Category: Business News

Image copyright
Getty Images/EPA/Reuters

Unprecedented is a dangerous word in journalism, but this really hasn’t happened before.

On Wednesday, four of the biggest names in tech will give evidence to members of the US Congress.

Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Sundar Pichai (Google), Tim Cook (Apple) and Jeff Bezos (Amazon) will all be grilled.

Jeff Bezos – the world’s richest man – has never testified before either house. They have never all been quizzed together.

How these tech bosses do, how they stand up to scrutiny, could be a defining moment in their future relationship with government.

Central to the interrogation will be whether these tech giants are simply too big.

The Covid pandemic has put this into sharp focus. Where other companies have struggled, Big Tech companies have thrived. Together they are now worth $5tn dollars. It’s led to accusations that – just like the banks – they are simply too big to fail.

The number of complaints levelled at these companies are so numerous they are too many to name individually here.

Image copyright
Reuters

Commanding position

The general theme though is that these companies don’t just run services – they own the internet’s utilities. The charge is that they use that commanding position unfairly at the expense of others.

Take one of the criticisms against Amazon, for example, that it promotes its own products over others on its Amazon marketplace.

Or Apple charging a 30% cut on the money generated from apps that use the App Store.

The complaint from app makers: where else do we go to sell our apps? Apple and Google (which respectively own iOS and Android, the operating systems of almost all the world’s smartphones) control the market, and so control who gets to play and who doesn’t. And they of course get to set the charges.

Google too, with its dominant search engine, has been accused (and fined) before, for burying competitor searches. Once again, the accusation is that no one company should have such a commanding position in an essential part of our internet.

And there are general criticisms that can be levelled at all the tech giants too. For example the alleged Copy/Acquire/Kill strategies that all four are accused of using.

Copy others’ ideas, buy a company that threatens you – and even potentially kill it off. Is this just shrewd, albeit ruthless business? Or is this Big Tech flexing its muscle unfairly?

Image copyright
AFP

Here’s why this has been such a difficult area to police. Traditionally, anti-competition law – in this case “anti-trust” law – has been focused on consumer pricing.

In a typical monopoly or cartel, there’s a simple test. Are consumers paying more because of a lack of competition?

The US “trusts” of the early 20th Century – from which the anti-trust legislation derives its name – were found to be driving up prices. Companies like Standard Oil and railway companies used their dominant position to hurt consumers.

That’s much harder to prove with these tech companies.

For example Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp are free. Amazon often drives down prices to beat competition. Google’s search engine is free. YouTube – owned by Google – is free. And apps on iPhones can often be downloaded for free.

So what’s the problem?

That is the heart of the argument. Critics say that these companies hurt consumers in a more subtle way, killing off smaller companies and strangling other businesses. The charge is that they are in fact damaging the economy.

That’s what legislators are looking to examine.

Anti-trust campaigners have already lost one battle before the hearing even begins. They wanted to have the tech bosses grilled one by one.

“We want to leave as little room as possible for them to hide behind each other,” Sarah Miller, from the American Economics Liberties Project, told me last week.

But that’s not going to happen. They’ll be questioned together and the hearing will – perhaps aptly – be virtual.

There are also worries that members of Congress will use the occasion to grandstand – to strut and preen – rather than asking the more difficult technical questions that might catch them out.

Image copyright
Getty Images

Off topic questions are also likely – particularly for Mark Zuckerberg. For example, Facebook is currently the focus of an advertising boycott. It’s accused of being too slow in removing racist and hateful content, and that could well be a line of questioning.

And of course, ahead of the US elections, Facebook should expect incoming from both Republican and Democratic members of Congress. Democrats are generally concerned about far-right content on the platform, Republicans that the company is structurally left-wing. And of course there are still concerns of foreign interference.

Expect China to come up too – and for it to be brought up by the tech bosses. With companies like TikTok and Huawei attracting the ire of the Trump administration, one defence will go something like: “Break us up, overregulate us, and you give Chinese tech companies more power.”

Trying to prize the four away from their scripts is going to be the toughest job. That worked most effectively during Mr Zuckerberg’s interrogation on Capitol Hill in 2018. But that’s harder said than done.

Image copyright
Getty Images

Congress has a big opportunity here. The chance to really cross-examine these powerful men doesn’t come often, and the evidence they give could shape their future relationship with government and their customers.

But whatever happens on Wednesday, this won’t be end of the story. Earlier this week, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s anti-trust panel said it would hold a hearing in September to discuss Google’s dominance in online advertising.

Image copyright
EPA

A court in Malaysia has sentenced former PM Najib Razak to 12 years in jail after finding him guilty on all seven counts in the first of several multi-million dollar corruption trials.

Najib had pleaded not guilty to the charges of criminal breach of trust, money laundering and abuse of power.

The case against him is seen as a test of Malaysia’s anti-corruption efforts.

The 1MDB scandal around a state-owned wealth fund in Malaysia has uncovered a global web of fraud and corruption.

It sent shockwaves through Malaysia’s political establishment, leading to the toppling of Najib’s UMNO party, which had governed the country for 61 years since it gained independence.

Najib, in office from 2009 to 2018, was sentenced to 12 years in prison for abuse of power, and 10 years in jail for each of six counts of money laundering and breach of trust.

The sentences – to run concurrently – will be suspended pending appeal.

“After considering all evidence in this trial, I find that the prosecution has successfully proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt,” judge Mohamad Nazlan Mohamad Ghazali told the Kuala Lumpur High Court.

“I am surely not satisfied with the result,” Najib told reporters.

“This is definitely not the end of the world, because there’s a process of appeal, and we hope that we would be successful then,” he added.

What were the accusations?

Tuesday’s verdicts centred on 42 million ringgit ($10m; £7.7m) transferred from the fund to the then-prime minister’s private accounts.

Najib denies all wrongdoing and says he was misled by financial advisers – in particular fugitive financier Jho Low.

Jho Low has been charged in both the US and Malaysia, but also maintains his innocence.

Image copyright
AFP / Getty

Najib’s defence team argued he was led to believe the funds in his accounts were donated by the Saudi royal family – rather than misappropriated from the state fund.

The charges carried as much as 15 to 20 years in prison each.

More on the 1MDB scandal

What is the 1MDB scandal?

The case centres around the 1 Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), a sovereign wealth fund set up in 2009, when Najib Razak was prime minister.

Sovereign wealth funds are government-owned investment funds that are used to boost a country’s economic development. Built with state earnings, such as revenues from oil resources and exports, they have extraordinary flows of cash to invest and potentially enormous international clout.

In 2015, questions were raised around 1MBD’s activities after it missed payments owed to banks and bondholders.

Malaysian and US authorities allege that $4.5bn was illicitly plundered from the fund and diverted into private pockets.

The missing money has been linked to luxury real estate, a private jet, Van Gogh and Monet artworks – and even a Hollywood blockbuster, the Wolf of Wall Street.

Last week, US bank Goldman Sachs reached a $3.9bn settlement with the Malaysian government for its role in the multi-billion-dollar corruption scheme.

The deal resolved charges in Malaysia that the bank misled investors when it helped raise $6.5bn for 1MDB.

Since his dramatic election defeat two years ago, the first for his party in 60 years – and the humiliation of seeing luxury items wheeled from his home in shopping trolleys by the police – Najib Razak has enjoyed something of a political resurrection.

Still a very powerful figure within UMNO, the former ruling party, he has successfully posed as a champion of ethnic Malays, many of whom became disillusioned with the reformist coalition which replaced him.

When that coalition collapsed in February, and UMNO joined a new government, Najib expressed confidence that the series of trials would go his way.

That confidence proved misplaced.

This first criminal conviction of such a senior political figure must now hurt his standing within UMNO, and will improve the public standing of Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin – once a close colleague and stalwart of UMNO who was fired in 2016 over his objections to the 1MDB scandal.

He now leads a fragile coalition with a wafer-thin parliamentary majority, pushing Malaysia into uncharacteristically choppy political waters.

What else is Najib accused of?

The former prime minister was cleared of all allegations by Malaysian authorities while he was still in office.

Yet the accusations played a big part in his election defeat in 2018 – and the new government swiftly reopened investigations into the 1MDB case.

While Tuesday’s verdicts were the first, they were possibly not the most significant.

A separate trial that began last August looks at accusations the former prime minister illicitly obtained 2.28bn ringgit ($550m, £448m) from 1MDB between 2011 and 2014.

He is facing 21 counts of money-laundering and four of abuse of power but again denies any wrongdoing.

His wife, Rosmah Mansor, also faces money-laundering and tax evasion charges, to which she has pleaded not guilty.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Image copyright
EPA

People entering the UK from at-risk countries who test negative for coronavirus twice within several days might be allowed to leave quarantine early.

The UK government is close to giving its backing to a trial, according to travel industry sources.

Under current rules, those arriving in the UK from certain countries must self-isolate for 14 days.

The Department for Transport (DfT) declined to comment.

Details of the new programme are said to be still being worked out, but one key area of debate is the number of days required between tests.

The government has indicated that it is keeping all quarantine measures under review.

It is said to be considering an eight-day stretch between tests, whereas figures within the travel sector are keen for a five-day period.

The number of days required between each test is critical in reducing the possibility of “false negative” results.

A false negative result is possible if someone who has recently contracted Covid-19 is not showing symptoms.

France is about to launch a compulsory two-test regime for people arriving from 16 at-risk countries, including the United States.

Image copyright
Getty Images

The BBC understands that there are two broad options being considered.

The first would involve someone having a first test several days before they travelled to the UK, with the second test happening the day before they arrive. However, this might mean that in some cases people would need to be tested abroad.

That option could mean that people would avoid quarantine altogether.

The second possibility is that people would be tested on arrival in the UK, possibly at the airport, and then be required to have a second test several days later.

In the period between the two tests, the person would have to self-isolate at home in line with government rules.

Another question mark remains over how the trial will be funded.

Travel consultant Paul Charles believes that airports will have to foot part of the bill.

“The onus is on UK airports to invest, as restaurants and bars have done, in the measures which enable the economy to get going,” he said.

Like other figures in the travel industry, Mr Charles is frustrated by the fact that the government has still not given its backing to testing as a way of people avoiding the travel quarantine.

“Substantial investment in testing is the only solution to enable safer travel, keep corridors open to other countries and remove the disruptive need for everyone to self-isolate for 14 days.”

The test which would be used is the same Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)-type test used by the NHS, and can cost about £150 each time.

Any trial of the double-testing scheme would probably initially be focused on one or two specific routes.

The BBC has been told that it would not initially be focused on people arriving from European destinations.

The aviation sector has been in discussions with Public Health England about how the testing could work.

If the scheme goes ahead, it’s not expected to be implemented for several weeks.

Image copyright
Getty Images

Closing the government scheme which is paying furloughed workers’ wages is a “mistake”, an economic research group has said.

It could push unemployment to 10% this year, the research suggests.

The latest furlough figures show 9.5 million people are using the scheme, the same as a week ago, and at a total cost of £31.7bn to the Treasury.

But those figures are likely to drop quickly, says the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR).

“The planned closure of the furlough seems to be a mistake, motivated by an understandable desire to limit spending,” said Garry Young, NIESR deputy director.

“The scheme was intended by the chancellor to be a bridge through the crisis and there is a risk that it is coming to an end prematurely.

“The scheme has been an undeniable success in terms of keeping furloughed employees attached to their jobs.”

The UK’s coronavirus furlough scheme will finish at the end of October.

Earlier this month Chancellor Rishi Sunak said he was sorry he could not protect every job.

He also admitted that some of the £1,000 bonuses being offered to take back furloughed staff would go to firms that were already keeping workers on.

• What happens when the furlough scheme ends?
• What jobs are available post-lockdown?

From August, employers must pay National Insurance and pension contributions, then 10% of pay from September, rising to 20% in October.

‘Very uncertain’

Workers are having 80% of their salaries paid for by the government – up to £2,500 a month – under the scheme, which was originally intended to last until the end of July.

NIESR’s research suggested that UK economy could shrink by 10% this year and is unlikely to recover until the end of 2023.

It comes after analysis from the EY Item Club earlier this week that the UK economy could take until 2024 to recover and that unemployment will rise to 9%.

Image copyright
Getty Images

That is a more pessimistic outlook than the think tank’s last forecast in April, which suggested a 7% drop in economic output.

However, the outlook is “very uncertain” and these forecasts are a “plausible outcome” rather than a confident prediction, said Mr Young.

“Unemployment is going to rise to about 10% by the end of this year, before dropping back next year, and we think that an extension of the furlough scheme would have been a relatively inexpensive way to limit that rise in unemployment,” he said.

He estimates that if the furlough scheme had been kept open, there would have been only 1.25 million using it by the end of the year, “hence it would be a bit cheaper to keep it going”.

‘Tricky period’

“The economy is entering a new phase now as it’s opened up but people are not confident yet of social consumption,” affecting hospitality, Mr Young said. “It’s a tricky period.”

Debt could reach 105% of the size of the economy, he said. But with low interest rates, this is more manageable, he said.

“A lot of the government borrowing is being financed by borrowing in this country. People are saving more because they can’t spend and indirectly that’s financing the government spending.”

Savings in bank accounts mean banks are able to deposit more at the Bank of England, which can then buy government bonds, financing government schemes such as furlough, he said.

Of the debt, “you will have to deal with it at some stage,” he said.

A review of taxation may be needed to see how the debt can eventually be reduced, NIESR thinks.

Image copyright
Getty Images

Car loans that hand salespeople more commission if they charge higher interest rates are to be banned from next year.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) reckons the ban will save customers £165m a year in total, or around £100-£200 on a loan.

The ban is long overdue, said debt experts, with Citizens Advice Scotland dubbing the commission “outrageous”.

The FCA said the ban “will increase competition and protect consumers”.

At the moment some brokers and car retailers make a commission on the interest rate they charge customers who take out a loan to buy a car.

The way the scheme works, the higher the interest rate, the higher the commission.

That effectively means “brokers are rewarded for charging consumers higher rates,” said Christopher Woolard, the FCA’s interim chief executive.

It said the ban would save consumers between £100-£200, about 6% of their costs, on a loan, although it expects some consumers to benefit much more substantially.

Even though the FCA announced the potential crackdown on the car financing industry last October, the ban will not take effect until 28 January 2021.

“In the light of consultation feedback and the additional operational pressures which the sector is facing at present the FCA has agreed to give firms limited additional time to implement the new rules,” the financial watchdog said.

‘Long overdue’

“The fact that some car dealers increase consumers’ interest rates just so they themselves can benefit from a commission bump is outrageous,” said Citizens Advice Scotland’s financial health spokesperson, Myles Fitt.

“As motor finance options are on the up through schemes like contract purchases this is the time to make sure consumers are adequately protected against these conflicts of interests.”

Debt adviser Sara Williams, who writes the Debt Camel blog, said the ban was “long overdue”.

“The interest rate should reflect the risk that the lender is taking, not how much a car salesman thinks you will pay.”

Image copyright
PA Media

Banning the commission is the right thing to do, said debt campaigner Mick McAteer, co-director at the Financial Inclusion Centre.

“History and evidence tells us that the combination of fast-growing markets and conflicts of interest in the form of commission payments lead to huge consumer detriment.

“Every mis-selling scandal has that combination,” said Mr McAteer.

“The announcement provides clarity for the industry,” said Adrian Dally, head of motor finance at the Finance and Leasing Association, a trade body for lenders.

“We are also pleased that the regulator accepted our point about the need to monitor the consumer hire market as the ban on discretionary commissions does not extend to personal contract hire agreements.”

Meanwhile Sara Williams warned that the commission linked to interest rates is only one of the ways car finances is mis-sold.

“Too often there isn’t a proper check that people can afford to make the monthly payments for the long contracts,” she said.

Image copyright
Getty Images

A government scheme offering £50 bike repair vouchers will launch in England on Tuesday as part of plans to boost cycling and walking.

An initial 50,000 vouchers will be made available online later in the day on a first-come, first-served basis.

The prime minister also announced that bikes will be made available on the NHS as part of the strategy.

But Labour said many of the government’s proposals were taking too long to come into effect.

It comes after the government launched its obesity strategy on Monday.

GPs in areas of England with poor health will be encouraged to prescribe cycling, and patients able to access bikes through their local surgery.

Recent Public Health England research found that being overweight or obese puts people at greater risk of serious illness or death from Covid-19.

Government statistics showed nearly 8% of critically ill patients in intensive care units with the virus have been morbidly obese, compared with 2.9% of the general population.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson said cycling and walking have “a huge role to play” in tackling health and environmental challenges.

“But to build a healthier, more active nation, we need the right infrastructure, training and support in place to give people the confidence to travel on two wheels,” he said.

“That’s why now is the time to shift gears and press ahead with our biggest and boldest plans yet to boost active travel – so that everyone can feel the transformative benefits of cycling.”

‘Fix Your Bike’ vouchers

The government’s “Fix Your Bike” vouchers are being released in batches “to help manage capacity” and so that the scheme can be monitored before being rolled out more widely, the government said.

They will typically cover the bill for a standard service and the replacement of a basic component such as an inner tube or cable.

During a Downing Street briefing in May, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said the initiative would be “available from next month”.

But the Department for Transport (DfT) said in July that it would only begin when maintenance shops could handle the expected spike in demand.

Halfords said it has thousands of slots available each day for customers to bring their bikes into stores to identify potential faults which could be rectified under the scheme.

“We think the government’s ‘Fix Your Bike’ voucher scheme will not only help individuals become more confident about keeping their bikes maintained, but will help speed up the cycling revolution,” said chief executive Graham Stapleton.

Image copyright
Getty Images

The retailer previously reported that bike sales had risen by 57.1% in the 13 weeks to 3 July, as people sought to avoid public transport during lockdown.

Thousands of miles of new protected cycle lanes, cycle training for children and adults, and the creation of the UK’s first zero-emission transport city are also part of the plans to promote cycling and walking.

The initiative has been welcomed by cycling groups and environmentalists.

They have long argued that Active Travel – the new phrase for walking and cycling – fulfils twin objectives of improving health and well-being, while also reducing emissions that harm people’s health and fuel climate change.

But they point out that the investment is less than a tenth of the £27bn that the government previously announced would be spent on new roads.

There’s now increasing pressure for that budget to be reduced.

AA head Edmund King told BBC News in April that some of the cash might be better spent on improving broadband.

And environmentalists have brought a legal challenge against the plans because the construction and use of the roads will increase carbon emissions when ministers are committed to reducing emissions.

A recent study suggested that big carbon savings can be made by constructing cycle lanes in suburbs, to be used by e-bikes.

Other measures to improve the well-being of pedestrians and cyclists include strengthening the Highway Code, improving legal protections, increasing lorry safety standards and working with the police and retailers to tackle bike thefts.

The plans will be funded by a £2bn investment announced in February.

Mr Shapps said this is a “once in a lifetime opportunity to create a shift in attitudes” to make cycling or walking part of daily routines.

“The measures we’ve set out today in this revolutionary plan will do just that,” he added.

Matt Mallinder, director of the charity Cycling UK, said the plan “places cycling at the heart of our towns and cities”.

But he called for even more funding “to truly shift gears so that everyone can feel the transformative benefits of cycling”.

Kerry McCarthy, Labour shadow cycling minister also said that the Conservative party had “failed to seize the opportunity this crisis has posed”.

“Although funding is welcome, cyclists will be rightly concerned about how long it is going to take to actually put these plans into practice.

“No-one wants a return to the levels of pollution and congestion we saw before the lockdown began, but, if we fail to make our roads safe enough to cycle, people will revert back to taking the car.”

Image copyright
Getty Images

Emirates has become the first airline to offer free Covid-19 insurance as it tries to get people flying again.

Passengers will be covered for medical treatment, hotel quarantine, and even their funeral if they catch the coronavirus while travelling.

The announcement comes as carriers around the world have been hit hard by measures to tackle the pandemic.

Earlier this month, the world’s biggest long-haul carrier told the BBC it is set to cut as many as 9,000 jobs.

“We know people are yearning to fly as borders around the world gradually re-open, but they are seeking flexibility and assurances should something unforeseen happen during their travel,” Emirates Group Chairman Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum said in a statement.

The company said the offer, which is valid for 31 days from the start of a passenger’s journey, will be available immediately and run until the end of October.

The coverage is free to all customers regardless of class of travel or destination and is applied automatically with no need to register.

The Dubai-based carrier said the insurance would cover medical expenses of up to €150,000 (£137,000; $176,500).

It will also pay for the cost of quarantining in a hotel for up to two weeks at €100 per day.

In the event of a passenger’s death due to Covid-19 the insurance cover will provide €1,500 towards the cost of their funeral.

Fear of flying

Air travel has slumped this year as countries shut their borders and people remain concerned about potentially becoming infected on flights or while travelling.

The cancelation or postponement of major events – including the Olympic Games in Japan, industry conferences and music festivals – has also had a major impact on demand for flights.

Last month the International Air Transport Association (IATA) warned that 2020 will go down as the “worst” on record financially.

The global industry group said the plunge in travel caused by the coronavirus will drive airline losses of more than $84bn (£65bn) this year, as revenues fall by 50% compared to 2019.

The collapse in demand has already forced carriers around the world to cut flights and layoff or furlough tens of thousands of workers.

Less than three weeks ago, the president of Emirates told the BBC that his company is set to cut as many as 9,000 jobs because of the pandemic.

Tim Clark said the airline had already cut a tenth of its staff but said: “We will probably have to let go of a few more, probably up to 15%.”

Prior to the crisis, Emirates had 60,000 staff.

It was the first time that the Middle Eastern carrier had disclosed how many jobs it would cut.

Image copyright
Getty Images

Sales at pubs, restaurants and hotels across the UK plunged by £30bn during lockdown, according to the hospitality sector.

UK Hospitality said that revenues plummeted by 87% between April and June, compared to the same period last year.

Boss Kate Nicholls said it shows many firms still need government support.

The trade body says sales for the three-month period came to £4.6bn, £29.6bn lower than in 2019.

Last year the hospitality industry contributed £38bn in tax receipts, a figure that will be substantially lower for 2020.

Before coronavirus hit, the hospitality sector employed 3.2m people.

Hospitality closures since lockdown:

• Italian chain Carluccio’s will close 40 branches and cut 1,000 jobs
• The owner of Zizzi’s and Ask Italian will close 75 branches
• Frankie & Benny’s owner could close up to 120 sites
• Sandwich chain Pret A Manger has said it will cut at least 1,000 jobs

While some pubs sold takeaway meals and drinks during lockdown, many were closed from 23 March until 4 July.

Kate Nicholls, chief executive of UK Hospitality, said the dramatic fall in sales demonstrates government assistance for the industry’s 65,000 businesses is vital.

“These figures substantiate our message that businesses still need support from government, if we want to avoid more business failures and job losses.

“While it’s great that some businesses are trading again, for many opening their doors remains unviable, while some parts of hospitality are still legally required to stay closed,” she said.

Graham Browett runs the Five Lamps Pub in Derby. His 15 staff were furloughed during lockdown, but the pub didn’t qualify for the government’s business support grant.

He said the pub decided offering takeaway meals wouldn’t work, so there was zero revenue coming in for three months, although he did get a rent holiday from the owner.

“Our chef had just put on a new menu that was quite fancy and you couldn’t serve it out of plastic containers,” he said.

Mr Browett said the pub is now bringing in about 80% of the weekly revenue that it earned before lockdown.

“There’s still a certain reticence. A lot of our customers are elderly, so we’ve gained the younger element but the older ones are still frightened,” he said.

The pub plans to take up the government’s Eat Out To Help Out discounted meals scheme in August.

“It’s an opportunity for us to push our new menu,” Mr Browett said.

And his outlook for the pub beyond that? “Tell me when the vaccine’s coming,” he said.

Image copyright
Getty Images

Republicans have proposed spending an additional $1tn (£776bn) to address the economic damage caused by the coronavirus pandemic.

The plan includes $100bn for schools and issuing stimulus payments of up to $1,200 to most Americans.

Under the plan, the payment would replace a $600 boost to unemployment benefits during the pandemic.

The proposal sets the stage for negotiations with Democrats who have called it “totally inadequate”.

The US has already spent more than $2.4tn on virus relief measures, sending billions of dollars in aid to businesses and individual households. But economists have warned since the spring that more would be necessary.

Senator Mitch McConnell said Republicans wanted to see how existing programmes were working, but had now produced a “tailored and targeted draft” to address the economic fallout of the pandemic.

The proposal would reduce the $600 weekly unemployment benefit supplement to $200 until states can set up a more targeted system that replaces 70% of a person’s previous wage.

• The millions of Americans ‘hanging by a thread’
• US sent $1.4bn of pandemic aid to dead people

The reduction reflects worries that the current benefits discourage workers from returning to work, since an estimated two thirds of recipients are getting more from unemployment than they did working.

Mr McConnell said Republicans “want to continue” the unemployment supplement, which expires this week. “But we have to do it in a way that does not slow down reopening.”

As well as money for direct payments to families and to help schools, Republicans said they want to put in place legislation to shield businesses from workers’ coronavirus health claims.

What else do Democrats want?

Senator Chuck Schumer, who leads Democrats in the Senate, said the proposal was “too little, too late”.

The US has lost roughly 15 million jobs since February and the recovery remains on shaky ground as virus cases rise and some places reimpose restrictions.

Nearly one in five US workers is collecting unemployment benefits and more than half of adults live in households that have seen a drop in income, according to a survey by the US census.

“This is a serious, serious crisis,” Mr Schumer said. “We’re running out of time.”

He said the Republican plan amounted to a “30% pay cut” at a time when most workers do not have jobs to return to and switching to a new system will be near “impossible” for states to execute. He pointed to problems that have plagued the programme so far.

“It will delay benefits for weeks, if not months, as we slide into a greater degree of recession,” he said.

Image copyright
Getty Images

Democrats, who have put forward their own $3tn plan, want funding for local governments, which are facing budget shortfalls due to the decline in economic activity. Many object to the unemployment benefit cut, which they want to see extended through to the end of the year.

They have also rejected the proposal to shield businesses from liability.

“What we will not support is what they’re saying to essential workers: ‘You have to go to work because you’re essential, we place no responsibility on your employer to make that workplace safe and if you get sick you have no recourse because we’ve given your employer protection,’” Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, the top Democrat in the House of Representatives, said in a recent television interview.

What happens now?

Some Republicans had proposed fast-tracking some pieces of the legislation – an idea rejected by Democrats, who see that strategy as an effort to avoid including their priorities.

Mr McConnell said on Friday he expected the negotiations to take “a few weeks”. The senator will also need to persuade members of his own party, who are worried about rising levels of government debt and opposed to further spending.

“The answer to these challenges will not simply be shovelling cash out of Washington. The answer to these challenges will be getting people back to work,” Republican Senator Ted Cruz said.

Image copyright
Getty Images

Facebook has pushed back against a European Union investigation into its practices, taking it to court over privacy concerns.

Two investigations are being carried out into Facebook to find out if it breaches competition laws.

To gather information, the European Commission has demanded internal documents from Facebook that include 2,500 specific key phrases.

Facebook says that means handing over unrelated but highly sensitive data.

The European Commission says it will defend the case in court, and its investigation into Facebook’s potential anticompetitive conduct is ongoing.

The social media giant has filed an appeal to the EU courts, arguing against the breadth of the document requests.

‘Irrelevant documents’

“We are cooperating with the commission and would expect to give them hundreds of thousands of documents,” said Tim Lamb, Facebook’s competition lawyer.

“The exceptionally broad nature of the commission’s requests means we would be required to turn over predominantly irrelevant documents that have nothing to do with the commission’s investigations, including highly sensitive personal information such as employees’ medical information, personal financial documents, and private information about family members of employees.”

A Facebook spokesperson stressed the company is not trying to hold up the investigation, saying the firm has been very forthcoming with information so far.

He said Brussels’ request for any documents which include the phrases “big question”, “shut down” and “not good for us” could even force Facebook to hand over confidential security assessments of its California headquarters.

Facebook says it offered commission investigators the chance to view sensitive but unrelated documents in a secure-viewing room where no copies could be made, but the offer was refused.