Blog

Mike Weir – 2008 Comments on Government’s Energy Proposals

The comments made by Mike Weir, the then SNP MP for Angus, on 9 November 2008.

After hinting all summer that immediate help was on the way, Gordon Brown has delivered a chilly response to the one million Scots in fuel poverty.

By failing to impose a windfall tax on energy companies, the Prime Minister has ruled out immediate help for the thousands of Scottish families facing a bleak winter.

The increase in insulation and other fuel efficiency measures are welcome for the longer term, but will do nothing to deal with the immediate problem. Very few households will benefit in time to reduce bills this coming winter.

This whole package is far too little, far too late and shows that the energy companies have won the battle with the UK government. Mr Brown failed to clarify how he will ensure that costs are not passed back to the consumer.

A government with any ounce of sense would impose more measures now, for example ensure a mandatory minimum tariff, real transparency in social tariffs, a speedy roll out of smart meters and introduction of social tariffs into the home fuel market, as well as ensuring that there is immediate help for those facing a tough winter.

Disconnections are rising rapidly, and many on pre payment meter users may self disconnect over the winter as they will be unable to pay escalating costs. Mr Brown suggests customers cut their bills with direct debit but fails to realise many of the poorest energy users cannot pay their bills in this way.

Gordon Brown has yet again proved he is completely out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Scots. Perhaps voters in Glenrothes will remind him before the winter really starts to bite.

October 22, 2020
John Swinney – 2001 Speech for Election as First Minister

The speech made by John Swinney in the Scottish Parliament on 22 November 2001.

We meet this afternoon to elect a new first Minister, for the third time in the short life of this Parliament.

The first occasion was a credit to Scotland – an exchange of ideas that resulted, perhaps in the expected – but which also enhanced our fledgling democracy.

The second occasion was a result of a tragedy – the untimely death of Donald Dewar – who, with others from his party, from ours, from the Liberal Democrats and from wider Scottish life, had worked to establish this Parliament and give our nation a fresh start.

This third occasion is the result of a farce – a farce inflicted upon Scotland and its Parliament by the Labour party and by nobody else – the party that now, without any democratic process, seeks to foist its unelected leader upon our country. The party that promotes its own, by making cronyism a way of life, and which always lets Scotland down.

This afternoon that farce may be carried to its illogical conclusion. The Liberal Democrats, in their usual Pavlovian response to their Labour masters, apparently intend to dutifully bring into office a Labour machine politician who represents everything the Liberals claim not to represent.

Labour has failed the democratic test. The Scottish Parliament must now do what Labour has failed to do.

This Parliament must exercise democratic scrutiny – and I am proud to set out my candidacy on behalf of a party committed to a democratic, fair and prosperous Scotland.

A party that always puts the interests of the Scottish people first.

A party that can comfortably shelter those who are disgusted by the institutional cronyism of the Labour Party and ashamed at what it has become.

And I am proud to represent a party that recognises that if we want to create that democratic, fair and prosperous Scotland we must have the normal powers of a normal Independent Parliament.

Presiding Officer, this Parliament is a stepping stone to freedom. And this party will help our nation cross over the murky swamp of Labour Scotland, into the bright and clear air of an independent Scotland.

There is a job of work to be done to start that process. Let me tell this chamber how I will go about doing that job.

Scotland needs reform of its public services as well as reform of its public servants.

Those two reforms are clearly linked. We must reform the whole system of public appointments, and the bill brought forward by my colleague Alex Neil is the key that will unlock the door to openness and accountability. I challenge each candidate for the post of First Minister to echo my support for that bill. Whilst reducing the power of Labour’s quango state we will also improve the calibre of those that serve the public. These appointments should be made on behalf of the public by a Scottish government – not appointments made on behalf of Labour, by Labour.

And I also challenge each candidate to echo my party’s support for root and branch reform of local government.

The present state of local government in Scotland is a monument to Labour institutional cronyism. Any system that rewards a party with less than half the vote with 90% of the seats – and all of the power – is a system whose time has passed in this democratic age. To defend it is to defend the indefensible, but Labour members here and at Westminster are lining up to defend it.

We could change that system today. My election as First Minster would usher in immediate legislation to ensure that the local elections in 2003 were held under a new system. That legislation is already being drafted in the name of my colleague Tricia Marwick. All it needs now is the votes of this chamber.

That promise should attract Liberal votes – but of course the Liberals have deserted the principle of fair votes in favour of the patronage exercised by means of unfair elections. No wonder they do not even have the courage to put up a candidate today.

They are no longer a party in this parliament – they are a wholly owned subsidiary of whoever can give them the most jobs and the best promises.

But I warn the Liberals today – you need a long spoon to sup with New Labour. You are in for a disappointing journey to PR in local government: a long, tortuous journey in which meetings to arrange timetables to arrange meetings will be the order of the day!

We need reform of our public servants. And with it we need reform of our public services.

Delivering public services and building public trust: those are my priorities.

A society shorn of cronyism will be a society that can focus on the real needs of Scotland.

It will be a society in which we can prioritise public investment in our struggling health and education services. We will do so by using not for profit trusts. We reject the discredited and expensive Tory-inspired Private Finance Initiative that puts money from our classrooms and hospitals into the pockets of private financiers.

We shall do so by a radical programme of reform in Education, reducing class sizes and freeing up teachers to teach.

We shall do so by investing in health so that our cancer services are the best in the world, not the worst in Europe.

We shall do so by protecting our environment by never, ever allowing a London government to foist nuclear power stations on Scotland.

And we shall do so by giving this Parliament the financial independence it needs to deliver the quality public services the people of Scotland rightfully expect.

We cannot allow free personal care for Scotland’s elderly people to be held-up because of a backroom rammy over cash between Labour ministers in London and Labour ministers in Edinburgh.

Presiding Officer,

If the Chamber today selects the Labour nominee for this post, then those who vote in that way will be condoning massive abuses of power over generations. They will be wiping from their memories the images of Monklands, of Glasgow City Council, of Govan, of Paisley and Renfrew, of scandal after scandal and deceit after deceit. They will be accepting that the leadership of our nation is something to be traded behind closed doors within a party bloated with arrogance and power and forgetful of where it has come from.

It is time for this Parliament to assert itself.

It is time for Scotland to assert itself. To look to its future – a future that demands a government and a First Minister standing up for Scotland, not fighting for themselves.

I ask the Chamber today to support my nomination.

But more importantly, Presiding Officer, I ask Scotland to support a vision of bright dreams for the future, not the old nightmares of the past.

October 22, 2020
Guy Opperman – 2020 Statement on Private Pensions and Annual Benefit Statements

The statement made by Guy Opperman, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in the House of Commons on 19 October 2020.

The Government have published their response to the consultation on the approach to delivering simpler annual pension benefit statements.

Participation in pension saving has been transformed through the success of automatic enrolment. However, there is a growing likelihood that people will have a number of different jobs in their lifetime, and therefore multiple pension pots and annual pension statements.
This is why the Government’s ambition is for pension benefit statements to be simpler, more consistent and jargon free. Consistency across pension benefit statements will help savers better understand their pensions and effectively plan for retirement. A standardised template will be more accessible, drive member engagement and signpost members to detailed information on costs and charges and investment strategy. It will also complement the work Government are doing with the pensions dashboard to bring pensions online to your phone or laptop.

We will focus first on defined contribution schemes used for automatic enrolment, but it remains the long-term ambition to improve consistency across all schemes. We will consult later this year on draft regulations for a mandated approach to simpler statements, working with industry on the detailed design of the regulations and associated statutory guidance.

In addition, the Government will work with the pensions industry to introduce a statement season, building on the success of pensions awareness month. It will support the normalisation of workplace pension saving, provoke debate among the public and enable easier comparison between statements and providers.

These measures will help individuals engage with their workplace pension savings, and enable savers to achieve greater financial security in retirement.

October 22, 2020
Alok Sharma – 2020 Statement on the Energy Tariff Cap

The statement made by Alok Sharma, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 2o October 2020.

I am today announcing that the price cap on standard variable and default energy tariffs will remain in place for 2021.

The independent energy regulator, Ofgem, has carried out an assessment into whether the conditions are in place for effective competition in domestic supply contracts. Ofgem have been transparent in how they made their assessment. As required by the legislation, Ofgem have made a recommendation as to whether the price cap should be extended. The Government value the expertise and insight of Ofgem, and I have considered that report and recommendation in reaching my decision.

As set out in the relevant legislation, the price cap can be extended for a year at a time up to the end of 2023 at the latest.

While there have been some improvements across the market in recent years, such as increased consumer engagement, rising switching levels and progress with the smart meter rollout, there is still more to do to ensure consumers will not face unfair prices in its absence.

More than half of energy consumers are still on standard variable or default tariffs, where in the absence of the cap they would likely be paying excessive charges for their energy use.

Extending the cap means that 11 million households will continue to be protected from overcharging in the energy market. The cap will continue to safeguard these consumers, while other initiatives such as faster switching, the smart meter rollout and consumer engagement programs continue to contribute to a more competitive market.

October 22, 2020
Lucy Frazer – 2020 Statement on Parole Reform

The statement made by Lucy Frazer, the Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, on 20 October 2020.

Protecting the public from harm is the first duty of any Government. The parole system is one of the key mechanisms for keeping the public safe by ensuring that dangerous criminals are not released when they still pose a danger to the public. As such, it is essential that this system is as robust, effective and transparent as possible. The Government are determined to address fully the transparency and confidence issues highlighted by the John Worboys case, and also to make proactive improvements to the way that the end-to-end parole system works. We want to ensure that the public are not only properly protected by a robust and effective system for assessing the risks presented by the most serious offenders, but also that they understand and have confidence in that process and the decisions taken.

Over the last two years, we have worked hard to improve the public understanding and confidence in the Parole Board. Today, I am pleased to launch a root-and-branch review of the parole system, as committed to in our manifesto. Moving beyond looking solely at the Parole Board itself, this review will ensure that the entire system delivers in the most effective way possible its primary function of keeping the public safe by releasing offenders only when it is safe to do so.

This root-and-branch review will be concluded by summer 2021, by which point a final report will be published summarising the findings and next steps. Terms of reference have today been published online, explaining that it will consider:

the effectiveness of the reforms we have implemented since 2018;

whether the Parole Board for England and Wales, as currently constituted, remains the most effective model for making independent judicial decisions about the continued detention of prisoners;

how best to improve the public’s understanding and confidence in the parole system;
and measures to further improve the openness and transparency of the parole process.

In support of this, I am today launching a public consultation—the first step in our review—that will explore options for increasing the transparency of the parole system. The consultation seeks views on the possibility of allowing victims to observe parole hearings and on whether the media and wider public should also be given greater access to hearings where it is appropriate to do so. The consultation will be open until 1 December 2020, and I anticipate publishing our response before the end of the year.

The root-and-branch review will build upon the programme of reform, already delivered last year, which amended the Parole Board rules to increase transparency, and to improve the way victims are engaged with. For example, we now have a system where victims and others are provided with summaries explaining the reasons for the Parole Board’s decisions, and a new reconsideration mechanism which allows applications to be made for decisions to be looked at again if they are thought to be legally flawed.

Concurrently, the tailored review of the Parole Board has been under way, the outcome of which is also being published today. The tailored review was undertaken in accordance with the Cabinet Office requirement that all public bodies are reviewed at least once each Parliament. This review focused predominantly on operational changes within the current legislative framework, making recommendations to further improve collaboration within the parole system to ensure that cases progress in a timely manner, and highlighted existing legal powers that the Parole Board can use to compel the production of evidence and the attendance of witnesses. I commend the recommendations to the board, which have the potential once implemented to bring real improvements to the parole system.

Together with the significant reforms we set out in the sentencing White Paper on 16 September, I am confident that the measures outlined above and the wider examination of the parole system we are now launching, will continue to keep the public safe, as well as ensure that the most serious offenders spend time in prison that properly reflects the gravity of their crimes.

October 22, 2020
Michael Gove – 2020 Statement on the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee

The statement made by Michael Gove, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, on 20 October 2020 in the House of Commons.

The Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee met on 19 October 2020 in London, with delegations attending in person and by video conference.

The meeting was co-chaired by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and European Commission Vice President, Maroš Šefčovicč, and attended by the alternate Joint Committee co-chairs; the First Minister and deputy First Minister of the Northern Ireland Executive; and member state representatives.

The Committee undertook a stocktake of specialised Committee activity since the last meeting on 28 September. The Committee also updated on implementation of the withdrawal agreement, with particular focus on the Northern Ireland protocol and citizens’ rights.

The UK reiterated their commitment to upholding obligations under the withdrawal agreement and protecting the Belfast (Good Friday) agreement in all respects. The UK further emphasised commitment to EU citizens in the UK and UK nationals in the EU, ensuring they have their rights under the withdrawal agreement protected.

The Committee adopted the citizens’ rights joint report on residency and agreed to its publication.

The UK reiterated its commitment to implementing the protocol in full so the people of Northern Ireland can be given the fundamental legal assurances they need, and will not face the damaging prospect of the unmitigated defaults of the protocol under any circumstances.

The Committee considered the remaining WAJC tasks during the rest of the transition period.

The UK took the opportunity provided by this meeting to underline its commitment to continued constructive engagement with the EU through Joint Committee processes.

October 22, 2020
Jonathan Gullis – 2020 Speech on Free School Meals

The speech made by Jonathan Gullis, the Conservative MP for Stoke-on-Trent North, in the House of Commons on 21 October 2020.

Unfortunately, I will have to start by referring to the comments made by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy). I have high regard for her, but I found her moral superiority quite distressing. I spent eight years of my life working as a secondary school teacher, the overwhelming majority of which was as a head of year, working in some of the most disadvantaged parts of London and Birmingham, seeing the impact of child poverty and child hunger but also of not having a stable family and good role models and of crime and drugs in a local community. I refuse to be lectured by Opposition Members who have not walked in my shoes and seen the things that I have had to witness in my career. I hope the hon. Lady will reflect on those remarks. [Interruption.] I will not be lectured by those on the shadow Front Bench who have not worked in the schools I have worked in or seen the things I have seen. I refuse to be shouted down and treated in this manner.

Let us be very clear about this extension. This is not a one-off extension—this is about free school meals being permanently provided outside of school time. First, who is going to fund that—the school or the state? Do schools provide the meals on-site, or do they have to deliver food parcels? If so, do they have to renegotiate their contracts? Have the unions supported that? Is there understanding of the voucher system, and are they being used in an appropriate and responsible manner? I have had supermarkets, parents and schools contact me directly to say that they have grave concerns about the way in which those vouchers have been used.

This Government have done remarkable work on holiday programmes. I want to mention the Hubb Foundation and its “Ay Up Duck” campaign, run by Carol Shanahan, the co-owner of Port Vale football club, and Adam Yates, a former professional footballer. The Hubb Foundation is providing thousands of meals across the city and providing hundreds of children and parents with the opportunity to participate in activities that not only improve their physical and mental health but ensure that they are fed and that the local authority and schools have health and wellbeing checks done on a regular basis over the holiday.

If we were to have a serious discussion about how to tackle this issue, one way to do that is to reduce the summer holiday from six weeks to four weeks. Childcare costs £133 a week on average. If we redistributed those two weeks, with one in the October half-term and one in the May half-term, we could bring down the cost of the summer holiday for parents and help them to be better able to access the food that they need. Free school meals are indeed important, but it is the role of the school to educate, not to be the welfare state.

October 22, 2020
Barry Gardiner – 2020 Speech on Free School Meals

The speech made by Barry Gardiner, the Labour MP for Brent North, in the House of Commons on 21 October 2020.

This debate is about priorities and it is about shame—the shame that, in the fifth richest country in the world, 30% of our children, which is 4.2 million of them, are living in poverty by the Government’s official statistics. Before the summer, Marcus Rashford publicly shamed the Government and won free school meals over the holidays. He spoke from the heart about his experience as a child when he was dependent on food banks.

The Prime Minister now says that it is not the role of schools to provide food during the holidays. Child hunger may not be a priority for him, but it is a priority for the headteachers of my schools in Brent who have emailed me in the past 24 hours with their heartfelt experiences. Perhaps they will shame the Prime Minister once again.

Rebecca Curtis, principal of ARK Elvin Academy, said:

“In Lockdown we had children calling the school explaining they were hungry and asking what we could do—as soon as we were able to issue the FSM vouchers we were flooded with thanks from our children and their parents. The situation with unemployment in Brent is clearly so much worse now so we are really concerned about how we can support our pupils through the half term and the Christmas holidays”.

James Simmons, the head of Oliver Goldsmith Primary School, observed:

“Families with multiple children were able to purchase food in bigger quantities to take advantage of offers. With stress for families trying to feed children greatly reduced, they described the access to FSM as a lifeline.”

Mrs Mistry at Sudbury Primary School said that she

“strongly believes that FSM should be provided,”

but cautioned that,

“The government needs to implement a scheme that is easily manageable by schools”.

Karen Giles, the head at Barham Primary School, made the point that,

“Many families have had their income cut by two thirds or more and many children are going hungry. Schools need Free School Meals to be directly funded and the criteria for eligibility should be less stringent.”

Mr Farrington, the head of the Village School, warned:

“There is very limited provision for pupils with disabilities over the holidays and we fear many won’t receive adequate food and support. We are also aware that parents, carers and families are putting themselves in more debt and that providing for their children has had a large impact on the mental health of our families.”

Finally, Raphael Moss, the head of Elsley Primary School, wrote that the:

“government paying for FSM during holidays should be an absolute minimum. What is really needed is to widen the eligibility for children whose families are in receipt of Universal Credit as Marcus Rashford is campaigning for. At Elsley we had to set up a food bank to support some of our families. I cannot believe that as a Head teacher in London in 2020 I am overseeing a food bank to ensure that our children don’t go hungry. It is truly unbelievable.”

Well, it is truly unbelievable, but the Government have the opportunity to put it right.

It is not just about extending the voucher scheme, however. Today, five senior children’s charities published an analysis showing that even before coronavirus, local authorities were struggling to fund the need for children’s services. They say:

“Those in the most deprived communities have suffered the greatest reductions in spending power. Funding for services for the 20% most deprived Local Authorities has fallen more than twice as fast as for the least”.

My borough of Brent has lost £174 million since 2010.

A recent National Audit Office report on bounce back loans found that, to support business, the Government underwrote more than £36 billion of loans in the full knowledge and acceptance that between 30% and 60% of that would have to be written off as unrepayable or even fraudulent. That is between £11 billion and £20 billion of public money wasted, yet the Government baulk at spending another £10 million—million—on our children. This is about priorities and it is about shame. If those are the Minister’s priorities, he should be ashamed.

October 22, 2020
Tom Randall – 2020 Speech on Free School Meals

The speech made by Tom Randall, the Conservative MP for Gedling, in the House of Commons on 21 October 2020.

Free school meals have been part of the education system for more than a century, and they are and have always been intended to be an additional support on school days in term time. Lockdown disrupted education in a way that we probably have not seen since the war. The lines between school, home and education became blurred and, in those extraordinary circumstances, it was right to temporarily amend the rules on school meal provision so that those who would have received a meal, had school been open in the usual way, did not miss out.

But as I understand it, this motion is proposing something entirely different: it does not extend the system, but changes the very basis on which support might be offered. Schools are now open and those in receipt of free school meals will receive one at school. Indeed, the proposal in the motion was rejected by the Labour Government when it was made in 2007. This change might be desirable; it could make a difference. But I suggest that any such proposal should be considered not on its own, but as part of wider efforts to combat poverty.

We are definitely facing a period of economic hardship, and the welfare system has rightly been strengthened. I welcome, for example, the cash injection of £9,000 million into our welfare system and I particularly welcome the increase by £858,000 to Nottinghamshire as its part of the local authority welfare assistance fund. I further welcome changes such as the national living wage and the raising of the income tax threshold so that those on the lowest incomes pay no income tax at all—policies of practical benefit to the poorest in society.

I am a little unclear about how the Opposition’s proposals will work in practice. Should schools be reopened at a time when they would normally be closed? Is there a desire among staff who have worked so hard recently to take on this additional responsibility? What will be the additional costs and who will pick them up?

I also hear from the Opposition Benches the name of Marcus Rashford being invoked. But according to his tweet of 18 October, Mr Rashford is calling for school meal provision in all holidays. Is it that the Opposition motion does not agree with Mr Rashford but is attempting to catch his coat tails or do the Opposition secretly agree with him but are too coy to say it at the moment?

There are big questions to answer when it comes to tackling poverty and I do not believe that changes should be made lightly. But I do accept that there is far more to do, including targeted interventions for those most in need. For the reasons I have given, I regret that I cannot support the motion in its unamended form today. The Labour party might believe that the motion scores a moral victory, but I believe that it fails to address many fundamental issues, and the responsibility for addressing those issues now falls to the Government side of the House.

October 22, 2020
Neil Coyle – 2020 Speech on Free School Meals

The speech made by Neil Coyle, the Labour MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, in the House of Commons on 21 October 2020.

In 2010, the incoming Conservative Prime Minister promised to fix what he termed “broken Britain”. A decade later, we are having a debate about whether or not children go hungry next week and I have to run a food bank from my constituency office. When Labour left office, 40,000 were using food banks, last year it was 1.4 million people, 7,000 of whom were in Southwark, including hundreds of working people.

My constituency is at heart of London. It may be the capital city of the fifth wealthiest nation on the planet, but in some wards child poverty is as high as 40%. It was the coalition who scrapped the proper measurement of poverty and then scrapped the previous Labour Government’s statutory commitment to end child poverty by this year—by 2020. Today’s debate shows the impact of that downgrade of the need to tackle child poverty. It was not just a downgrade, but a direct exacerbation of the problem directly imposed by Government policies. The Secretary State waxed lyrical about universal credit with its perverse and catastrophic five-week delay, but the Government’s own statistics show that, this year, more than 200,000 people who applied for universal credit were paid after five weeks. A third of the applicants got nothing and others have been forced to take out a loan from the Department for Work and Pensions, totalling now almost £1 billion. People sought help, but all they were given was debt and no recourse to public funds, which was a condition imposed on some people, but which leaves children growing up without access to the same support as the kid they were born next to at St Thomas’s Hospital and sit next to at St Saviour’s school. The Children’s Society tells us that there are 175,000 children in that position. The Home Office refused to release the figure, even though the Prime Minister promised that he would. I ask Members to contrast that pernicious national Government approach of state-sponsored food poverty with a willingness to help elsewhere.

I am proud of the efforts of my local Labour council to tackle food poverty, providing free healthy school meals for all primary school children since 2011. There are 59 members of the Southwark Food Action Alliance, including the council and faith groups such as the Salvation Army, and even private companies such as Engie and British Land understand that there is a problem. There are also some great local charities such as the Central Southwark Community Hub under Felicia Boshorin’s brilliant leadership, which has fed 2,300 families since April alone, Time & Talents has an amazing team under Sarah Gibb and Pecan, the Southwark food bank, which, last year, fed more than 2,400 children.

Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about how the voluntary sector, individuals and local councils have stood up and filled the enormous gap left by the Government. I pay tribute to the Lunch Bunch in Woodley in my constituency of Reading East, to a range of other local charities, including Sadaka and Whitley Community Development Association, and to Reading Borough Council for its work. When will the Government stand up and play their part?

Neil Coyle

I am glad that my hon. Friend’s constituency has organisations like those in mine.

Organisations have popped up in response to covid, such as the mutual aid groups, and existing organisations such as Burgess Sports and Pembroke House have extended their activities to help feed families. They all deserve community gratitude, but they have worked so hard because the Government have created and then ignored the need for help—a Government headed by a man who apparently cries himself to sleep because he is now receiving only £150,000 a year. Well, boo hoo!

I want to end by talking about a real injustice. This year, children have largely, thankfully, escaped the worst health effects of covid, but they have not been spared the economic impact on their parents. In Bermondsey and Old Southwark, unemployment has jumped by 5,000, many parents are still prevented from working and we face the cliff edge of the end of the furlough scheme, which has helped 24,000 people in my constituency alone. Children feel the injustice of that situation. The Government have a genuine chance to act today—mindful, I hope, of the 300,000-and-growing signatures on Marcus Rashford’s petition.

I will finish by quoting Charles Dickens, who, of course, lived in Southwark. In the 1860s, he wrote “Great Expectations”, in which he said:

“In the little world in which children have their existence, there is nothing so finely perceived and so finely felt as injustice.”

It is injustice that we vote on today. MPs can allow an injustice to occur or we can vote to prevent an injustice from being done to children, through no fault of their own. I know how I will be voting—I will be voting to end injustice.

October 22, 2020