It is essential that the details of any agreement with the DUP are made public – John McDonnell

John McDonnell MP,
Labour’s Shadow Chancellor, has today written to the Chancellor, Philip
Hammond MP, calling on him to
make public the cost of any secret deals the Government are making with the
DUP.

Calling it
“essential” that the details of any agreement are made public, the Shadow
Chancellor lays out a number of questions that Hammond must answer around
additional spending as well as the Barnett Formula implications of any
potential deal.

Ends

Letter
from Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell MP to Chancellor Philip Hammond MP:

Dear
Chancellor

I
am writing to call on you, in the interests of transparency, to publish the
financial consequences of any electoral deal reached between the Conservative
Party and the Democratic Unionist Party.

There
has been speculation in the media about possible additional infrastructure and
NHS spending for Northern Ireland, or reductions in Northern Ireland rates of
corporation tax, VAT and/or Air Passenger Duty.

It
is essential that the details of any agreement are made public, including any
costing calculations and evidence for measures which are agreed, and how
additional spending or reduced tax revenue will be affected by Barnett Formula
considerations.

Specifically,
will any additional spending or tax cuts offered to Northern Ireland be offset
through reductions in the Northern Ireland block grant and if not how will
additional spending be paid for?

Can
you clarify whether any additional spending will be funded from general UK-wide
taxation, or by increased borrowing, or by some other means?

Since
your Spring Budget there has already emerged a ‘black hole’ of £2bn as a result
of the Government’s U-turn on increasing Class 4 National Insurance
contributions. Can you inform us how you are planning to plug this gap: with
further spending cuts, tax rises, or additional borrowing? I note that this
comes in the context of Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts for an
increase in Public Sector Net Borrowing this year.

I
look forward to receiving your reply,

John
McDonnell MP

Shadow Chancellor

News story: Lord Ahmed welcomes conslusions of UN Human Rights Council

This has been the first Human Rights Council (HRC) session since my appointment as Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister responsible for the Commonwealth and the United Nations. The UK will continue to work tirelessly to ensure it holds those responsible for the worst atrocities and violations to account, and will work with the other members of the HRC to address the worst global crises of our time and seek to strengthen safeguards and protections for the future. We are grateful to the High Commissioner for Human Rights and his Office for their tireless efforts to promote and protect human rights around the world.

At this session the UK has, once again, played a leading role on a number of pressing human rights issues, including the situations in Syria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ukraine and Eritrea. I am delighted that the Foreign Secretary’s new Special Envoy for Gender Equality, Joanna Roper, was able to represent the UK at the annual full day discussion on women’s rights, and I was also pleased to see the adoption of resolutions dedicated to the advancement of women’s rights, gender equality and women’s empowerment.

The human rights situation in Syria remains acute, as carefully detailed by the Commission of Inquiry. Attacks on civilians, obstruction of humanitarian aid, and forced displacement of civilians continue, in particular by the Syrian regime. It is vital that the Human Rights Council continues to take a strong and unified stance on Syria. We therefore welcome the Resolution the Council has adopted and call upon all parties to ensure that the rights of all Syrian citizens are respected.

I welcome the resolution on the Democratic Republic of Congo which mandates the establishment of an international investigation into the violence in the Kasai region. The Council is right to be seriously concerned by serious human rights abuses and violations that continue to take place. It is important that an impartial investigation now takes place, to complement national efforts to determine responsibility for these dreadful acts. I trust that the authorities in DRC will grant the access to the investigation to ensure that those who bear responsibility will be brought to justice.

The UK welcomes the adoption of a renewed resolution on Ukraine. We remain seriously concerned by the human rights situation in eastern Ukraine and illegally annexed Crimea. It is crucial that this Council continues to discuss the detailed and objective reporting of the situation by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. This resolution will allow that to happen. I trust that the Russian de facto authorities will grant access to the High Commissioner and his Office so that they are able to undertake monitoring in illegally annexed Crimea, as called for in UN Resolution 71/205.

I thank the Special Rapporteur on Eritrea for her report to the Council. Of particular concern were the issues of indefinite national service and shortcomings in the rule of law, including widespread arbitrary detentions. I encourage the Eritrean Government to continue to build upon increased engagement with the Office of the High Commission for Human Rights and engage the international community more widely on progressing human rights issues. I also urge the government of Eritrea to fully implement its constitution, and deliver on its past commitment to work towards gender equality – ending Female Genital Mutilation and early and forced marriage.

The June session of the Human Rights Council traditionally has a strong focus on promoting and protecting the rights of women and girls, and – as demonstrated by the many and varied contributions to the full day session on women’s rights. It is vital that all states continue to engage and work together if we are to meet the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030, including the achievement of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls. This session’s resolutions recognise the considerable discrimination that many women and girls continue to face and show how the international community must work together to tackle it. We must all continue work to eliminate violence against women and girls and end all harmful practices, including female genital mutilation and child, early and forced marriage.

The Joint Statement expressing concern over democracy, governance and human rights in Maldives was an important step. I urge the Government of Maldives to engage constructively with the international community and to take steps that clearly demonstrate its commitment to freedom of assembly and expression, an independent judiciary and the protection of human rights defenders. The UK, and the other governments that signed the joint statement, stand ready to help.

Migration remains one of the great challenges of our time. We recognise the positive contribution of migrants and at the same time reaffirm the rights of states to manage their borders. We continue to believe that managing migration and security and meeting human rights obligations are not mutually exclusive aims, and that there are possibilities for exchanging best practice which will help develop human rights compliance globally and protect migrants and refugees.

This session also saw the first report from the Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, whose work the UK strongly supports, and a report from the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children. The UK Government is committed to working together with international partners to eliminate forced labour, modern slavery and human trafficking by 2030, as set out in Sustainable Development Goal 8.7.

The Human Rights Council is a vital forum, enabling Member States to work together to support and uphold universal rights around the world. This session has, once again, displayed the importance of unity and solidarity in the face of adversity. Many of us have faced horrific terrorist attacks this year – with attacks in London, Manchester, Egypt, France, Belgium, Afghanistan and Iran in the last few weeks alone. Now, more than ever, we must all come together, regardless of faith, gender or race, and stand united against those who seek to divide us.

Press release: Probation Champion and Prison Officer of the Year 2017 Awards

  • Annual awards celebrate hard-working and dedicated staff from across HMPPS
  • Ceremony follows creation of new frontline service HMPPS tasked with reforming offenders
  • Government is investing £100 million to boost the frontline by an extra 2,500 staff

Prison and probation officers from across England and Wales are being celebrated for their contribution to reforming offenders and helping turn lives around.

The Probation Champion of the Year Awards and Prison Officer of the Year Awards are an opportunity to celebrate success, share best practice and shine a light on the great work being done by these staff to keep the public safe.

The annual awards are celebrated just months after the launch of HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), a new frontline service that is focused on reforming offenders and cutting crime.

Prisons and Probation Minister Sam Gyimah said:

Our prison and probation officers work in a profession to be proud of, with responsibility for helping to keep the country safe and reforming offenders.

I regularly speak with staff and I am constantly struck by the commitment they show to changing lives and improving outcomes for offenders. It is vital that we celebrate them and mark out gratitude for the compassion and professionalism they show day in, day out.

I want staff to know that their work, experience and loyal service is valued. So many of them really are a shining example to the new recruits that are coming through the system.

Michael Spurr, Chief Executive of HMPPS, said:

I want to thank all staff working in probation and prisons for the amazing work they do on a daily basis.

Our nominees represent the best of a service where dedicated professionals go the extra mile everyday day to keep the public safe and to reduce reoffending.

These awards recognise work that so often goes unseen but is vitally important.

There are 8 categories in both the Prison Officer of the Year Awards and the Probation Champion of the Year Awards, which look to reward those with outstanding achievements in areas such as diversity, reducing reoffending and safer custody.

Gareth Key, from Gateshead, was given the overall title of Probation Champion of the Year on Wednesday. He was nominated by the father of an ex-offender who has now sadly passed away. The nomination was for treating their son with decency whilst helping them stay on the right path and steer him them out of trouble.

A member of staff at HMP High Down was awarded the title of Prison Officer of the Year at the annual awards. Iain Foskett, who has worked at HMP Highdown for 13 years, was nominated by his line manager for his commitment helping support staff at the prison, actively promoting positive relationships between staff and prisoners, and taking the time to mentor joiners.

The Prison Officer and Probation Champion of the Year Awards come at a time when we are expanding our workforce by recruiting 600 probation officers over the next 12 months and an additional 2,500 new prison officers by 2018.

The Probation Champion of the Year Awards took place on Wednesday 21 June and the Prison Officer of the Year Awards on 22 June.

This last year saw the highest level of new joiners (band 3-5 officers) since March 2010 and prison officer numbers have increased for the first time since March 2016:

  • appointed 75 mentors for new starter prison officers to help them in their first few months in the job which we know can be a difficult time
  • started targeted local recruitment initiatives at 30 sites so that governors can more easily recruit the people they need
  • developed a new graduate scheme that will encourage people from a broader range of backgrounds to join the service
  • launched a Troops to Officers scheme that will support people to join the Prison Service after leaving the military
  • introduced a pay increase for Band 3 Officers on Fair and Sustainable (F&S) terms at 31 difficult-to-recruit prisons
  • prison officers have the opportunity to earn over £30,000 depending on location of prison and hours contract; plus public sector pension and other benefits
  • creating 2,000 new senior promotion opportunities for valued and experienced prison officers to progress into
  • substantial investment in marketing and targeted recruitment to generate even more interest in these valuable roles

Europe’s shrinking middle class

In the follow blog piece, originally posted on Social Europe, Carlos Vacas-Soriano and Enrique Fernández-Macías look at evolution of household disposable real income levels over the period 2004-2013, and the broader phenomenon on Europe’s shrinking middle class.

The Great Recession depressed real income levels across European countries. But the impact was very unequal across countries and income groups. Countries in the European periphery have been more affected than those in the core, halting the process of income convergence between European countries that could be observed pre- crisis. Individuals at the bottom quintile of the income distribution have generally been more affected than their higher-income counterparts, resulting in growing income inequalities among many European countries and, what’s more, a shrinking middle class after years of expansion.

In a previous blog post, we showed how income inequalities increased in a majority of EU countries from the onset of the crisis, although often moderately. Here we focus on the evolution of household disposable real income levels over the period 2004-2013, revealing a generally stronger and more widespread impact of the crisis, especially among the less well-off. This points to the importance of using a wider set of indicators when assessing the impact of the Great Recession on living standards: these may be masked when relying solely on data on GDP or even Gini indices on income inequalities.

The downwards impact of the crisis on disposable income levels

Before the crisis, slow progress in average income levels for the EU as a whole masked an important process of convergence between its core and periphery, with fast catch-up growth in the latter and stagnation or a mild decline in the former economies. (This effect of the crisis on material well-being is illustrated by the evolution of household disposable real income levels shown in Figure 1).

Among the lower-income countries, most eastern European countries registered notable growth in real income levels (only Spain managed to do the same in the Mediterranean region), while progress in real income levels was more subdued among higher-income countries (and even going backwards in Germany).

In most countries, the crisis produced a sharp reversal in the trends of real income levels. For the EU as a whole, real income levels declined from 2008, but this development once more masks a clear core-periphery divide, moving in the opposite direction this time and resulting in a halt in the afore-mentioned process of income convergence. The crisis depressed real income levels across most European countries, but much more so in the European periphery (Mediterranean and some eastern European countries plus Ireland) than in the core (moderate declines occurred in the UK, Germany or France, while progress was registered in other Continental and Scandinavian countries). Among the periphery countries most hit by the recession, only the Baltic trio has bounced back significantly in recent years. Poland and Slovakia weathered the crisis much better than the rest, continuing to expand their real income levels (albeit much more slowly).

Figure 1 Average household disposable real equivalised income (Index) and unemployment rate (index, secondary axis)


Source: EU-SILC (and LFS for unemployment rates). Note: Income levels are expressed in PPP-euros for the EU as a whole, in euros for members of the euro zone and in national currencies for the other countries. Income levels are adjusted for inflation to obtain real income levels across countries, with 2004 as the base year. Countries are ranked by the magnitude of the decline in real income levels between 2008 and 2013

The uneven impact of the crisis on disposable income levels

The downwards impact of the crisis on income levels differed in intensity across European countries and, moreover, was not equally shared within individual societies. Table 2 depicts changes in aggregate income levels (first column, summarising results from the previous section) but also across different segments of the income distribution (second, third and fourth columns) and how such trends shape income inequality developments (column five).

Before the crisis, the income catch-up process taking place in Eastern European countries was generally more intense among lower-income individuals, which explains the generally declining income inequalities there. Conversely, the more moderate income progress among many higher-income countries affected relatively more those at the bottom of their income distributions, propelling income inequalities upwards in most Continental and Scandinavian countries.e downward impact of the Great Recession on income levels has been generally more significant among lower-income earners than among their higher-income counterparts across most European countries. Income levels for the bottom quintile declined in almost all European countries (except Poland and Austria), while those in the top quintile were more resilient and even progressed in a third of countries. This diverging impact at both extremes of the income distribution explains why inequalities in household disposable income have increased since the onset of the crisis in two-thirds of the countries.

Table 1 Relative Changes In Household Disposable Real Equivalised Income, Income Inequalities And Real GDP Per Capita (Growth Rates Before And After The Crisis).


Source: EU-SILC (And Eurostat For GDP Per Capita).

Data on real GDP per capita (column six) offers sometimes a different picture than that provided by change in income levels. GDP per capita progressed (Germany, Latvia and Lithuania) or declined significantly less (Greece, Spain, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and the UK) than average income levels in many countries. This suggests that a fully comprehensive set of indicators to map progress and well-being is necessary to assess the full magnitude of the impact of the Great Recession upon living standards across European societies.

The shrinking European middle class

The impact of the crisis on social structures can be evaluated alternatively by distinguishing between different classes defined by their income levels: the lower, the middle and the upper income class. This allows one to assess the impact of the crisis on the size of the middle class, a topic that has received considerable attention in the policy debate.

Figure 2 reflects how the crisis reversed the trends in the evolution of the middle class. Prior to the crisis, it was expanding in around two-thirds of Member States, especially on the European periphery (although declining significantly in Austria, Germany, Sweden, Luxembourg and Latvia). But the Great Recession has squeezed the middle class across most EU Member States (all except Latvia, Luxembourg, Poland and Lithuania). This squeeze is particularly intense in those countries hardest hit by the crisis in the European periphery (Mediterranean countries such as Cyprus, Greece and Spain and Eastern countries such as Estonia, Hungary and Slovenia), but it is also surprisingly significant in Scandinavian countries, and in Germany, where middle income segments have been shrinking all over the period (as in Sweden).

This hollowing out of the European middle class has generally resulted in an expansion of the lower-income class rather than in the upper-income class, even though the latter has expanded significantly in some countries too (especially in Ireland and Czech Republic).

These trends emerge as a clear source of concern and, if not reverted, may have significant implications. The middle class is essential for the stability of European democracies and welfare systems and its erosion may generate increasing unrest at the political and social level.

Figure 2 Change in size of middle-income class before (2004-2008) and after (2008-2013) the crisis and decomposition of change by income class of destination after the crisis, in percentage points

Source: EU-SILC. Note: Countries are ranked by the absolute magnitude (in percentage points) of the decline of the middle class size from 2008 to 2013. We define the middle class as including those with a household disposable income that ranges between 75 and 200% of the median disposable income in each country.

For more details, see the full report: Income inequalities and employment patterns in Europe before and after the Great Recession

Europe’s shrinking middle class

In the follow blog piece, originally posted on Social Europe, Carlos Vacas-Soriano and Enrique Fernández-Macías look at evolution of household disposable real income levels over the period 2004-2013, and the broader phenomenon on Europe’s shrinking middle class.

The Great Recession depressed real income levels across European countries. But the impact was very unequal across countries and income groups. Countries in the European periphery have been more affected than those in the core, halting the process of income convergence between European countries that could be observed pre- crisis. Individuals at the bottom quintile of the income distribution have generally been more affected than their higher-income counterparts, resulting in growing income inequalities among many European countries and, what’s more, a shrinking middle class after years of expansion.

In a previous blog post, we showed how income inequalities increased in a majority of EU countries from the onset of the crisis, although often moderately. Here we focus on the evolution of household disposable real income levels over the period 2004-2013, revealing a generally stronger and more widespread impact of the crisis, especially among the less well-off. This points to the importance of using a wider set of indicators when assessing the impact of the Great Recession on living standards: these may be masked when relying solely on data on GDP or even Gini indices on income inequalities.

The downwards impact of the crisis on disposable income levels

Before the crisis, slow progress in average income levels for the EU as a whole masked an important process of convergence between its core and periphery, with fast catch-up growth in the latter and stagnation or a mild decline in the former economies. (This effect of the crisis on material well-being is illustrated by the evolution of household disposable real income levels shown in Figure 1).

Among the lower-income countries, most eastern European countries registered notable growth in real income levels (only Spain managed to do the same in the Mediterranean region), while progress in real income levels was more subdued among higher-income countries (and even going backwards in Germany).

In most countries, the crisis produced a sharp reversal in the trends of real income levels. For the EU as a whole, real income levels declined from 2008, but this development once more masks a clear core-periphery divide, moving in the opposite direction this time and resulting in a halt in the afore-mentioned process of income convergence. The crisis depressed real income levels across most European countries, but much more so in the European periphery (Mediterranean and some eastern European countries plus Ireland) than in the core (moderate declines occurred in the UK, Germany or France, while progress was registered in other Continental and Scandinavian countries). Among the periphery countries most hit by the recession, only the Baltic trio has bounced back significantly in recent years. Poland and Slovakia weathered the crisis much better than the rest, continuing to expand their real income levels (albeit much more slowly).

Figure 1 Average household disposable real equivalised income (Index) and unemployment rate (index, secondary axis)


Source: EU-SILC (and LFS for unemployment rates). Note: Income levels are expressed in PPP-euros for the EU as a whole, in euros for members of the euro zone and in national currencies for the other countries. Income levels are adjusted for inflation to obtain real income levels across countries, with 2004 as the base year. Countries are ranked by the magnitude of the decline in real income levels between 2008 and 2013

The uneven impact of the crisis on disposable income levels

The downwards impact of the crisis on income levels differed in intensity across European countries and, moreover, was not equally shared within individual societies. Table 2 depicts changes in aggregate income levels (first column, summarising results from the previous section) but also across different segments of the income distribution (second, third and fourth columns) and how such trends shape income inequality developments (column five).

Before the crisis, the income catch-up process taking place in Eastern European countries was generally more intense among lower-income individuals, which explains the generally declining income inequalities there. Conversely, the more moderate income progress among many higher-income countries affected relatively more those at the bottom of their income distributions, propelling income inequalities upwards in most Continental and Scandinavian countries.e downward impact of the Great Recession on income levels has been generally more significant among lower-income earners than among their higher-income counterparts across most European countries. Income levels for the bottom quintile declined in almost all European countries (except Poland and Austria), while those in the top quintile were more resilient and even progressed in a third of countries. This diverging impact at both extremes of the income distribution explains why inequalities in household disposable income have increased since the onset of the crisis in two-thirds of the countries.

Table 1 Relative Changes In Household Disposable Real Equivalised Income, Income Inequalities And Real GDP Per Capita (Growth Rates Before And After The Crisis).


Source: EU-SILC (And Eurostat For GDP Per Capita).

Data on real GDP per capita (column six) offers sometimes a different picture than that provided by change in income levels. GDP per capita progressed (Germany, Latvia and Lithuania) or declined significantly less (Greece, Spain, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and the UK) than average income levels in many countries. This suggests that a fully comprehensive set of indicators to map progress and well-being is necessary to assess the full magnitude of the impact of the Great Recession upon living standards across European societies.

The shrinking European middle class

The impact of the crisis on social structures can be evaluated alternatively by distinguishing between different classes defined by their income levels: the lower, the middle and the upper income class. This allows one to assess the impact of the crisis on the size of the middle class, a topic that has received considerable attention in the policy debate.

Figure 2 reflects how the crisis reversed the trends in the evolution of the middle class. Prior to the crisis, it was expanding in around two-thirds of Member States, especially on the European periphery (although declining significantly in Austria, Germany, Sweden, Luxembourg and Latvia). But the Great Recession has squeezed the middle class across most EU Member States (all except Latvia, Luxembourg, Poland and Lithuania). This squeeze is particularly intense in those countries hardest hit by the crisis in the European periphery (Mediterranean countries such as Cyprus, Greece and Spain and Eastern countries such as Estonia, Hungary and Slovenia), but it is also surprisingly significant in Scandinavian countries, and in Germany, where middle income segments have been shrinking all over the period (as in Sweden).

This hollowing out of the European middle class has generally resulted in an expansion of the lower-income class rather than in the upper-income class, even though the latter has expanded significantly in some countries too (especially in Ireland and Czech Republic).

These trends emerge as a clear source of concern and, if not reverted, may have significant implications. The middle class is essential for the stability of European democracies and welfare systems and its erosion may generate increasing unrest at the political and social level.

Figure 2 Change in size of middle-income class before (2004-2008) and after (2008-2013) the crisis and decomposition of change by income class of destination after the crisis, in percentage points

Source: EU-SILC. Note: Countries are ranked by the absolute magnitude (in percentage points) of the decline of the middle class size from 2008 to 2013. We define the middle class as including those with a household disposable income that ranges between 75 and 200% of the median disposable income in each country.

For more details, see the full report: Income inequalities and employment patterns in Europe before and after the Great Recession