the government's been wary of lifting it because the institute for fiscal studies estimates every 1%e many public sector pay costs between £1 . 5 increase many public sector pay costs between £1.5 and £2 billion a year. the government points out many workers have had a higher than 1% rise through increments. they want to see all public sector workers receive a pay rise. people see that asa receive a pay rise. people see that as a tactic of divide and rule. no good scrapping the cap for some workers. workers alongside them are still on poverty pay. if the government eases the pay cap, it will hope the tensions with the unions will ease too. the foreign minister of bangladesh has described myanmar‘s treatment of its rohinga community as genocide. large numbers have fled with nearly 300,000 rohingas on the bangladesh side of the border many have arrived hungry and traumatised. the mill ta ns hungry and traumatised. the mill tans attacked police posts, sparking a major military crackdown. sprawling mud baths. tens of thousands refugees now live in filthy hovels on whatever land they canf

paul johnson is from the institute for fiscal studies.n awful lot of money and some of them have been a very bad deal, so they could actually get out of them and save money in the long run. these are contracts that were negotiated between the government and private companies, mostly under the last labour government to do build and run, schools and hospitals and so on, and some of them were badly formed contracts which have ended up being rather expensive, but you are not going to save money by getting out of them because presumably you are going to have to pay the companies with which you have the legal agreement in order to get out of them. i hope they mean they will pay the value of these things and respect the law. if they do, they may well be right, it won't cost very much but it won't save much either. do you suspect they may not offer these companies any kind of compensation for these contracts?” don't know. it wasn't clear from what was said. as i said, the law is very clear, they are legally binding contracts and in order to get o

earlier, i spoke to pauljohnson, from the institute for fiscal studies, about just how this might workto save money by getting out because presume my you are going to have to pay the companies with which you have the legal agreement in orderto which you have the legal agreement in order to get out of them. i hope they mean that they'll pay in respect of the law, if they do, then they may well be right that it won't cost much but it won't cost much money either. in his speech, john mcdonnell sounded adamant saying we are going to bring the contracts backin are going to bring the contracts back in house. afterwards the briefing from labour not as clear cut as that, saying that this is a review of all existing contracts, they will look at them and where necessary ta ke they will look at them and where necessary take them over and bring them back in—house. so we'll see how much that would actually happen, although their spokespeople saying they would think that most of the contracts would end up being back in—house. it's not just contracts would end up being back in—house. it's notjust the

the staff they need unless ministers ease the restraint on pay — that's according to the institute for fiscal studiesarch economist at the ifs jonathan cribbjoins me now. it is interesting the tone of this research because it takes a slightly fuller view and some other pieces of research have done, in that it says perhaps the government needs to look at easing the pay restraint, yet appreciate that doing so is going to cause what you call a conundrum. i think it is causing a conundrum. public sector pay, if it continues to be restrained, is going to fall quite significantly compared to private sector pay, making it harder for the public sector to recruit and retain and motivate the high—quality staff it needs for public services. but at a time spending restraints, when we spend £180 billion on employing public sector workers, even small increases are going to need significant extra resources needed by departments. with this government, you are talking about an ideological shift as well as everything else, in terms of austerity and to what degree that austerity is applied. it is true that if the gover

mr speaker at the institute for fiscal studies and reports that english graduates have the highest student the obr says there is a growing risk of recession under her watch. growth is slowing, productivity worsening, wages falling, jobs becoming more insecure, personal debt increasing, saving levels are falling, and homelessness rising all over the country. and it is forecast that by the end of this parliament 5 million children in this country, the fifth richest country in the world, will be living in poverty. isn't it true that not only is our economy at breaking point but for many people it's already broken as they face up to the poverty imposed by this government? order! yet again he has failed to mention on student fees who it was that introduced tuition fees. wasn't the conservative party but the labour party who introduced tuition fees. but let's look at what has happened, let's look at what has happened in our economy. what do we see? record levels of direct investment in the british economy. firms investing in this country because they believe in the future of this country. what w

for it? all he said in passing was, we arejust going to tax business a bit more and we know the institute of fiscal studiespeople always say is it credible and possible. we have been living in an economic paradigm that's said to us for 30 years, this is the only acceptable way and there is the only acceptable way and there is no other way. by the way, the rest of europe is looking at us saying why are you doing it that way, there are other ways to manage an economy and this's what labour is now trying to align itself with, there is a different way of managing there is a different way of managing the economy, that we rely on yes taxation at the top end but also investment, borrowing, national investment, borrowing, national investment bank, regional investment bank, restructuring of the economy ina bank, restructuring of the economy in a fundamental way it's very different which is why people keep asking if it's possible. we are not used to thinking that way but we do need to start thinking that way. all right. they are singing jerusalem in the hall now. everybody still on their feet. the slogan forjeremy c

institute of fiscal studies says it would cost £1 billion per year. it is a substantial amount of money. but i would say that we called for we were amongst the first to do so, because we know it is critical that we not only recruit new staff into the nhs so we can maintain safe services but that we also retain those staff that r.n. there. we know there is huge pressure on the front line at the moment, and it is impacting on morale, and pay is one of those elements that we can see boosting morale. it is absolutely fundamental. let's talk about the realities: theresa may has said there was no magic money tree, so where does this £1 billion a year come from? across the public sector, if we lifted the cap, it would cost £9 billion. i think there is sympathy from the public sector workers from the first few years —— for the first few years, but that is waning. we still have a deficit that is costing £46 billion a year, and if we just increase public sector spending, the interest payments will go up, and that is money we could spend on front line services. it is not just as simple spend on front line services. it is notjust as