PLANS to exclude local test-and-trace schemes in England’s Tier 1 and Tier 2 lockdown areas from extra government funding were slammed as “indefensible” today.

On Monday, PM Boris Johnson announced that £1 billion of “new financial support” would be provided to local authorities in all three tiers of the local lockdown system, but that only regions in “very high alert,” Tier 3, would receive extra funds for locally run testing and tracing.

MPs were expected to vote through the three-tier system last night, with measures taking effect from Wednesday.

In a Commons urgent question today, shadow chancellor Anneliese Dodds asked why areas in all tiers were not in line for extra test-and-trace support.

Chief Secretary to the Treasury Stephen Barclay responded only by reiterating Mr Johnson’s vow of £1bn “plus a further £500 million to address track and trace locally” in Tier 3 areas.

Ms Dodds also asked why the £1.3bn in unspent local coronavirus business support grants, due to have been returned to the Treasury, would not be used to support firms in affected areas.

Mr Barclay conceded that it was a “fair point” which a “number of colleagues around the House” had raised.

Ms Dodds added that Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s handling of the economic crisis was “testing patience to its limits.”

She cited the example of Leicester, which has been in lockdown for more than 100 days but which will not receive extra test-and-trace funding when it is put under Tier 2 measures.

Leisure centres, gyms, arcades, betting shops and casinos will close in Liverpool when the region is put into a Tier 3 lockdown.

At that level, social mixing will be prohibited indoors and in private gardens. Drinking establishments will close unless they operate like restaurants, while travel in and out of the area will be advised against.

In the Commons, Tory MPs Alec Shelbrooke, Julian Sturdy and Sir Edward Leigh urged the government to extend funding to hospitality businesses in Tier 2 areas, such as Leicester, the Midlands and parts of northern England, to avoid the sector being “destroyed.”

Mr Barclay acknowledged their concerns but said that “there is a balance that needs to be struck between the comprehensive nature and the fiscal cost of the range of packages.”