Category: Speeches

Kate Green – 2020 Comments on National School Attendance Data

The comments made by Kate Green, the Shadow Secretary of State for Education, on 1 December 2020.

The government’s failure to get the pandemic under control months ago means that one in six children have been out of school for the second week in a row.

The government must respond to Labour’s calls to publish how many children have now missed school multiple times, urgently set out support to keep schools open, ensure children self-isolating have access remote learning and set out a plan for exams which delivers certainty for pupils, teachers and parents.

December 1, 2020
Ed Davey – 2010 Speech at the Trading Standards Institute Annual Conference

The speech made by Ed Davey, the then Minister for Consumer Affairs, on 15 June 2010.

Thank you Ron, for that introduction – and for inviting me to this conference – not least, as it gives me the chance to make my very first speech as your Minister. I’m grateful to so many of you for making the early slot – though I guess your professional curiosity may have got the better of you.

A coalition Government? A Liberal Democrat Minister? Surely there must be some infringement of the Sale of Goods Act? Seriously, I’m actually very proud to be here, as Minister for Consumer Affairs.

Because I believe what you do – what Trading Standards’ wider family does, whether it’s Citizen Advice or the OFT, Scambusters or Consumer Focus, or your many other partner organisations – what you do isn’t just important. It’s vital.

Vital for consumers. Vital for business. Indeed, vital for the whole economy- for the recovery and beyond.

I want to be straight with you today about the public spending challenges we must all face – and I want to provide you with a sense of what the Coalition holds in store for you.

Yet I want to place on the record, right from the start, not just some warm words of thanks for your work, but a clear and unambiguous recognition that I believe you are part of the frontline of our economy.

The problem in public life so often, is that when things work well, they go unnoticed. Unvalued. The fact that we are fortunate to live in a country where the essential plumbing of our market economy normally works okay just doesn’t make good newspaper copy.

Whether it’s competition policy or consumer policy. Company law or insolvency law. Britain’s economic plumbing is actually amongst the best in the world.

There may be exceptions. I’m told that recently there have been some problems – with the banks. Yet I’m leaving all that to Vince.

But when it comes to consumer policy and the overall consumer framework, the UK scores highly when compared to the rest of the EU and the Anglo-Saxon world – and we should celebrate that.

But before you all get too comfortable, my message today is certainly not that everything’s hunky dory, so we won’t be changing much. Far from it.

Even without the financial pressures, there would have been an agenda of change.

Let me give just three well-known illustrations of some drivers of change.

Technology. Great work has already been done-and by many here- to grapple with the new challenges in the digital world but I’m sure no-one believes that e-Crime, for example, is sorted.

Climate change. I believe that we’ve only just begun to scratch the surface of how the climate change challenge will affect our daily lives, particularly when buying and selling goods and services.

Globalisation. It’s not just that business is more global- it’s that crime- and serious organised crime – is more global. Counterfeit or dangerous goods. Fraud and money laundering. Drugs and human trafficking. All on a truly international scale.

So age old questions face by generations of Trading Standards Officers and their colleagues have to be posed again in this new environment.

How do we protect the most vulnerable – when the con man isn’t just knocking at the door, but phoning them up, using international direct email and emailing them too?

How do we keep the local face and the local knowledge, yet share information and co-operate across agencies, across local authority boundaries and indeed national boundaries, so we can keep one step ahead of the villains?

How do we minimise the regulation on businesses, striving hard to grow when we need their help to stop global warming?

Talking to Ron Gainsford, your excellent CEO, here at TSI. Talking to Ted Forsyth, the excellent Chief Trading Standards Officer in the community I represent. I know your profession is addressing these issues. But I want you to be clear that these are our priorities too.

Now over the next few weeks and months we will be more concrete in how such priorities will actually translate into policy over the next weeks and months to come. But I have no intention of rushing to re-invent the wheel.

I am, for example, currently studying the results of the recent consumer landscape survey that officials have been undertaking. And thanks, by the way, to those of you who’ve played a role.

And I’ve been reading something called a “Manifesto for Trading Standards”.

It’s already clear that some significant consultation will need to take place this year or next, before we can finalise any serious reforms.

So I hope today’s question and answer session can mark the start of a vital early dialogue between myself and you as a profession, to gather your ideas before any major changes are made.

Of course there is one driver of change that threatens to derail considered policymaking, whether we like it or not. And that’s deficit reduction. So let me take that head on, as promised.

Even under the last Government, I think it’s fair to say, Trading Standards was not a spending priority. I don’t have the sense that Trading Standards are a gold-plated service, even if they can still often be a golden standard.

And yet, I don’t imagine anyone here seriously think that Trading Standards will be spared from shouldering its share of the pain of deficit reduction.

The question is, for all of us – can we do more with less? Or, in some cases I guess, do the same with less.

I don’t honestly believe that in services like yours a salami slicing approach is going to work anymore.

So how can central Government, working with local authorities across the country, help to realise major efficiency savings – cuts – without jeopardising the core objectives of the vital service we are here to deliver?

Well, I’m hoping that this conference can begin to answer such questions.

I notice for example that you have one session on today’s programme entitled “How to halve the cost of a prosecution and double its chance of success”. I hope I can be sent the speaker’s notes.

But I hope you as an Institute can develop your own thinking and best practice about how Trading Standards might deepen still further existing co-operation with other local regulatory services – both within and across local authority boundaries.

The consumer landscape review has taken evidence already from examples of Trading Standards Departments experimenting with just that sort of rationalisation. As Minister, I need to hear your views, learn about what works and what doesn’t and understand how my Department can help you manage such challenging change.

Now, if I were a cynic summing up my speech so far Conference, I’d say that the Minister began by telling us how important we are, didn’t tell us what he was going to do with us, and then asked us to come up with some major savings.

But thankfully I’m not a cynic. Because I’m genuinely interested in working with you to find practical solutions to your issues.

So let me list a few issues I’ve already asked my officials to look into as evidence of my intent to be your champion in Whitehall.

First, could we grant the public, access to existing information, existing databases, held on prosecutions of rogue traders and other breaches of fair trading laws?

This may not be straightforward.

For example, I’m advised there are some key legal issues to consider before we can decide to make all or part of the Central Register for Convictions publicly accessible. But consider those issues we will.

Better sharing of information both with the public and between enforcement agencies is something I want to focus on.

Second, could we ensure that Trading Standards basic testing to combat under age sale does not require RIPA authorisation? While this is a Home Office lead, the advice I’ve received suggests the Home Office’s existing Code of Practice gives Trading Standards some reassurances. But perhaps the guidance could be clearer and more practical. Once again, I undertake, today, to work with TSI if your members continue to see a problem here.

And third, can we do more to help you combat scamming, whether by letter, telephone or email, by taking measures at critical choke points of a scam like the transfer of funds to the scammer? I’ve asked officials to look at the main ways money is wired abroad in response to international scams, to see if we can work with the main payment companies involved so consumers can be identified and warned of dangers, before it is too late.

These are just 3 small but practical examples – I’m sure in your questions you will come up with many more ideas.

You see, in coalition politics, in the new politics, we’re already learning some important lessons.

Look for where you can agree.

Be honest where you disagree.

And then work, in good faith, to come to solutions that take the best from all sides.

Ron. Conference, I hope that’s exactly what we can do, together, for each other, And above all, for the public. For whom Trading Standards is such a force for good.

So we don’t just preserve the excellence in Trading Standards in a difficult climate, but take that forward to new even higher levels.

I’m looking forward to our joint task. Thank you.

November 30, 2020
Brandon Lewis – 2020 Statement on Pat Finucane Case

The statement made by Brandon Lewis, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in the House of Commons on 30 November 2020.

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement.

INTRODUCTION

The murder of Patrick Finucane on 12 February 1989 in front of his family was an appalling crime that has caused tremendous suffering. It occurred during a difficult and dark period of this nation’s history which brought untold pain to many families across the United Kingdom and Ireland.

Northern Ireland has made massive strides since the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement to create a vibrant, inclusive and forward-looking future. However, the legacy of the Troubles still hangs like a shadow over society. This Government is determined to work hand in hand with the people of Northern Ireland, from all communities, with victims and survivors, and with our Irish partners. We want to find a way to bring truth and reconciliation where there is currently hurt, and where too many people continue to suffer due to the absence of information into the circumstances of the deaths of their loved ones.

Mr Speaker, it is plain that the levels of collusion in the Finucane case, made clear by previous investigations, are totally unacceptable. Former Prime Minister, David Cameron, rightly apologised publicly in 2012. I unreservedly reiterate that apology today. I also acknowledge an apology can not undo history, nor can it alleviate the years of pain that the Finucane family have felt. But it is nonetheless right that this Government acknowledges that, at the height of the Troubles, actions were taken that fell far short of what can and should be expected.

Mr Speaker, the murder of Patrick Finucane has been the subject of a considerable number of investigations and reviews, including the ‘Stevens 3’ investigation and the de Silva review. These investigations led to the conviction of Ken Barrett, a loyalist terrorist who pleaded guilty to the murder.

In February 2019, the Supreme Court made a declaration that the State had not discharged its obligation to conduct an Article 2 compliant investigation into the death of Mr Finucane. That judgment specifically set out that – ‘It is for the state to decide….what form of investigation, if indeed any is now feasible, is required in order to meet that requirement”.

It did not order a public inquiry. But in considering all the options open to me to meet the State’s obligations under Article 2, I have considered whether a public inquiry is the most appropriate step to address the specific findings of the Court at this time.

DECISION

Mr Speaker, I have today spoken to the Finucane family. I advised them of my decision not to establish a public inquiry at this time. Our public statement, published this afternoon, sets out the considered rationale for this decision, which I will now explain directly to the House.

Mr Speaker, in reaching its conclusion, the Supreme Court identified a number of issues with previous investigations in this case:

Firstly – there was no identification of the officers within the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Security Service and Secret Intelligence Service who failed to warn Patrick Finucane of known threats to his life in 1981 and 1985, together with the circumstances in which these failures occurred;

Secondly – there was no identification of the RUC officers who, as Desmond De Silva said, “probably did propose” Mr Finucane as a target for loyalist terrorists in December 1988; and

Thirdly – there was no identification of the police source who provided intelligence about Patrick Finucane to Ken Barrett.

The Supreme Court identified these shortcomings and other failures of process. But it did not render the previous reviews and investigations – which resulted in significant findings and information being released into the public domain – as null and void.

The work conducted by, and the findings of, those previous independent investigations and reviews remain valid. The State’s Article 2 obligations can be met through a series of processes – taken by independent authorities on the initiative of the State – which cumulatively can establish the facts, identify the perpetrators and hold them to account where sufficient evidence exists.

In June 2019, an independent review of previous investigations was commissioned by my Rt Hon Friend, the member for Staffordshire Moorlands. The first purpose of this review was to gain a clear understanding of what investigative steps had already been taken to identify all individuals of concern. Its second purpose was to understand the actions taken as part of previous investigations in respect of these individuals.

INFORMATION IN PUBLIC DOMAIN

The review was conducted by independent counsel from Northern Ireland. It highlighted that steps had in fact been taken during previous investigations which had not been considered by the Supreme Court – but which were relevant to the issues it identified. For example, it found that a number of officers from the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army’s Force Research Unit had been interviewed as part of the Stevens’ investigation and that Stevens accepted that there was no direct breach of policy by any individual officer at the time.

As my Rt Hon friend for North Shropshire stated in 2011, accepting that collusion occurred is not sufficient in itself. The UK Government recognises the need to ensure sufficient levels of public scrutiny of criminal investigations and their results.

I am today publishing further information that was considered by the independent counsel in their review since the Supreme Court judgment, some of which has not previously been released into the public domain. This includes information pertaining to a Police Service of Northern Ireland review conducted in 2015.

PSNI REVIEW PROCESS AND OPONI INVESTIGATION

Mr Speaker, as set out in the 2015 police review, a number of issues were referred to the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland in 2016 and remain subject to investigation.

In addition, the Legacy Investigation Branch of the PSNI informed my Department on 2 November 2020 that Patrick Finucane’s case is shortly due to undergo a process of review, in accordance with the priorities set out in their Case Sequencing Model. The Chief Constable confirmed that this is expected to begin early in the New Year.

To be clear – this is a purely operational police matter. The UK Government rightly has no role whatsoever in determining how or when the police deal with its outstanding legacy caseload. However, the fact that a decision on a police review is due shortly is an important development and was a factor in determining the next steps in this case. Critically, a review would consider whether further investigative steps could be taken in this case and whether the PSNI should do so. These were key elements of the Supreme Court judgment.

It is, quite properly, for the Chief Constable of the PSNI to determine the precise scope and format of any review in accordance with their own priorities and review procedures. And the police have indicated that they expect that any review would need to be conducted independently of the PSNI.

Such a process, in addition to the ongoing investigations being conducted by the Police Ombudsman, could play an important role in addressing the issues identified by the Supreme Court.

FUTURE INQUIRY

Mr Speaker – I want to be clear. I am not taking the possibility of a public inquiry off the table at this stage. It is important that we allow the PSNI and Police Ombudsman processes to move forward, and that we avoid the risk of prejudicing any emerging conclusions from that work.

I will consider all options available to me to meet the Government’s obligations.

CONCLUSION

Mr Speaker, I assure the House that this decision has been taken following careful consideration of the facts, the findings of the Supreme Court judgment, the outcome of the independent counsel review, and the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mr Speaker, this Government has demonstrated that, when the public interest requires it, we will establish public inquiries to look at potential failings by Government or state bodies. As we have done in the case of the Manchester bombing.

In this instance, I believe it is in the public interest to allow the police and Ombudsman processes to proceed, before taking a decision on whether the State’s Article 2 obligations have been discharged, or whether further steps are required.

Mr Speaker, this case is sadly just one example of the violence and tragedy experienced by so many individuals and families across Northern Ireland, the rest of the United Kingdom, and Ireland during the Troubles. That is why this Government remains committed to dealing with the legacy of the past in its entirety.

We are determined to get this right, working closely with communities. This is vital so that society in Northern Ireland can look beyond its divisive past and towards a shared future.

I commend this statement to the House.

November 30, 2020
Chris Philp – 2020 Speech on the Scheduled Mass Deporation to Jamaica

The speech made by Chris Philp, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the House of Commons on 30 November 2020.

This charter flight to Jamaica is specifically to remove foreign criminals. The offences committed by the individuals on this flight include sexual assault against children, murder, rape, drug dealing and violent crime. Those are serious offences, which have a real and lasting impact on the victims and on our communities. This flight is about criminality, not nationality. Let me emphasise: it has nothing to do with the terrible wrongs faced by the Windrush generation. Despite the extensive lobbying by some, who claim that the flight is about the Windrush generation, it is not. Not a single individual on the flight is eligible for the Windrush scheme. They are all Jamaican citizens and no one on the flight was born in the United Kingdom. They are all foreign national offenders who between them have served 228 years plus a life sentence in prison.

It is a long-standing Government policy that any foreign national offender will be considered for deportation. Under the UK Borders Act 2007, which was introduced and passed by a Labour Government with the votes of a number of hon. Members who are present today, a deportation order must be made where a foreign national offender has been convicted of an offence and received a custodial sentence of 12 months or more. Under the Immigration Act 1971, FNOs who have caused serious harm or are persistent offenders are also eligible for consideration.

Let me put this flight in context. In the year ending June 2020, there were 5,208 enforced returns, of which 2,630, or over half, were to European Union countries, and only 33 out of over 5,000 were to Jamaica—less than 1%. During the pandemic, we have continued with returns and deportations on scheduled flights and on over 30 charter flights to countries including Albania, France, Germany, Ghana, Lithuania, Nigeria, Poland and Spain, none of which, I notice, provoked an urgent question. The clear majority of the charter flights this year have been to European countries.

Those being deported have ample opportunity to raise reasons why they should not be. We are, however, already seeing a number of last-minute legal claims, including, in the last few days, by a convicted murderer, who has now been removed from the flight.

This Government’s priority is keeping the people of this country safe, and we make no apology—no apology—for seeking to remove dangerous foreign criminals. Any Member of this House with the safety of their constituents at heart would do exactly the same.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy

First, no one opposing this flight condones any of the crimes that these individuals have been found guilty of. It is the process of mass deportation that is fundamentally wrong, and it is notorious for bundling people out of the country without due process. Does the Minister recognise that this decision effectively amounts to double jeopardy when those involved in some lesser offences have already served their custodial sentence? Does he recognise the message that that sends about the consequences of being a white offender or a black offender, given the racial disparities in sentencing?

I hope the Minister agrees that no one is above the law, not even the Government, and that no one is beneath adequate defence and proper legal representation, not even those born in other countries. Will he therefore outline whether the deportees have been granted access to adequate legal advice and representation, and whether any have been allowed to appeal this decision, particularly given the lockdown restrictions and the likelihood that they would have no access to legal aid?

On being above the law, the Equality and Human Rights Commission recently found that the Home Office unlawfully ignored warnings that the hostile environment was discriminatory. Can the Minister explain why the Government are so comfortable continuing with a key part of the hostile environment policy when it has been so damningly called into question? Has he considered the 31 children who will be impacted by having a parent removed from this country?

The Home Office has got it wrong again and again on immigration. Will it therefore think again, halt this deportation flight and finally end the illegal hostile environment?

Chris Philp

The hon. Lady speaks of what she calls mass deportations. I have already pointed out that, over the last year, of the 5,800 people who have been removed, only 33 have been of Jamaican nationality.

The hon. Lady mentioned black versus white. She was insinuating in her question that there was some element of underlying racism in this, but I have pointed out already that the vast majority of people who have been removed this year have been removed to European countries. This policy applies to people from Spain, France and Italy as much as it does to people from Jamaica. There is no element of discrimination in this policy whatever, and the hon. Lady was completely wrong to insinuate that, in some way, there was.

The hon. Lady asked about double jeopardy. She said that these people have been punished by a prison sentence already, but I say this: if somebody comes to this country, commits a serious criminal offence and puts our constituents at risk, it is right that, once they have served their sentence, or a great part of it, they should be removed. It is not just me who thinks that; it is the Labour Members who voted for this law in 2007 who think that, some of whom are sitting in this Chamber today.

The hon. Lady mentioned the EHRC and the compliant environment. This case is nothing to do with the compliant environment; it is about implementing the Borders Act 2007, as we are obliged to do. In terms of due process, there are ample opportunities to complain and appeal, as many people do, and I have mentioned already the case of a murderer who was taken off the flight just a few days ago following legal appeals.

We are protecting our fellow citizens, and I suggest that the hon. Lady takes a similar approach.

Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]

Will my hon. Friend make it clear that people who come to the United Kingdom to contribute to our economy and our society are most welcome, but that those who come from foreign countries and then commit the most heinous of crimes, be it murder, sexual violence, violence against children or violence against the person, can expect to experience the full force of law and then be required to leave the country at the end of their sentence? Does he agree that, far from the public disagreeing with that, they are wholly in support of it and expect the Government to take this action to keep society safe?

Chris Philp

My hon. Friend, as always, puts it very well. Of course, when people come to this country as immigrants and make a contribution—to academia, to the work environment, and in myriad other ways—we welcome them with open arms. Our new points-based system, which will become active in just a few days’ time, does precisely that. However, as he says, if somebody comes to this country and enjoys our hospitality, but abuses that hospitality by committing a serious criminal offence, they can, should, and will be removed in the interests of public protection.

Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)

I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) for having secured such an important and time-critical urgent question. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for his previous work and advocacy in this important area.

The news of this flight comes just days after the Equality and Human Rights Commission found that the Government, as we have heard, acted unlawfully in their treatment of the Windrush generation through the hostile environment. As Caroline Waters, the chair of the EHRC, said,

“The treatment of the Windrush generation as a result of hostile environment policies was a shameful stain on British history.”

There is no clear timetable for implementing the recommendations of the Wendy Williams report, and with just 12% of applicants having received a payment and at least nine people having died waiting, the Windrush compensation scheme is failing badly. In his written response to me over the weekend, the Minister said that it is wrong and offensive to conflate this returns flight with the Windrush scandal, but I am afraid that given this Government’s track record, their failings on Windrush and the delays in the compensation scheme, we simply have no faith that this Government have done their due diligence in relation to those on this scheduled flight, and we would not be doing ours if we did not ask the questions.

Of course, we recognise that those who engage in violent and criminal acts must face justice. However, we also hear that at least one person on that flight has a Windrush generation grandfather; there is another whose great-aunt was on the HMT Windrush, and another whose grandfather fought in the second world war for Britain. It is clear that we have not yet established just how far the consequences of the Windrush injustice extend. With that in mind, what assessment has been made to ensure that none of those scheduled to be on the flight are eligible under the Windrush scheme, or have been affected by the wider immigration injustices that impacted the victims of the Windrush scandal? What assurances can the Minister provide the House that the mandatory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of the children left behind, who are innocent in this, has been considered?

It has also been reported that the Home Office has reached an agreement with the Jamaican Government that people who left Jamaica as children will no longer be repatriated. Can the Minister confirm whether this is the case, and can he also confirm what age someone would need to be to have been determined to be a child?

Chris Philp

The hon. Lady, the shadow Minister, asks about the Windrush scheme. As she will be aware, over 6,300 people have now been given citizenship, quite rightly, and 13,300 documents have been issued to those people who suffered terrible wrongs in the past. In terms of compensation, 226 people have now received claims totalling in excess of £2.1 million, with a great deal more to pay out. I can also confirm that all of these cases on the plane have been individually assessed, and none of them is eligible for the Windrush compensation scheme.

The hon. Lady spent a great deal of time talking about Windrush during her question, but I say again—as I said in my letter to her—that it is completely wrong to conflate the people who were the victims of terrible injustice in the Windrush cases with these cases, who are nothing to do with Windrush, have no Windrush entitlement at all, and have committed terrible criminal offences. She also asks about the age eligibility. The Government are fully committed to discharging their obligation under the 2007 Act, which is to seek to remove anyone of any age who has been sentenced to a custodial term of over 12 months. That has been, is, and will remain our policy.

November 30, 2020
Keir Starmer – 2020 Letter to Every Gurdwara in the Country

The letter sent by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 30 November 2020.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh.

I would like to send my heartfelt best wishes to all Sikhs throughout the UK and across the world, as you celebrate the 551st birth anniversary of Guru Nanak Dev Ji, the founder of the Sikh faith.

I want to use this opportunity to extend my gratitude for the huge contribution the Sikh community has made during the pandemic. Gurdwaras and Sikh organisations have looked after their local communities and those most vulnerable in our society. Even when Gurdwaras were closed for worship, volunteers went in to prepare langar and thereafter delivered free warm meals for people in the community. Sikhs have also been on the frontline as key workers, who have been the backbone of our nation.

We owe a huge debt of gratitude to the Sikh community in exemplifying the core teachings of Guru Nanak. The seva (selfless service) of Sikhs during the pandemic is a shining example of their community spirit. Guru Nanak championed oneness of humanity and I have seen these founding values embodied by British Sikhs.

I appreciate that due to Covid-19 restrictions, Gurpurab celebrations will not be the same. I know how incredibly difficult and upsetting this will be for families and communities, who won’t be able to come together as they normally would. However, Guru Nanak’s teachings of selfless service and perseverance will continue to be an inspiration to us all.

On behalf of everyone at the Labour Party, I would like to wish you and your families a very happy Gurpurab.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa,

Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh.

November 30, 2020
Daniel Zeichner – 2020 Comments on Agricultural Payments After Brexit

The comments made by Daniel Zeichner, the Shadow Farming Minister, on 30 November 2020.

If the government mishandles the transition away from existing payment schemes, it risks pushing family farms over the edge.

And risk is even greater if the Tories push ahead with a series of race-to-the-bottom trade deals that allow cheap food produced to lower standards to be imported into our shops and high street takeaways.

Where public money is supporting farmers it should rightly promote good environmental practice. But if the government can’t put the new systems in place in time, farmers’ livelihoods won’t survive.

November 30, 2020
Wes Streeting – 2020 Comments on National Tutoring Programme

The comments made by Wes Streeting, the Shadow Schools Minister, on 30 November 2020.

Yet again this government is failing to deliver on its promises which will exacerbate an attainment gap that was widening even before the pandemic. Urgent investment is needed in catch-up learning, alongside support to keep schools open and ensure children self-isolating have access to laptops to enable them learn remotely.

The Conservatives’ approach is holding children’s education back and without urgent action children’s learning will be permanently damaged by this pandemic.

November 30, 2020
George Eustice – 2020 Comments Giving Clarification on Definition of a Substantial Meal

The comments made by George Eustice (GE), the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, with Nick Ferrari (NF) on LBC Radio on 30 November 2020.

NF – If you’re in Tier 2, you can only serve alcohol with a substantial meal. What constitutes as a substantial meal, a Scotch Egg?

GE – I think this is a term that is understood very much by the restaurant trade.

NF – I’ve had a number of restaurateurs who have genuinely asked for guidance. Would a Scotch Egg count as a substantial meal?

GE – I think that a Scotch Egg would probably count as a substantial meal if there was table service, often that might be as a starter. This is a term that is understood within licensing since you can have the concept of a table licence for alcohol which also requires you to serve a substantial meal.

November 30, 2020
George Eustice – 2020 Speech to the Oxford Farming Conference

The speech made by George Eustice, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on 30 November 2020.

It is a real privilege to be here today to launch our Agricultural Transition Plan.

I’d like to begin by thanking the Oxford Farming Conference for hosting this event. Of course, we all look forward to the time to when we will have turned the corner of this pandemic and can return to meeting again properly, but for now let me start by taking this opportunity to thank all those of you who working in our food supply chain to keep the nation fed. The response of the sector has been phenomenal and has been a timely reminder of the critical importance of domestic food production to our food security as a nation.

My family have farmed in West Cornwall for six generations. The names of fields were passed from one generation to the next. Like all farmers, we knew our land and so I understand the responsibility that farmers feel to the hard work of previous generations and also their commitment to the future.

So as we contemplate the biggest change in agricultural policy in half a century, we need to design a policy that is not only right for those who are the custodians of our countryside today but which is also right for those who follow in their footsteps tomorrow. Those who we’ve yet to meet. Those perhaps who yearn to go into farming but cannot currently get access to land; the farm managers who want to set out on their own; maybe those who left the family farm twenty years ago but wish they could find a way to return.

So, today we are publishing further details of our approach to changing the way we reward and incentivise farmers.

We will remove the arbitrary area-based subsidies on land ownership or tenure and replace them with new payments and new incentives to reward farmers for farming more sustainably, creating space for nature on their land, enhancing animal welfare and delivering, of course, the other objectives set out in the Agriculture Act 2020.

We will remove the old style, top down rules and draconian penalties of the EU era starting with important changes next year that will substantially reduce guidance that farmers need to follow.

This of course is a moment of great change, where, for the first time in fifty years, we have a chance to do things differently. So, we should not waste that opportunity. We should think through from first principles what a coherent policy actually looks like, and then chart an orderly course towards it.

There is no doubt that the intensification of agriculture since the 1960s has taken its toll on wildlife and on nature. So, to address this, we need to rediscover some of the agronomic techniques that my Great Grandfather might have deployed, but then fuse these with the best precision technology and the best plant science available to us today.

The centre piece of our future policy will be made up of three component parts.

Firstly, the Sustainable Farming Incentive will pay farmers who are in receipt of BPS for actions that they take to manage their land in an environmentally sustainable way.

Secondly, the Local Nature Recovery will pay for actions that support local nature recovery and deliver local environmental priorities. This scheme will also encourage collaboration, helping farmers work together to improve their local environment.

Finally, Landscape Recovery will support the delivery of landscape and ecosystem recovery through long-term, land use change projects. They will help us to meet our targets; to plant 30,000 hectares of new woodland each year by 2025, to create and restore some of our peatlands, to protect 30% of land by 2030, to reach net zero by 2050.

We know that this marks a significant change and I’m also very conscious of the fact that for many farm enterprises, they are dependent on the area subsidy payments to generate a profit. And that without it some might assume they would not be profitable, but that is why we have created a seven-year transition period. We want this to be an evolution, not an overnight revolution. That means making year-on-year progressive reductions to the legacy direct payment scheme, while simultaneously making year-on-year increases to the money available to support the replacement.

Between 2021 and 2024, we will help farmers prepare to take part in our Environmental Land Management offer.

This will include expanding the Countryside Stewardship scheme and opening a new Sustainable Farming Incentive, which will be open to every farmer from 2022 onwards.

We will also continue to develop pilots for Environmental Land Management.

We will also increase the amount of funding available for environmental and animal welfare improvements in each year of the early transition, using funding released from Direct Payments as we move towards the roll out of the three components under Environmental Land Management, which will then take effect in full from 2024.

We recognise that there is a problem with poor profitability in agriculture, but the premise behind our new policy is to tackle the causes of that poor profitability, rather than masking it with a subsidy payment.

So our new financial incentives for sustainable farming and nature recovery will be set at a rate to incentivise widespread participation and will give consideration to natural capital principles so that in some areas we will go beyond the income foregone methodology of the past.

To support farmers in reducing their costs and improving their profitability, there will be new grants to invest in new equipment to reduce costs.

There will be exit schemes to help those who want to retire or leave the industry to do so with dignity, and there will be grants to create new opportunities and support for new entrants coming into the industry.

We will also provide grants for farmer-led Research and Development, and for the use of innovative new techniques led by farmers and growers.

I would like to say a bit more about what the early part of the transition is going to look like.

Next year, we will begin to reduce Direct Payments, improve how existing schemes and regulations operate, and offer grants to help farmers invest in environmental and productivity improvements.

Reductions in Direct Payments will begin at 5% for most farmers.

Enforcement will be more proportionate – with written communications rather than financial penalties and the approach taken to inspections will be overhauled.

We will continue our programme of tests and trials and start a new National Pilot for Environmental Land Management.

And our future agricultural policy will be designed with farmers, for farmers, so that it works in fields and on farms, not just on paper. I know that we haven’t always got it right in the past. I know that administrative processes have caused problems. I want farmers to trust our reforms. And we want to work with you all to get this right.

In 2022 and 2023, we will reduce spend on Direct Payments by around 15% in each of those years.

We will start to roll out some of the core elements of the Environmental Land Management. The Sustainable Farming Incentive will support sustainable approaches to farm husbandry that help the environment that might include, promoting integrated pest management, actions to improve soil health or catchment sensitive farming.

We will make more funding available within the legacy Countryside Stewardship Scheme. We will offer a slurry investment scheme, to help reduce pollution, take us close to net zero and help us leave the environment in a better state than we found it.

There will be standalone projects to support tree planting, peatland restoration and nature recovery.

We will be launching a new-industry-led R&D scheme to invest in innovation and to benefit farmers.

We will also, as I said, offer an exit support scheme – to help farmers who want to retire to do so with dignity and to help new entrants into the industry. We will be consulting further on these scheme designs in the new year.

We will begin rolling out of the full three components of our Environmental Land Management in late 2024. By the end of 2024, the legacy Basic Payment Scheme probably will have been reduced by about 50%.

We then intend to delink Direct Payments, and the bureaucracy of the cross-compliance regime will be a thing of the past.

By 2027, we want to see a reformed agriculture sector. We want farmers to manage their whole business in a way that delivers profitable food production and the recovery of nature, combining the best modern technology with the rediscovery of the traditional art of good farm husbandry.

We want farmers to be able to access public money to help them tackle climate change and support the environment and animal welfare on the land they manage and to help their businesses become more productive and sustainable.

We want to support confidence in UK food internationally, prevent environmental harm and protect biosecurity and animal welfare.

In conclusion, rather than the prescriptive, top down rules of the EU era, we want to support the choices that farmers and land managers take on their holdings, and we will work with them to refine and develop the schemes we bring forward. If we all work together to get this right, then I believe a decade from now the rest of the world will be coming here to see how it’s done.

November 30, 2020
Alister Jack – 2020 Comments on St. Andrew’s Day

The speech made by Alister Jack, the Secretary of State for Scotland, on 30 November 2020.

St Andrew’s Day is a chance for us to celebrate all that is great about Scotland, and Scots, and to reflect on what it means to be Scottish.

In 2020, St Andrew’s Day will feel very different.

We are living through a global pandemic. Our lives are almost unrecognisable from a year ago.

But I believe that, this year more than ever, we should take the time to mark just how much we have collectively achieved.

Over the past few months, we have risen to the challenge of the, frankly terrifying, virus. We have, and are, all doing our bit to defeat it. We have made huge personal sacrifices because we know it will save lives and protect our precious NHS.

Our frontline workers – from health care staff to supermarket workers, teachers and everyone in between – have been nothing short of heroic. Looking after the ill, supporting the vulnerable, and keeping the country going. You are an inspiration to us all.

So many others have also done their bit. From picking up shopping and prescriptions, to organising spirit-lifting video chats and amazing charity fundraisers – individuals up and down the land have gone out of their way to look after friends, relatives and neighbours, and also strangers in need.

We have much to be proud of. In 2020, it seems to me, being Scottish is about fortitude and kindness. And also optimism. With new vaccines on the way we are starting to see some light at the end of the covid tunnel.

So, this St Andrew’s Day, I ask you to join me in thanking everyone who has done their bit to help us all get through 2020 so far. I have never felt more proud to be Scottish.

November 30, 2020