Clegg comes unstuck on jobs scheme

The Deputy PM struggled to deny that the jobs scheme will be paid for by the working poor.

As expected, Nick Clegg has this morning announced the government's belated response to the youth unemployment crisis. The £1bn scheme (previewed by Gavin Kelly on his New Statesman blog yesteday) will see wage subsidies worth £2,275 offered to employers to take on 160,000 18- to 24-year-olds over the next three years.

If it sounds a lot like the Future Jobs Fund (FJF) set up by Labour and scrapped by the coalition, that's because it is. There are some differences. The scheme will not operate in the public sector and it provides a smaller job subsidy - £2,25 per job rather than the £6,000 subsidy offered by the FJF. But it still represents a significant U-turn by the coalition. As Gavin wrote on his blog yesterday, the government, confronted by the scandal of one million young people out of work, has been forced to swallow its "ideological opposition to wage subsidies".

The question, for a government that refuses to spend a penny of new money, is how will it be paid for? The Treasury has briefed that the money will be found by not uprating tax credits in line with inflation, a move that would penalise low and middle income earners. Asked to confirm that this was the case on the Today programme this morning, Clegg floundered. He insisted that "this £1bn isn't paid for by one particular tax change or one particular welfare change" but refused to deny that tax credits would bear the brunt. The Deputy PM went on to restate his belief that the majority of savings should come from those with "the broadest shoulders", pointing to the bank levy, the rise in capital gains tax and the crackdown on tax loopholes. But this only begs the question: why isn't the new scheme funded through such a measure? Rather than cutting tax credits, the government could have levied a wealth tax on the asset-rich.

Sounding ever more uncomfortable, Clegg fell back on the line that the full details would be in George Osborne's autumn statement next Tuesday. But, as we have learned, when forced to choose between squeezing the rich and squeezing the poor, the Chancellor squeezes the poor. Clegg's jobs scheme will be balanced on the backs of the least well-off.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: André Spicer
Show Hide image

“It’s scary to do it again”: the five-year-old fined £150 for running a lemonade stand

Enforcement officers penalised a child selling home-made lemonade in the street. Her father tells the full story. 

It was a lively Saturday afternoon in east London’s Mile End. Groups of people streamed through residential streets on their way to a music festival in the local park; booming bass could be heard from the surrounding houses.

One five-year-old girl who lived in the area had an idea. She had been to her school’s summer fête recently and looked longingly at the stalls. She loved the idea of setting up her own stall, and today was a good day for it.

“She eventually came round to the idea of selling lemonade,” her father André Spicer tells me. So he and his daughter went to their local shop to buy some lemons. They mixed a few jugs of lemonade, the girl made a fetching A4 sign with some lemons drawn on it – 50p for a small cup, £1 for a large – and they carried a table from home to the end of their road. 

“People suddenly started coming up and buying stuff, pretty quickly, and they were very happy,” Spicer recalls. “People looked overjoyed at this cute little girl on the side of the road – community feel and all that sort of stuff.”

But the heart-warming scene was soon interrupted. After about half an hour of what Spicer describes as “brisk” trade – his daughter’s recipe secret was some mint and a little bit of cucumber, for a “bit of a British touch” – four enforcement officers came striding up to the stand.

Three were in uniform, and one was in plain clothes. One uniformed officer turned the camera on his vest on, and began reciting a legal script at the weeping five-year-old.

“You’re trading without a licence, pursuant to x, y, z act and blah dah dah dah, really going through a script,” Spicer tells me, saying they showed no compassion for his daughter. “This is my job, I’m doing it and that’s it, basically.”

The girl burst into tears the moment they arrived.

“Officials have some degree of intimidation. I’m a grown adult, so I wasn’t super intimidated, but I was a bit shocked,” says Spicer. “But my daughter was intimidated. She started crying straight away.”

As they continued to recite their legalese, her father picked her up to try to comfort her – but that didn’t stop the officers giving her stall a £150 fine and handing them a penalty notice. “TRADING WITHOUT LICENCE,” it screamed.


Picture: André Spicer

“She was crying and repeating, ‘I’ve done a bad thing’,” says Spicer. “As we walked home, I had to try and convince her that it wasn’t her, it wasn’t her fault. It wasn’t her who had done something bad.”

She cried all the way home, and it wasn’t until she watched her favourite film, Brave, that she calmed down. It was then that Spicer suggested next time they would “do it all correctly”, get a permit, and set up another stand.

“No, I don’t want to, it’s a bit scary to do it again,” she replied. Her father hopes that “she’ll be able to get over it”, and that her enterprising spirit will return.

The Council has since apologised and cancelled the fine, and called on its officials to “show common sense and to use their powers sensibly”.

But Spicer felt “there’s a bigger principle here”, and wrote a piece for the Telegraph arguing that children in modern Britain are too restricted.

He would “absolutely” encourage his daughter to set up another stall, and “I’d encourage other people to go and do it as well. It’s a great way to spend a bit of time with the kids in the holidays, and they might learn something.”

A fitting reminder of the great life lesson: when life gives you a fixed penalty notice, make lemonade.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.