to almost £3bn – but we still haven ’ t got test , track and isolate working properly in the UK , like it is in many other countries .
And government still hasn ’ t got a grip on the low value and limited scope of sick pay , risking peoples ’ ability to self-isolate .
Fear is corrosive .
Fear is hurting our economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right .
Now of course we welcome the government ’ s announcements , today announcing VAT cuts on hospitality and tourism and on vouchers to be used in restaurants .
Local businesses desperately need that support .
And so many lower and middle income people in particular really need help right now .
That ’ s why we ’ ve repeatedly called for social security for better support their needs and prevent people risking losing their homes .
If delivered properly these measures should help .
But the Chancellor himself said , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the best the government can do to boost demand is to give consumers and workers the confidence and psychological security that they can go out to work , to shop and to socialise in safety .
So please Chancellor – work with your colleagues so our public health response catches up with that operating in other countries .
And Mr Speaker , the Prime Minister said what have I been doing about that – my party has been repeatedly suggesting solutions to the public health problems facing our country and we need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this crisis becomes more severe .
Now the government must act not just to deal with unemployment as a symptom – but with its cause .
Research reported this week in the Telegraph indicates that British workers have already been the biggest casualty in the global jobs cut .
It showed that while jobs markets in many other countries have already fully recovered , in Britain it could take comparatively much , much longer for vacancy levels to return to normal .
The levels of unemployment this country has seen in the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ruined lives .
We ’ re seeing the same impacts again- the same devastated high streets and communities robbed of their pride and purpose .
Now when it comes to the reemployment bonus announced by the Chancellor .
Of course this is necessary not least because his government refused to put conditions on the use of those funds related to employment .
But I would ask him , first of all , how can he ensure that the money will not just go to employers who were already planning to bring people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what will he do – what will he do – for those firms that lack the cash flow to operate even with that bonus .
And related to this , the Chancellor still needs to abandon his ‘ one-size-fits-all ’ approach to withdrawing the job retention and self-employed schemes .
No one is saying these schemes should stay indefinitely .
No one is saying that on this side of the house .
But we have said that the money spent on the job retention scheme must not serve merely to postpone unemployment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ its name – supporting employment in industries which are viable in the long term .
And we need a strategy for the scheme to become more flexible , so it can support those businesses forced to close again because of additional localised lockdowns .
There is still time to avoid additional floods of redundancy notices .
It ’ s the government ’ s duty to help Britain through this and stop unemployment at mass levels again .
We need action to ensure the support needed for key sectors of our economy , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we of course welcome the long-overdue arts and culture package , we still have not heard the government ’ s plans for other sectors .
Many of us expected us to hear them today but we haven ’ t .
The Operation Birch process has been slow , tortuous and opaque .
Large parts of industrial Britain need help to get through this – to keep their employees in jobs and keep their suppliers in jobs .
Meanwhile , it appears there will be no solutions for SMEs who can not take on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This risks many SMEs going to the wall .
Until now , the Chancellor has described a targeted , sectoral approach as the Treasury ‘ picking winners ’ .
But the necessary public health measures have created losers .
As the Chancellor just said right now , the government required many businesses to shut down , to prevent the spread of this disease .
Supporting businesses that are viable in the long run , but which are currently starved of cashflow , is not a matter of ‘ picking winners ’ .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s economic capacity for the future .
Failure to do so – to make the job retention and self-employed schemes more targeted and focused , and to support viable businesses – is driving up unemployment in this country .
The claimant count is on course to top three million in June – the highest number since the previous record in 1986 .
This is the Chancellor ’ s record , and one which can not , and must not , be worsened .
Now where unemployment arises as a symptom of economic damage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Now Labour repeatedly called for government to match the ambitions of Labour ’ s Future Jobs Fund and Welsh Labour ’ s ‘ jobs growth Wales ’ programme – and finally , government has come forward with a scheme apparently modelled on them – the ‘ kickstart ’ scheme .
The Conservatives cancelled the Future Jobs Fund .
It ’ s taken almost ten years for them to catch up .
And as with their belated adoption for our approach of ‘ jobs , jobs , jobs ’ , this gives a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speed ’ .
But at least we now finally have a recognition of the need for support for young unemployed people .
And government must also recognise the specific challenges faced by older jobseekers – many of whom are becoming unemployed for the first time – and those based in especially hard-hit places .
Reimposing sanctions now is punitive and counterproductive when jobseekers need support .
Now we must be ambitious for the future of our country ’ s economy .
Our ambition should not just be to build our way out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greener and cleaner way .
For this we need more than the reheated announcements by the Prime Minister last week .
Of course the investment announced was welcome – not least because much of it was already committed to by the government .
And core elements are missing .
£50m to support retrofitting in social homes , for example , is just a seventh of what the Conservatives intimated they would be spending every year .
And the muddled confusions over stamp duty over the last 24 hours reflect a broader lack of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Overall , the UK ’ s investment package barely touches the sides of other countries ’ commitments – even with what was announced today , it only equates to the value of Germany ’ s investment in hydrogen , alone .
The committee on climate change indicated how far behind the UK is in the race to decarbonise .
Failure to heed its recommendations is not only damaging to our planet .
It also cuts us out of leading the development of the key technologies of the future .
And the Conservatives are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ensure that it contributes to the goal of net zero , that it supports local jobs , uses local firms , leads to sustainable skilled employment in local areas and prevents the use of tax havens and other asset-stripping .
Finally , if the Chancellor really wants to ‘ build back better ’ , he must prevent a rerun of the past .
From 2010 onwards we have seen how families ’ resilience has been eroded .
We entered this crisis with a quarter of families lacking even £100 in savings .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ nine children are growing up in poverty ; and our economy is the most regionally unequal in Europe .
Our local authorities continue to be cut to the bone , with many standing on the brink of bankruptcy .
And rather than the promise that our NHS and social care services would get whatever they needed this winter , to weather a potential second wave- those words were conspicuously absent from the Chancellor ’ s speech just now .
Now , politicians in this House have gone out on our doorsteps to clap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have struggled to keep a roof over their heads .
We must have a new settlement for the future – an end to poverty pay for our social care workers and those who clean our hospitals and deliver our groceries .
A recognition of the value of the work , of those who have been taken for granted for far too long .
Now there were some initial press reports that the government was due to announce generalised tax increases or cuts to services , this Autumn – contradicted by the Prime Minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ briefed out by the Treasury .
It ’ s happened quite a few times .
Well I say to the government , if it does increase taxes during the recovery , and cuts back on the public services we all rely on , this will damage demand and inhibit our recovery .
Labour is not calling for tax rises – we are calling for growth .
Now the Tory manifesto committed to no rises in income tax , National Insurance or VAT and therefore it is for them to set out how any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s the Chancellor ’ s job to make sure the economy bounces back from this crisis so there ’ s money in the coffers to protect the public finances .
Now , last week the Chancellor ’ s colleague , the Prime Minister , tried to claim the mantle of FDR .
Maybe now we know why he went for Roosevelt .
Because this week , the Prime Minister blamed carers for the failings in the system that his government has underfunded for the past decade .
Now we know why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing his government would want would be the sign on Harry Truman ’ s desk , the successor to Roosevelt , that said “ the buck stops here ” .
If this government had a sign it would probably say , “ the buck stops anywhere but here.
” But it can ’ t escape its responsibilities .
To govern is to choose .
To choose , to finally sort out test , track and isolate ; to prevent unnecessary additional unemployment ; and to build the green jobs of the future .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs its government to help Britain through .

Below is the full text of the speech delivered by Anneliese Dodds in response to the Chancellor’s summer economic update in parliament today.
Our country has been through a great deal over these past few months. Hundreds of thousands have wrestled with this terrible disease. For many months, people have had to go without being able to embrace their loved ones – even to say goodbye. Tens of thousands have died. Our NHS, social care and other workers have made extraordinary sacrifices. We owe them so much.
The government has had to take big decisions too. We acknowledge that. But today, Mr Speaker, should have been the day, when our government chose to build a bridge – between what has been done so far and what needs to be done to get our economy moving again.
It should have been the day when the millions of British people worried about their jobs and their future prospects had a load taken off their shoulders. It should have been the day when we got the UK economy firing again. Today, Britain should have had a back-to-work Budget; but instead, we got this summer statement with many of the big decisions put off until later as the benches opposite know full well.
Labour is a constructive opposition during this time of crisis. We won’t criticise for criticism’s sake. But when the government falls short, we will speak up. And the blunt truth is we have one of the highest death rates in the world, and among the deepest economic damage in the industrialised world from coronavirus. So the very first thing the Chancellor must do, is prevent additional economic damage due to the slow public health response of his government.
As we have seen throughout this crisis, the failure to match soaring rhetoric with meaningful action has consequences for people across the country. Despite all its talk, the government has failed to create a fully functioning ‘test, track and isolate’ system. This has damaged public confidence and in turn harmed consumer demand.
Despite all its talk, the government has failed to produce a clear system for local lockdowns. The lack of timely information sharing has led as we all know to the imposition of an additional, wide scale lockdown in Leicester. The government’s contracts with outsourcing firms amount to almost £3bn – but we still haven’t got test, track and isolate working properly in the UK, like it is in many other countries. And government still hasn’t got a grip on the low value and limited scope of sick pay, risking peoples’ ability to self-isolate.
Fear is corrosive. Fear is hurting our economy. Government has got to get this right. Now of course we welcome the government’s announcements, today announcing VAT cuts on hospitality and tourism and on vouchers to be used in restaurants. Local businesses desperately need that support. And so many lower and middle income people in particular really need help right now. That’s why we’ve repeatedly called for social security for better support their needs and prevent people risking losing their homes.
If delivered properly these measures should help. But the Chancellor himself said, when interviewed on the Andrew Marr show, that the best the government can do to boost demand is to give consumers and workers the confidence and psychological security that they can go out to work, to shop and to socialise in safety. So please Chancellor – work with your colleagues so our public health response catches up with that operating in other countries.
And Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister said what have I been doing about that – my party has been repeatedly suggesting solutions to the public health problems facing our country and we need to adopt them in the UK before this crisis becomes more severe. Now the government must act not just to deal with unemployment as a symptom – but with its cause.
Research reported this week in the Telegraph indicates that British workers have already been the biggest casualty in the global jobs cut. It showed that while jobs markets in many other countries have already fully recovered, in Britain it could take comparatively much, much longer for vacancy levels to return to normal. The levels of unemployment this country has seen in the past were not just an economic waste, they ruined lives. We’re seeing the same impacts again- the same devastated high streets and communities robbed of their pride and purpose.
Now when it comes to the reemployment bonus announced by the Chancellor. Of course this is necessary not least because his government refused to put conditions on the use of those funds related to employment. But I would ask him, first of all, how can he ensure that the money will not just go to employers who were already planning to bring people back to work. And secondly, what will he do – what will he do – for those firms that lack the cash flow to operate even with that bonus.
And related to this, the Chancellor still needs to abandon his ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to withdrawing the job retention and self-employed schemes. No one is saying these schemes should stay indefinitely. No one is saying that on this side of the house. But we have said that the money spent on the job retention scheme must not serve merely to postpone unemployment.
The scheme must now live up to its name – supporting employment in industries which are viable in the long term. And we need a strategy for the scheme to become more flexible, so it can support those businesses forced to close again because of additional localised lockdowns. There is still time to avoid additional floods of redundancy notices. It’s the government’s duty to help Britain through this and stop unemployment at mass levels again.
We need action to ensure the support needed for key sectors of our economy, for our SMEs and our manufacturers. While we of course welcome the long-overdue arts and culture package, we still have not heard the government’s plans for other sectors. Many of us expected us to hear them today but we haven’t.
The Operation Birch process has been slow, tortuous and opaque. Large parts of industrial Britain need help to get through this – to keep their employees in jobs and keep their suppliers in jobs. Meanwhile, it appears there will be no solutions for SMEs who cannot take on additional debt, until the autumn. This risks many SMEs going to the wall.
Until now, the Chancellor has described a targeted, sectoral approach as the Treasury ‘picking winners’. But the necessary public health measures have created losers. As the Chancellor just said right now, the government required many businesses to shut down, to prevent the spread of this disease. Supporting businesses that are viable in the long run, but which are currently starved of cashflow, is not a matter of ‘picking winners’. It’s about protecting our country’s economic capacity for the future.
Failure to do so – to make the job retention and self-employed schemes more targeted and focused, and to support viable businesses – is driving up unemployment in this country. The claimant count is on course to top three million in June – the highest number since the previous record in 1986. This is the Chancellor’s record, and one which cannot, and must not, be worsened.
Now where unemployment arises as a symptom of economic damage – more must be done to help. Now Labour repeatedly called for government to match the ambitions of Labour’s Future Jobs Fund and Welsh Labour’s ‘jobs growth Wales’ programme – and finally, government has come forward with a scheme apparently modelled on them – the ‘kickstart’ scheme.
The Conservatives cancelled the Future Jobs Fund. It’s taken almost ten years for them to catch up. And as with their belated adoption for our approach of ‘jobs, jobs, jobs’, this gives a new meaning to the phrase ‘project speed’. But at least we now finally have a recognition of the need for support for young unemployed people.
And government must also recognise the specific challenges faced by older jobseekers – many of whom are becoming unemployed for the first time – and those based in especially hard-hit places. Reimposing sanctions now is punitive and counterproductive when jobseekers need support.
Now we must be ambitious for the future of our country’s economy. Our ambition should not just be to build our way out of this but to do so in a greener and cleaner way. For this we need more than the reheated announcements by the Prime Minister last week. Of course the investment announced was welcome – not least because much of it was already committed to by the government.
And core elements are missing. £50m to support retrofitting in social homes, for example, is just a seventh of what the Conservatives intimated they would be spending every year. And the muddled confusions over stamp duty over the last 24 hours reflect a broader lack of strategy when it comes to housebuilding. Overall, the UK’s investment package barely touches the sides of other countries’ commitments – even with what was announced today, it only equates to the value of Germany’s investment in hydrogen, alone.
The committee on climate change indicated how far behind the UK is in the race to decarbonise. Failure to heed its recommendations is not only damaging to our planet. It also cuts us out of leading the development of the key technologies of the future.
And the Conservatives are still refusing to impose conditions on investment- to ensure that it contributes to the goal of net zero, that it supports local jobs, uses local firms, leads to sustainable skilled employment in local areas and prevents the use of tax havens and other asset-stripping.
Finally, if the Chancellor really wants to ‘build back better’, he must prevent a rerun of the past. From 2010 onwards we have seen how families’ resilience has been eroded. We entered this crisis with a quarter of families lacking even £100 in savings. In a typical classroom of 30, nine children are growing up in poverty; and our economy is the most regionally unequal in Europe.
Our local authorities continue to be cut to the bone, with many standing on the brink of bankruptcy. And rather than the promise that our NHS and social care services would get whatever they needed this winter, to weather a potential second wave- those words were conspicuously absent from the Chancellor’s speech just now.
Now, politicians in this House have gone out on our doorsteps to clap key workers, while the lowest paid have struggled to keep a roof over their heads. We must have a new settlement for the future – an end to poverty pay for our social care workers and those who clean our hospitals and deliver our groceries. A recognition of the value of the work, of those who have been taken for granted for far too long.
Now there were some initial press reports that the government was due to announce generalised tax increases or cuts to services, this Autumn – contradicted by the Prime Minister, who rejected whatever had apparently been briefed out by the Treasury. It’s happened quite a few times.
Well I say to the government, if it does increase taxes during the recovery, and cuts back on the public services we all rely on, this will damage demand and inhibit our recovery. Labour is not calling for tax rises – we are calling for growth.
Now the Tory manifesto committed to no rises in income tax, National Insurance or VAT and therefore it is for them to set out how any additional spending will be paid for. It’s the Chancellor’s job to make sure the economy bounces back from this crisis so there’s money in the coffers to protect the public finances.
Now, last week the Chancellor’s colleague, the Prime Minister, tried to claim the mantle of FDR. Maybe now we know why he went for Roosevelt. Because this week, the Prime Minister blamed carers for the failings in the system that his government has underfunded for the past decade.
Now we know why he went for Roosevelt because the last thing his government would want would be the sign on Harry Truman’s desk, the successor to Roosevelt, that said “the buck stops here”. If this government had a sign it would probably say, “the buck stops anywhere but here.”
But it can’t escape its responsibilities. To govern is to choose. To choose, to finally sort out test, track and isolate; to prevent unnecessary additional unemployment; and to build the green jobs of the future. This is the moment when our country needs its government to help Britain through.


labourlist--2020-07-09--“We can’t afford dead weight”: Labour attacks new job retention bonus scheme

Labour has attacked the Chancellor ’ s job retention bonus scheme today by making the argument that the programme to get furloughed staff back to work is not targeted enough and “ we can ’ t afford dead weight ” .
In his media round this morning , Rishi Sunak admitted that there would be “ dead weight ” involved in the initiative , which will see employers receive £1,000 bonuses for every staffer retained and could cost an estimated £9.4bn .
Labour leader Keir Starmer has picked up on the comment and hit back , saying : “ Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jobs , so we say it should have been targeted in the areas that most need it , not across the piece .
“ The Chancellor has admitted there is a dead weight in his package – we can ’ t afford dead weight , we need the money to go where it is absolutely needed most and that ’ s those jobs that won ’ t be retained if the government doesn ’ t support them.
” Bridget Phillipson , Labour ’ s Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury , this morning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months to prepare for the end of lockdown and design targeted support to protect jobs – but instead we have an on-the-hoof fix that the Chancellor himself admits risks wasting billions of pounds of taxpayer money .
“ Hard-pressed sectors where thousands of jobs are at risk , like aviation , oil and gas , and tourism , will be missing out on the help they need while companies who are returning to normal get public money they don ’ t .
“ The Chancellor should be targeting support on those who need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to those who don ’ t .
It ’ s not brave to admit the government plans to waste billions at a time when others are crying out for support.
” Commenting on the job retention bonus on Wednesday , Anneliese Dodds said Labour would be supporting the plan despite much of the money going to employers that have already decided to bring back furloughed workers .
The Shadow Chancellor did , however , call for “ a more targeted approach ” and specified that Sunak should “ set out conditions ” for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not become a “ dead weight cost ” .
It has been revealed since the announcement of the job retention bonus scheme that the HM Revenue and Customs chief executive Jim Harra raised concerns with the Chancellor about its value for money .
In a letter sent to Sunak on the eve of Wednesday ’ s summer update , Harra said there was a “ sound policy rationale ” for the scheme but “ the advice that we have both received highlights uncertainty around the value for money of this proposal ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ministerial direction , which allows government ministers to tell their department to go ahead despite there being objections from the most senior civil servant in that department .

Labour has attacked the Chancellor’s job retention bonus scheme today by making the argument that the programme to get furloughed staff back to work is not targeted enough and “we can’t afford dead weight”.
In his media round this morning, Rishi Sunak admitted that there would be “dead weight” involved in the initiative, which will see employers receive £1,000 bonuses for every staffer retained and could cost an estimated £9.4bn.
Labour leader Keir Starmer has picked up on the comment and hit back, saying: “Some are really at risk of losing their jobs, so we say it should have been targeted in the areas that most need it, not across the piece.
“The Chancellor has admitted there is a dead weight in his package – we can’t afford dead weight, we need the money to go where it is absolutely needed most and that’s those jobs that won’t be retained if the government doesn’t support them.”
Labour leader Sir @Keir_Starmer describes the Jobs Retention Bonus as ‘dead weight’ and says the government cannot afford it https://t.co/dgGe7x6ss4 pic.twitter.com/hmAcivSpeR — ITV News Politics (@ITVNewsPolitics) July 9, 2020
Bridget Phillipson, Labour’s Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, this morning said: “The government have had months to prepare for the end of lockdown and design targeted support to protect jobs – but instead we have an on-the-hoof fix that the Chancellor himself admits risks wasting billions of pounds of taxpayer money.
“Hard-pressed sectors where thousands of jobs are at risk, like aviation, oil and gas, and tourism, will be missing out on the help they need while companies who are returning to normal get public money they don’t.
“The Chancellor should be targeting support on those who need it, not handing it out aimlessly to those who don’t. It’s not brave to admit the government plans to waste billions at a time when others are crying out for support.”
Commenting on the job retention bonus on Wednesday, Anneliese Dodds said Labour would be supporting the plan despite much of the money going to employers that have already decided to bring back furloughed workers.
The Shadow Chancellor did, however, call for “a more targeted approach” and specified that Sunak should “set out conditions” for the scheme to ensure that it does not become a “dead weight cost”.
“I don’t think that we would be wanting to oppose major elements of it.” Shadow chancellor, @AnnelieseDodds says that Labour are unlikely to oppose the govt’s economic recovery measures, but says they need to examine the detail. Get more here: https://t.co/j2ptbeTSfN pic.twitter.com/BRsdMIgW2Z — SkyNews (@SkyNews) July 8, 2020
It has been revealed since the announcement of the job retention bonus scheme that the HM Revenue and Customs chief executive Jim Harra raised concerns with the Chancellor about its value for money.
In a letter sent to Sunak on the eve of Wednesday’s summer update, Harra said there was a “sound policy rationale” for the scheme but “the advice that we have both received highlights uncertainty around the value for money of this proposal”.
The scheme therefore went ahead with a ministerial direction, which allows government ministers to tell their department to go ahead despite there being objections from the most senior civil servant in that department.


labourlist--2020-07-09--“Landslide victory” possible if Labour listens to unions, says Rayner

Angela Rayner has declared that a “ landslide victory ” , like the one achieved by the party in 1997 , is possible if Labour listens to the trade union movement .
The deputy Labour leader made the comments during an online Zoom event this morning , in which she was joined by CWU general secretary Dave Ward and TUC head Frances O ’ Grady .
Rayner used the meeting to tell attendees that we must “ rebuild ” the trade union movement , saying : “ A plant without roots dies pretty quickly , and we need to embed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ importance of Labour working with the trade unions , adding : “ If you look at pre-1997 , it was people like Rodney Bickerstaffe who really pushed Tony Blair and others to make the right move on policies like the minimum wage.
” The deputy said that the 1997 “ victory came because our movement came together and was listening to what people needed on the frontline ” , and argued that another “ landslide victory ” is possible if the party listens to trade unions .
Rayner added : “ If it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and telling the Labour Party what it needed for its working-class and its members , then we wouldn ’ t have had that victory in 1997.
” The event today marked the beginning of Organise 2020 , the TUC ’ s three-day festival hosting online panel discussions , workshops , and debates with speakers from across the movement .
It also saw the launch of the Organise 2020 pledge signed by trade union leaders to rebuild and grow the movement , make sure it is representative of all working people and ensure it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• “ Increase the number of workers aged under 30 in our movement ; • “ Enthuse thousands of activists from all backgrounds to train as new workplace reps ; • “ Work co-operatively between unions to bring trade unionism into new and growing sectors ; • “ Modernise how unions operate , organise and communicate for a digital-first era ; and • “ Drive up union membership levels where we already have recognition agreements.
” Trade union membership has risen for the third year in a row and increased by 200,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6.4 million union members across the UK .
Events run during the Organise 2020 festival between July 9th and 11th are focused on how the movement can become bigger and more diverse , sharing best practice and successful stories .

Angela Rayner has declared that a “landslide victory”, like the one achieved by the party in 1997, is possible if Labour listens to the trade union movement.
Labour’s deputy leader made the comments during an online TUC event this morning. She was joined by CWU general secretary Dave Ward and TUC head Frances O’Grady.
Rayner used the meeting to tell attendees that we must “rebuild” the trade union movement, saying: “A plant without roots dies pretty quickly, and we need to embed out roots again.”
She emphasised the importance of Labour working with the trade unions, adding: “If you look at pre-1997, it was people like Rodney Bickerstaffe who really pushed Tony Blair and others to make the right move on policies like the minimum wage.”
The deputy said that the 1997 “victory came because our movement came together and was listening to what people needed on the frontline”, and argued that another “landslide victory” is possible if the party listens to trade unions.
Rayner added: “If it wasn’t for the unions demanding and telling the Labour Party what it needed for its working-class and its members, then we wouldn’t have had that victory in 1997.”
The event today marked the beginning of Organise 2020, the TUC’s three-day festival hosting online panel discussions, workshops, and debates with speakers from across the movement.
It also saw the launch of the Organise 2020 pledge signed by trade union leaders to rebuild and grow the movement, make sure it is representative of all working people and ensure it can “win for working people”.
It commits to:
“Increase the number of workers aged under 30 in our movement;
“Enthuse thousands of activists from all backgrounds to train as new workplace reps;
“Work co-operatively between unions to bring trade unionism into new and growing sectors;
“Work jointly to eliminate insecure employment;
“Modernise how unions operate, organise and communicate for a digital-first era; and
“Drive up union membership levels where we already have recognition agreements.”
Trade union membership has risen for the third year in a row and increased by 200,000 members since 2017. There are now 6.4 million union members across the UK.
Events run during the Organise 2020 festival between July 9th and 11th are focused on how the movement can become bigger and more diverse, sharing best practice and successful stories.


labourlist--2020-07-09--My priorities as the new chair of Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East

The looming annexation of the West Bank means there is much for me to do as the new chair of Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East ( LFPME ) .
When we talk about Palestine in the Labour Party , we ’ re talking about many things : the plight of refugees displaced for decades , the ongoing illegal blockade of Gaza and of course , the scourge of illegal settlements peppered across the West Bank – to name just a few .
Since my visit to the Occupied Palestinian Territories ( OPTs ) after my election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and again about the conditions facing Palestinians and the huge violations of international law and human rights that I witnessed .
And now that situation feels even more dire , with the looming illegal annexation plans of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu .
Perhaps this is the most relevant moment to take my campaigning further , and I ’ m looking forward to doing so as I take on the mantle as chair of LFPME .
LFPME has become an integral force for campaigning for Palestinian rights and dignity within the Labour Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has enjoyed the support of a majority of the Labour MPs for much of that time .
As an organisation , we bring forward the voices of Palestinians to raise their concerns amongst Labour colleagues , to work with the party to hold the government to account and to call for respect of international law and human rights .
Working across the Labour Party with MPs , peers and members up and down the country the organisation has raised the profile of many issues – from campaigning to secure recognition of a Palestinian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tabling debates on key issues in Palestine such as house demolitions and the growing threat of illegal settlements .
We ’ ve worked on many challenging issues over the years , from the attacks on Gaza to the military detention of children , but now there is an even more pressing need to oppose the planned illegal annexation of settlement areas in the OPTs .
In the last few weeks , many MPs have been calling on Prime Minister Boris Johnson to go further than just raising concerns with the Israeli administration about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago more than 149 UK politicians signed a letter that backed a call for sanctions if the annexation plans go ahead .
In the House of Commons , on June 16th , Johnson opposed the annexations plans and said that it would be a breach of international law – but now , more than ever , is an important time for strong leadership to oppose these plans .
With the strain of the impact of Covid-19 being felt across the OPTs and the Gaza Strip , it ’ s a stark reminder of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to do more and as LFPME we want to go further to ensure that Labour has an even more progressive policy on Palestine .
Lisa Nandy ’ s tenure as chair helped to grow and strengthen LFPME , and I ’ m looking forward to taking this further and working closely with Lisa in her new role as Shadow Foreign Secretary .
Indeed , her recent announcement that the Labour Party is calling on the UK government to support “ a ban on goods entering Britain from the illegal settlements in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LFPME has been making .
We face unprecedented challenges now that we need to respond to in new and innovative ways .
I ’ m keen to get this work going and I ’ m looking forward to taking LFPME further and helping the organisation achieve even more .
We have much work to do , and now is the time to get going .

The looming annexation of the West Bank means there is much for me to do as the new chair of Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East (LFPME). When we talk about Palestine in the Labour Party, we’re talking about many things: the plight of refugees displaced for decades, the ongoing illegal blockade of Gaza and of course, the scourge of illegal settlements peppered across the West Bank – to name just a few.
Since my visit to the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs) after my election, I’ve raised my concerns time and again about the conditions facing Palestinians and the huge violations of international law and human rights that I witnessed. And now that situation feels even more dire, with the looming illegal annexation plans of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Perhaps this is the most relevant moment to take my campaigning further, and I’m looking forward to doing so as I take on the mantle as chair of LFPME.
LFPME has become an integral force for campaigning for Palestinian rights and dignity within the Labour Party for more than ten years, and has enjoyed the support of a majority of the Labour MPs for much of that time. As an organisation, we bring forward the voices of Palestinians to raise their concerns amongst Labour colleagues, to work with the party to hold the government to account and to call for respect of international law and human rights.
Working across the Labour Party with MPs, peers and members up and down the country the organisation has raised the profile of many issues – from campaigning to secure recognition of a Palestinian state, now party policy, to tabling debates on key issues in Palestine such as house demolitions and the growing threat of illegal settlements. We’ve worked on many challenging issues over the years, from the attacks on Gaza to the military detention of children, but now there is an even more pressing need to oppose the planned illegal annexation of settlement areas in the OPTs.
In the last few weeks, many MPs have been calling on Prime Minister Boris Johnson to go further than just raising concerns with the Israeli administration about their plans, and a few weeks ago more than 149 UK politicians signed a letter that backed a call for sanctions if the annexation plans go ahead. In the House of Commons, on June 16th, Johnson opposed the annexations plans and said that it would be a breach of international law – but now, more than ever, is an important time for strong leadership to oppose these plans.
With the strain of the impact of Covid-19 being felt across the OPTs and the Gaza Strip, it’s a stark reminder of how vulnerable these communities are. We need to do more and as LFPME we want to go further to ensure that Labour has an even more progressive policy on Palestine.
Lisa Nandy’s tenure as chair helped to grow and strengthen LFPME, and I’m looking forward to taking this further and working closely with Lisa in her new role as Shadow Foreign Secretary. Indeed, her recent announcement that the Labour Party is calling on the UK government to support “a ban on goods entering Britain from the illegal settlements in the West Bank” echoes the calls that LFPME has been making.
We face unprecedented challenges now that we need to respond to in new and innovative ways. I’m keen to get this work going and I’m looking forward to taking LFPME further and helping the organisation achieve even more. We have much work to do, and now is the time to get going.


labourlist--2020-07-09--Promised a New Deal. Got a meal deal.

Promised a New Deal. Got a meal deal.

Rishi Sunak is winning plaudits again for his big spending during the coronavirus crisis .
This time , the Chancellor used his summer update to announce £30bn of measures , including : a £1,000 job retention bonus for employers who bring furloughed staff back to work ; a kickstart scheme paying the wages of those aged 16-24 who are given new jobs ; a green homes grant worth £2bn ; a temporary stamp duty cut ; a VAT cut for hospitality and tourism ; and the assiduously named ‘ Eat Out to Help Out ’ scheme giving everyone £10 off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the details of these policies and our round-up of what ’ s missing from the package here .
The criticism from Labour coming through most strongly is that the approach is not targeted enough and the furlough scheme should continue for the hardest-hit sectors .
The Chancellor ’ s simple response : I am prioritising speed .
The truth is that these announcements , particularly the stamp duty cut and the meals discount , benefit those who are already comfortable financially – and ignores the very real issue of poverty in this country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay , legacy benefit rates and gaps in support schemes were not addressed .
Alleviating poverty did not appear to be an objective , despite the huge potential for increasing consumption as well as delivering justice .
The government may be impressing commentators with big figures , but they don ’ t match up to the scale of the crisis .
The job retention bonus is too small .
Those hit hardest aren ’ t getting the cash they need to deal with basics , let alone boost retail .
The meal deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a real difference .
While Sunak successfully develops his personal brand , the government is forgetting the reality on the ground : local government is in dire straits ; our NHS and social care system could soon be hit with a second wave .
These announcements did not build much-needed resilience in our public services , nor is the government building public confidence in the middle of a pandemic .
£10 off a Pizza Express outing won ’ t cut it when people are worried about their health .
If you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NEC ) elections , there was big news on this front last night .
After eight hours of debate , left groups including Momentum and the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy ( CLPD ) agreed a single slate of local party representative candidates .
Jon Lansman is not on it .
My quick write-up of the news can be found here .
I ’ m told that the general consensus during the weeks preceding the Momentum elections was that any left incumbents restanding would get back on , but that changed when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not put forward the co-founder as one of their picks .
The two sitting reps who have been included are NEC officers , not just members , which makes their re-election more important for the left .
There was anger on Labour Twitter last night in response to the new line-up .
Four out of six are BAME , and one is a Black woman .
But the 1987 Caucus Movement has recently highlighted a shocking fact : there has never been a Black man elected to Labour ’ s NEC .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ but this Centre-Left Grassroots Alliance slate can not .
( I ’ m told his name was raised but no agreement reached there . )
The other main concern is over the views of these candidates , namely Ann Henderson and Laura Pidcock , on trans rights .
One source says the release of a political statement addressing that criticism can be expected .
It is important to note that the CLGA is usually a consensus organisation , but I ’ m told the deadlock had to be broken with an indicative vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four-month internal election… Sign up to LabourList ’ s morning email for everything Labour , every weekday morning .

Rishi Sunak is winning plaudits again for his big spending during the coronavirus crisis. This time, the Chancellor used his summer update to announce £30bn of measures, including: a £1,000 job retention bonus for employers who bring furloughed staff back to work; a kickstart scheme paying the wages of those aged 16-24 who are given new jobs; a green homes grant worth £2bn; a temporary stamp duty cut; a VAT cut for hospitality and tourism; and the assiduously named ‘Eat Out to Help Out’ scheme giving everyone £10 off meals in August. You can find the details of these policies and our round-up of what’s missing from the package here.
The criticism from Labour coming through most strongly is that the approach is not targeted enough and the furlough scheme should continue for the hardest-hit sectors. The Chancellor’s simple response: I am prioritising speed. The truth is that these announcements, particularly the stamp duty cut and the meals discount, benefit those who are already comfortable financially – and ignores the very real issue of poverty in this country. Concerns around food poverty, sick pay, legacy benefit rates and gaps in support schemes were not addressed. Alleviating poverty did not appear to be an objective, despite the huge potential for increasing consumption as well as delivering justice.
The government may be impressing commentators with big figures, but they don’t match up to the scale of the crisis. The job retention bonus is too small. Those hit hardest aren’t getting the cash they need to deal with basics, let alone boost retail. The meal deal is more about hitting headlines than making a real difference. While Sunak successfully develops his personal brand, the government is forgetting the reality on the ground: local government is in dire straits; our NHS and social care system could soon be hit with a second wave. These announcements did not build much-needed resilience in our public services, nor is the government building public confidence in the middle of a pandemic. £10 off a Pizza Express outing won’t cut it when people are worried about their health.
If you’re following the Labour national executive committee (NEC) elections, there was big news on this front last night. After eight hours of debate, left groups including Momentum and the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy (CLPD) agreed a single slate of local party representative candidates. Jon Lansman is not on it. My quick write-up of the news can be found here. I’m told that the general consensus during the weeks preceding the Momentum elections was that any left incumbents restanding would get back on, but that changed when the new Momentum leadership was elected and they did not put forward the co-founder as one of their picks. The two sitting reps who have been included are NEC officers, not just members, which makes their re-election more important for the left.
There was anger on Labour Twitter last night in response to the new line-up. Four out of six are BAME, and one is a Black woman. But the 1987 Caucus Movement has recently highlighted a shocking fact: there has never been a Black man elected to Labour’s NEC. This is something Jermain Jackman could correct but this Centre-Left Grassroots Alliance slate cannot. (I’m told his name was raised but no agreement reached there.) The other main concern is over the views of these candidates, namely Ann Henderson and Laura Pidcock, on trans rights. One source says the release of a political statement addressing that criticism can be expected. It is important to note that the CLGA is usually a consensus organisation, but I’m told the deadlock had to be broken with an indicative vote. Roll on, Labour’s four-month internal election… Sign up to LabourList’s morning email for everything Labour, every weekday morning.


labourlist--2020-07-09--WATCH: Job retention bonus is “last minute measure”, says Labour

Anneliese Dodds has declared the job retention scheme bonus announced yesterday in the Chancellor ’ s summer economic update a “ last minute measure ” , and called for a “ more targeted approach ” .
In an interview with BBC Breakfast this morning , the Shadow Chancellor reiterated Labour ’ s call for a sector-specific approach to government support for businesses in the recovery from Covid-19 .
She argued that a bonus available to all employers “ does not reflect a targeted approach ” , and suggested that the policy had only been proposed as a response to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the last week ” .
Commenting on the bonus , Dodds said : “ It looks like it will be provided to every single employer who takes somebody back off the retention scheme – now some employers may need that money , but others may not.
” She added : “ We want to see a targeted approach – we want to see an approach that reflects that some more sectors are far more heavily affected than others .
To me , that bonus does not reflect a targeted approach .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minute measure .
You know , maybe the government took this on board after the really worrying redundancy figures that we saw over the last week.
” In another interview with Sky News today , Dodds said Labour is “ not going to oppose the measure ” but would encourage a “ more targeted approach ” alongside the bonus – also warning that the incentive could “ potentially be very expensive ” .
Asked if taxpayer money will be wasted on the scheme , since the bonus will go to employers who would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told BBC Radio 4 ’ s Today programme listeners that “ without question there will be deadweight ” .
He argued he had to choose “ to act in a broad way at scale and at speed , or to act in a more targeted and nuanced way ” .
He added : “ We did not have the luxury of being able to design something that would target exactly everyone who specifically needed it.
” Commenting on his comments , Labour ’ s Bridget Phillipson said : “ The government has had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockdown and design targeted support to protect jobs – but instead we have an on-the-hoof fix that the Chancellor himself admits risks wasting billions of pounds of taxpayer money .
“ Hard-pressed sectors where thousands of jobs are at risk , like aviation , oil and gas , and tourism , will be missing out on the help they need while companies who are returning to normal get public money they don ’ t .
The shadow chief secretary to the Treasury added : “ The Chancellor should be targeting support on those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out aimlessly to those who don ’ t .
It ’ s not brave to admit the government plans to waste billions at a time when others are crying out for support.
” Sunak announced a series of measures in a ‘ mini Budget ’ statement in the House of Commons yesterday , including a £1,000 bonus for employers for every furloughed employee that they bring back to work until at least January .
To qualify for the bonus , workers must be paid at least £520 each month on average .
Analysis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brought back this way , the scheme would cost a total of £9bn .

Anneliese Dodds has declared the job retention scheme bonus announced yesterday in the Chancellor’s summer economic update a “last minute measure”, and called for a “more targeted approach”.
In an interview with BBC Breakfast this morning, the Shadow Chancellor reiterated Labour’s call for a sector-specific approach to government support for businesses in the recovery from Covid-19.
She argued that a bonus available to all employers “does not reflect a targeted approach”, and suggested that the policy had only been proposed as a response to “really worrying redundancy figures that we saw over the last week”.
Commenting on the bonus, Dodds said: “It looks like it will be provided to every single employer who takes somebody back off the retention scheme – now some employers may need that money, but others may not.”
She added: “We want to see a targeted approach – we want to see an approach that reflects that some more sectors are far more heavily affected than others. To me, that bonus does not reflect a targeted approach.
“It seems to be quite a last minute measure. You know, maybe the government took this on board after the really worrying redundancy figures that we saw over the last week.”
"It seems to be quite a last minute measure"
Shadow Chancellor Anneliese Dodds tells #BBCBreakfast the Job Retention Bonus could be a rash response to redundancy figures ⤵
More here: https://t.co/4HnJdiBF94 pic.twitter.com/GiAdpfv1ak — BBC Breakfast (@BBCBreakfast) July 9, 2020
In another interview with Sky News today, Dodds said Labour is “not going to oppose the measure” but would encourage a “more targeted approach” alongside the bonus – also warning that the incentive could “potentially be very expensive”.
Asked if taxpayer money will be wasted on the scheme, since the bonus will go to employers who would have retained staff anyway, Rishi Sunak told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme listeners that “without question there will be deadweight”.
He argued he had to choose “to act in a broad way at scale and at speed, or to act in a more targeted and nuanced way”. He added: “We did not have the luxury of being able to design something that would target exactly everyone who specifically needed it.”
Commenting on his comments, Labour’s Bridget Phillipson said: “The government has had months to prepare for the end of lockdown and design targeted support to protect jobs – but instead we have an on-the-hoof fix that the Chancellor himself admits risks wasting billions of pounds of taxpayer money.
“Hard-pressed sectors where thousands of jobs are at risk, like aviation, oil and gas, and tourism, will be missing out on the help they need while companies who are returning to normal get public money they don’t.
The shadow chief secretary to the Treasury added: “The Chancellor should be targeting support on those who need it, not handing it out aimlessly to those who don’t. It’s not brave to admit the government plans to waste billions at a time when others are crying out for support.”
Sunak announced a series of measures in a ‘mini Budget’ statement in the House of Commons yesterday, including a £1,000 bonus for employers for every furloughed employee that they bring back to work until at least January.
To qualify for the bonus, workers must be paid at least £520 each month on average. Analysis suggests that if all furloughed employees were brought back this way, the scheme would cost a total of £9bn.