UK Politics

A trade union representing striking workers has criticised a Labour frontbencher after they apparently crossed a picket line while on party business.Bill Esterson visited Sheffield University’s advanced manufacturing research centre on Friday while staff at the university were on strike.After Mr Esterson posted publicity photographs of himself inside the centre online Jo Grady, general secretary of the University of Colleges Union (UCU) said: “There’s a picket line at Sheffield University. “It’s hard enough for our members to see management cross the picket lines let alone Labour MPs. You know better than this, surely? Let’s hope this is a misunderstanding.”Mr Esterton, the party’s shadow business minister, said he did not see a physical picket at the research centre and that if he had he would not have gone in.But Ms Grady said the dispute was “high profile” enough that the Labour politician should have known to stay away.”A lot of physical picket lines were stood down yesterday because of danger posed by storm Eunice, Bill. But the high profile dispute remains,” she said.”We have five more days strike action over the next fortnight. Do let UCU know what day you could make it to show your support.”The AMRC visited by the shadow minister is located in a business park to the east of Sheffield and not on the main university campus to the west of the centre.Mr Esterton said: “There wasn’t a picket line. Otherwise I wouldn’t have gone in.” Labour declined to add further comment about the incident The incident is the second dispute over Labour politicians apparently crossing a picket in Sheffield in the last few months.Late in 2021 Sheffield City council Leader Terry Fox and some Labour councillors walked past a picket and into a building – before emerging and saying they had decided not to cross the picket to attend a council meeting there in solidarity with workers.However those on strike outside pointed out that the councillors had already crossed their picket on the way in.Academic staff at universities across the UK represented by UCU are on strike over planned cuts to pension payments under their defined benefit Universities Superannuation Scheme, known as the USS. More

Low-skilled people face a two-year wait for government cash to help them into work, as ministers fail to replace funding disappearing because of Brexit.Groups working with “the most vulnerable in society” have condemned Michael Gove’s levelling up strategy after it revealed replacement job schemes will only be funded “from 2024-25”.The decision comes despite boosting “pay, employment and productivity” being one of 12 stated aims for the strategy – but after Mr Gove admitted he had no extra money for it.The Independent revealed in December that the job schemes were facing the axe because a Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) – to replace lost EU grants – has been slashed by almost £2bn.The Employment Related Services Association (ERSA) urged Mr Gove to rescue help for groups most at risk of long-term unemployment, including school leavers, disabled people and over-50s.For many years, through the EU schemes, they have received extra help to develop skills and prepare for the world of work.“How will employment support providers be funded between now and 2024?” asked Elizabeth Taylor, the ERSA’s chief executive.She warned employment organisations had been “left in limbo” by the strategy – and could even go the wall, if funding dries up as feared.Yet programmes such as New Leaf, run by the Torus Foundation, had helped 800 people in to employment, and Action Towards Inclusion, run by Better Connect Ltd, had assisted 670.“They want to avoid a long gap in funding which would leave many vulnerable individuals without much-needed support,” Ms Taylor added.Sam Avanzo Windett, deputy director of the Learning and Work Institute, said: “We face serious challenges, with people disengaging from the workforce, a widening disability employment gap, real wages falling and rising numbers of young people not in employment or full-time education.“Yet the government’s plans put a two year delay on funding local services in England that engage people to move into jobs, access skills training and progress in work.”Stephen Timms, chair of the Commons work and pensions committee, told The Independent: “I am surprised and disappointed by this delay.”The ERSA, representing 274 organisations ranging from multinational companies to local charities, has been raising fears about the loss of EU funds since 2019.But, the levelling up strategy stated: “From 2024-25, further emphasis will be placed on investment to support life chances and skills, including for those furthest from the labour market.”It added that local councils would be able to “continue funding” schemes “otherwise at risk due to the tail off of EU funds” – but without explaining how.The department for levelling up, communities and housing declined to respond to the criticism that replacement funding has been shelved, pointing instead to the ‘Multiply’ adult numeracy programme, which would “equip adults with the skills they need to progress in work”.Ministers had pledged to match lost EU funding after Brexit – to “tackle inequality and deprivation” – but have been widely accused of breaking that promise. More

Scrapping free Covid tests will be “madness” and disproportionately hit frontline workers in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, Boris Johnson has been warned by the Trade Union Congress leader.Frances O’Grady, the general secretary of the TUC, told The Independent the prime minister must not “gamble” on public safety, as he prepares to publish a strategy for ending England’s legal restrictions.She also stressed that ministers must improve the UK’s “pitiful” sick pay – currently amongst the lowest rates in Europe – and said it would be an “unnecessary risk” to end self-isolation payments.The intervention from the TUC chief comes ahead of Monday’s publication of the government’s “living with Covid” blueprint. Mr Johnson is expected to reveal his final decision on whether to end all domestic legal restrictions, including the legal requirement to self-isolate after a positive test.There is also speculation the government will set out plans to end the provision of free lateral flow tests for asymptotic individuals and scrap self-isolation payments for people on low incomes in order to save the Treasury billions of pounds.“I think the key point here from my perspective is that if they are going to lift restrictions they can’t gamble on people’s safety,” Ms O’Grady said. “It can’t be a licence to rip up, or cut corners in terms of people’s safety and public health.” Insisting she was “worried” over reports the government will announce plans to end free Covid tests, she said: “The very people who most need those tests are frontline workers, who are very often amongst the lowest paid.”Describing it as a “false economy”, Ms O’Grady said in an interview with The Independent: “I really hope the government does not move to scrap free tests because I don’t know who else in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis is expected to pick up the bill.“Who can afford it? Again, it’s unnecessary gambles. It would be madness to do so in my view. It’s so much better to be safe than sorry.“It will cost us dear in the long-term if we don’t get this transition right. Nobody wants care workers going into care homes who are unable to afford testing. I don’t want any worker to be in that position”.Her call comes after a survey by the NHS Federation of more than 300 senior staff in England found 79 per cent strongly disagreed with any plans to stop free access of Covid tests for the public. A further 94 per cent said testing for health staff and other key workers must all continue.Earlier this week, Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, also said it would be a “mistake” to end the free provision of lateral flow and PCR tests while papers released by a sub-group informing the Scientific Advisor Group for Emergencies (Sage) on Friday suggested that Covid cases could rise “rapidly” if there is a sudden end to testing and isolation rules.In a stark finding, the experts added that transmission could rise by between 25 and 80 per cent if people “return to pre-pandemic behaviours and no mitigations”. The TUC boss, who worked alongside the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, during the initial days of the pandemic to devise the furlough scheme, also stressed it would be an “unnecessary risk” for ministers to scrap self-isolation payments next week without first “fixing” the UK’s statutory sick pay system.Under the scheme — introduced in September 2020 — individuals on low incomes who have been told to self-isolate after a positive Covid test, are eligible for a £500 payment after applying through their local authority.Ms O’Grady, however, described it as a “failed system”, saying many workers were unaware of its existence due to a lack of promotion.“Instead of messing about with self-isolation payments, which have been proven not to reach those who need them the most, why not sort out our sick pay system?” she added, citing the TUC’s demands for the £96 per week statutory sick pay to increased to the levels of a real living wage.As the government prepares to unveil its strategy the TUC chief also raised concerns that provisions in the Coronavirus Act — providing sick pay from day one, rather than day four — could be repealed.With families across the country face a sharp hike in the cost of living, she said: “If they were to remove that day one provision that would be catastrophic for a lot of family budgets. What are you supposed to do in the meantime?”.Mr Johnson’s surprise announcement last week of his intention to lift remaining restrictions — a month earlier than planned — comes at a turbulent moment for the prime minister, with deep unease over his leadership among Conservative MPs amid the police investigation into allegations of parties held in No 10.“The worry, obviously, is that currently Boris Johnson is more concerned about what his backbenchers think than he is about what’s best for public health,” Ms O’Grady added. More

Boris Johnson is set to tell world leaders that there is “still a chance to avoid unnecessary bloodshed” in Ukraine as tension continues to mount with Russia.The Prime Minister will visit Germany this weekend for the Munich security conference on Saturday to discuss the crisis with his Western counterparts.The trip comes as the US government claimed an invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces could come within “several days”. Russia denies it has plans to attack, but has built up an estimated 150,00 troops on its neighbour’s border. Mr Johnson has previously called the situation in eastern Europe “very grim” but stressed before his departure to Bavaria that “diplomacy can still prevail” if leaders unite.This could demonstrate to the Russian administration in Moscow that it would face a “high price” for any incursion, he said.

Allies need to speak with one voice to stress to President Putin the high price he will payBoris JohnsonRussian president Vladimir Putin has insisted that large-scale military exercises with Belarusian forces close to the Ukrainian border are “purely defensive” and do not represent a threat to invade.Speaking ahead of his visit Mr Johnson told reporters said: “There is still a chance to avoid unnecessary bloodshed, but it will require an overwhelming display of western solidarity beyond anything we have seen in recent history.“Allies need to speak with one voice to stress to President Putin the high price he will pay for any further Russian invasion of Ukraine.“Diplomacy can still prevail. That is the message I will take to Munich today as we redouble our efforts to prevent a grave miscalculation which would devastate Ukraine, Russia and the rest of Europe.” More

Boris Johnson has handed the Metropolitan Police his answers to a legal questionnaire about lockdown-busting parties held in Downing Street.No 10 confirmed the prime minister has complied with a Metropolitan Police request for his answers to be submitted within a week of receiving the form last Friday.Downing Street has previously said his responses will not be made public.Officers involved with Operation Hillman, which is examining whether Covid restrictions were broken in Downing Street and across Whitehall, sent formal questionnaires to approximately 50 people as they look into the details of alleged Covid rule-breaking.It comes as a union representing civil servants said it had pushed for officials involved in the investigation to be able to consult notes on the evidence they gave to the Sue Gray inquiry to help inform their Met Q&A.Cabinet Office official Ms Gray carried out a probe into claims of lockdown breaches at the top of Government but has only published an interim report while she waits for the police investigation to be completed.Out of 16 events Ms Gray reviewed, police are investigating 12 of them, including as many as six that the Prime Minister is reported to have attended.Dave Penman, general secretary of the Association of First Division Civil Servants (FDA), said the decision to allow the notes to be viewed followed a bid by the union, which represents senior and middle management public servants.”To be clear, this has been agreed following a request from us, the FDA, their trade union,” he tweeted.”They will only be able to see what they said in their own interview, to assist them in completing the questionnaires from the Metropolitan Police, who have raised no objection to this.”ITV News reported that staff were told they can view notes on their own interviews in a letter from Ms Gray.The letter reportedly said: “I appreciate that this is a worrying time for those affected by this process, which I do not wish to compound.”The broadcaster said Ms Gray went on to say that “in light of particular circumstances surrounding this set of events, I have, as an exceptional measure, decided that individuals may be provided with limited access to the notes”.Staff were told, according to the report, that they can view the notes in a “time limited” session, in person, “with a member of the investigation team present”.They will not be allowed to bring any legal representative with them, nor phones, tablets, computers or any other recording equipment.The Cabinet Office declined to comment.PA More

Campaigners have lost a High Court bid challenging the government over the decision not to extend the universal credit uplift to those on “legacy” benefits during the pandemic.The judgment, described as a “colossal blow” to over 2 million people, centred on the increase in payments to universal credit claimants between March 2020 and October 2021.It provided recipients with a £20-per-week top-up on their benefits during the Covid crisis, but was phased out in the autumn by the government, despite protests from campaigners and MPs.Bringing the case, campaigners suggested the decision not to extend the uplift to those on older benefits – referred to as “legacy benefits” – such as Employment Support Allowance (ESA) and Job Seeker’s Allowance (JSA), disproportionately affected disabled people.Lawyers acting on behalf of four disabled people, who brought the claim against the Department for Work and Pensions, argued at a November hearing that the difference in treatment was incompatible with their human rights.But in a ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Swift said that while there was indirect discrimination cause by the difference in treatment, the decision by Therese Coffey, the work and pensions secretary, was lawful nonetheless.“My conclusion is that the difference in treatment of universal credit claimants over those claiming legacy benefits resulting from the 2020 Regulations was justified,” he said.“The decision to increase the universal credit standard allowance was one of a series of decisions made at the beginning of the pandemic.”The judge added: “The central question raised by the claimants’ discrimination claims is whether it was lawful for the secretary of state to direct her attention to the position of new benefits claimants – all of whom would have made claims for universal credit.“I consider that she was. New benefits claimants would need to adjust to a loss in income. They would be affected differently to persons already claiming benefits.”The claimants, who were supported by a number of disability rights’ groups and charities, are considering whether to appeal against the ruling.Their solicitor William Ford, of Osbornes Law, said: “We are extremely disappointed by today’s judgment and will study it carefully to assess whether there are any grounds to appeal.“The court’s decision is a devastating blow to more than two million people who we consider were unjustly deprived of the £20 uplift given to those who receive Universal Credit during the pandemic.Responding to the judgment, Anastasia Berry, policy co-chair of the Disability Benefits Consortium and policy manager at the MS society, said: “After months of stalling, we’re devastated by the High Court’s ruling today, which fails to hold the government to account for its shameful treatment of disabled people, including those with MS.“While the government has found a legal technicality to duck responsibility, the basic fact remains that it stood idly by while many disabled people were forced deeper into poverty during the pandemic.“This ruling will come as a colossal blow to the 2.2 million people on legacy benefits, such as Job Seeker’s Allowance and Employment Support Allowance, who were cruelly denied the emergency funding which was offered to others without any justification. But we refuse to give up the fight.” More

Andy Burnham has blasted “frankly disgraceful” claims made about his wife by campaigners against a controversial new traffic management scheme.In a lengthy personal statement issued on Friday the Mayor of Greater Manchester said people opposed to the Greater Manchester Clean Air Zone (CAZ) had made “serious allegations”.”Some of the claims that have been made about my wife are frankly disgraceful,” he said.”An example of one of the worst can be seen below. I have set out the facts and ask that this now stops.”Mr Burnham then included a photograph of roadside sign which reads: “Re think the clean air zone. Get it scrapped. Andy Burnham is a nonce and his wife is shagging the French”.It also falsely claims that the mayor’s wife owns shares in an unspecified company somehow linked to the clean air zone policy.In his statement, Mr Burnham said he wanted to “reset” the often fraught debate over the policy, which will impose a daily charge on more polluting commercial vehicles that enter Manchester to improve the city’s air quality.Burnham said of the allegations: “For the avoidance of any doubt, here are the facts. Marie-France [his wife] is employed by Heavenly, a small marketing and brand agency. She works with a number of their clients, including Iduna Infrastructure Limited. “Iduna owns Amey MAP Services Limited, which has a contract with TfGM to operate the public EV network under the brand name Be.EV. Marie-France has no direct financial relationship with Iduna. She does not own any shares in them and does not receive any bonus nor incentive payments from them.”Even though this is a minor private interest in relation to EV charging – and not directly related to the CAZ – I still chose to declare it, and remove myself from any decision-making, so that there could be no perception of a conflict of interest nor any suggestion of privileged information being misused. “More broadly, we do not own any shares in any company and receive no income other than our salaries.” The Mayor also criticised those who presented the clean air zone as his creation. He said this narrative “has been mainly promoted by the Conservative Party, its MPs and councillors, because it suits their political purposes to distract people from their Government’s primary role in this policy”.The implementation of the zone, which does not cover private cars, was paused earlier this month following anger from motorists who would have to pay the new charges.The scheme was due to begin in May this year. It would charge non-compliant taxis and private hire vehicles £7.50 a day, light goods vehicles such as vans £10 a day, and coaches, buses, and HGVs £60 a day. These categories would only have to pay the charge if they do not meet emissions standards. More