Blog

George Eustice – 2023 Speech on Total Allowable Catches and Fisheries Negotiations

The speech made by George Eustice, the Conservative MP for Camborne and Redruth, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the methodologies for setting total allowable catches for data-limited stocks in fisheries negotiations.

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. It is very appropriate for you to chair this event since, as every Member present knows, your knowledge and experience of the fishing industry is unrivalled in this House. I am sure that, were you not being impartial in chairing the debate, you would have plenty to say on the matter.

In my time as a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister, I had two key observations. First, every Minister comes in with plans for the environment, and one of the first things they need to learn is that the environment has plans for them, too, and they are not always very pleasant.

The second truth is that every Minister coming into DEFRA says that they will have an evidence-based approach and will follow the science. But when they ask the scientists what should be done, they find that the scientists are not quite sure. They talk about evidence gaps and things that they do not understand, and are reluctant to come up with a clear policy proposal. That means Fisheries Ministers in particular are inevitably left with the thankless task of trying to make policy decisions with imperfect evidence, but making the best use of the evidence that they have. Nowhere is that conundrum more complex than in fisheries.

I recall a fishing representative giving evidence to a Select Committee. As he put it, fisheries is not rocket science; it is way more complicated than that. There are uncertainties in the science and in the way we calculate maximum sustainable yield. There are difficulties, for instance, around assessing the age of a fish. The basic approach to maximum sustainable yield is to allow fish to reproduce for at least one generation, and that stock should be sustainable. Typically, scientists measure the average length of fish when they are landed to try to assess the age of the stock and its reproductive capacity. That is the essence of the calculations that take place.

But there are difficulties all round. First, fish of different ages tend to inhabit different parts of the ocean, and trying to make sense of that can be difficult. It can be a hit and miss science to understand exactly what the average length of a fish is, given that they are very mobile and move around.

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I am extremely interested in what he has to say, and I spoke to him beforehand. I have one example of the importance of data. We have witnessed a remarkable turnaround with spurdog. In a most important fishery, limited data led to a ban on landing the species. However, the situation has changed dramatically, based on the data for 2023, with a total allowable catch agreed with the European Union for the year ahead based on up-to-date scientific advice. A statutory instrument is to follow, as the Minister knows. That is because of the data-limited status and the evidence that has made the change.

Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)

Order. This is a 30-minute debate. If interventions are to be made, can we make them short and snappy, please?

George Eustice

I think I get the hon. Gentleman’s point and the Minister might want to address it, but my understanding is that there is now data on spurdog and a total allowable catch has been allocated. One consequence of leaving the European Union is that we have accountable processes in this House for introducing regulatory changes, and I believe a statutory instrument is needed, which takes time to introduce. In the EU, because there is no such accountability, the Commission can literally just issue delegated Acts and implementing Acts sometimes on a whim without any real process behind that.

To continue my point, the length of the fish is not always a good sign of its reproductive capacity, so there are complexities with some species—haddock, in particular—for reasons that we still do not really understand. Roughly every seven years we get a big recruitment year, and it is hard to predict when that will happen. It is difficult to differentiate between different species of the same genera, so we have, for instance, composite TACs for species such as skate and ray whereby there are some 24 different species in a single TAC. To try to make sense of that, we introduced prohibitions on landing some subspecies within the TAC, but sometimes it is hard—for fishermen and for scientists—to distinguish between species visually, even though we know they are biologically different.

For some species, age cannot be determined by the length of the fish. I remember being briefed that scientists had to go to other measurements, such as the size of a fish’s eardrums, to try to make an assessment because the fish’s length was not a reliable indicator of age, and it threw the calculation out.

There is also the problem of uncertainty around fishing mortality. In particular, we do not have accurate data on recreational angling. Recreational anglers and commercial fishermen have hours of fun blaming one another for the state of particular fish stocks, but exactly what is fishing mortality is a difficult conundrum. That is especially the case with species such as pollack and bass. There is a further complication, which is that fish eat one another. The marine environment is dynamic, and a healthy recovery of one species might put pressure on another, which is preyed on.

As if all that were not complicated enough, there is a political context in which Fisheries Ministers have to operate. The Fisheries Minister has to arbitrate between competing interests among different UK Administrations, and indeed competing interests among different sectors, such as the pelagic and white fish sectors, the inshore fleet and so on. To reach a compromise with other countries to get a multilateral agreement on how to approach fisheries, we will, at times, have to accept others’ interpretation of the science, which might not be entirely in line with our own. If we do not get a compromise and do not get an agreement, and people unilaterally set quotas, that is the worst of all worlds.

Finally, there is a tendency, once policy in fisheries is set, for it to be set in stone. It is easy to follow the path of least resistance, and to do this year what we did last year, putting off changing things to a future year, only to find in a decade or 15 years that it is too difficult to change everything because the concrete has set. That was the case, for instance, in the EU era when we had relative stability, although the landing shares of different countries were hugely outdated. However, under qualified majority voting it was impossible for the UK ever to argue for change because the only countries that would have supported us in arguing that also wanted our fish in return for their support.

My right hon. Friend the Minister joins a small club of Fisheries Ministers and former Fisheries Ministers who have had to wrestle with those dilemmas, and he has to make the best judgment he can using the evidence available to him, but he does have one thing in his favour, as we all do, which is the support of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science.

Without question, CEFAS is the world’s leading fisheries science organisation, and its head office and main research facilities are in Lowestoft. If Members visit Weymouth, they will find a global centre of excellence on fish health, and in the reception at Weymouth are probably the best-cared-for carp in the world. CEFAS is very influential on the deliberations and methodologies applied by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Indeed, our current chief fisheries scientist, Carl O’Brien, is also vice-president of ICES and a leading authority in this area.

I remember going every year during the EU era to the December European Council, and CEFAS would often detect and have to correct errors made by the Commission services. DG MARE—the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries—did not particularly welcome the fact that an agency from a nation state was correcting its errors, but it nevertheless accepted when it was wrong. Of course, CEFAS always offered advice in an understated, very British way, which made it as easy as possible for the Commission to deal with those errors.

My purpose in calling the debate is to encourage the Minister not to allow the concrete to set on the way we interpret the science, and to ensure in all the bilateral fisheries negotiations we have that CEFAS’s pre-eminent scientific knowledge is projected forwards and shapes not just the approach for negotiations with Norway or the European Union, but the methodologies taken by organisations likes ICES. The particular prompt for the debate was the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation highlighting to me a particular case of pollack in the Celtic sea.

In the EU era, there were three principal ways of assessing data-limited stocks. The first was taking a precautionary approach, which simply meant an arbitrary 20% cut on species where we had limited data—that is, not a full dataset to enable a maximum sustainable yield assessment. The second was a “use it or lose it” approach. Empirical evidence from the previous year’s catch would be used to say, “Well, if they haven’t caught it, it is probably not there.” The third was saying there should be a roll-over approach. In essence, that was an assessment that the stocks are probably in a good shape, so we should just leave it where it is and roll it over year to year until the evidence suggests otherwise.

Even when we were in the European Union, we ferociously resisted these arbitrary, unscientific approaches. To be fair to the European Union, it was not just something that it had made up; its approach often reflected ICES advice in some of these areas. For over a decade now, ICES has recognised that those arbitrary approaches are not fit for purpose. In fact, probably as long ago as five years ago, CEFAS identified and developed a superior methodology based on making the best judgment we could with the evidence we had. We termed it as using biomass trends to assess what the TAC should be with these stocks. It effectively meant having a moving average assessment of the stock and aggregating data across several different years to avoid sharp changes in the TAC in one direction each year, and each year the aggregate data would get more reliable. For a while, even in the EU, we actually got them to accept that this was a better way to approach things, and that is what we used to seek and usually secured at December Councils.

The thing that caught my eye in the press release from the CFPO was that it alleged that the Celtic sea pollack stock had been set under the old-fashioned “use it or lose it” methodology. There are lots of reasons why fishermen may not have caught fish—it could be that the market conditions were not right or that there was bad weather at the end of the year. That is why it is a wholly inappropriate basis on which to assess the health of a stock. My question for the Minister is, whatever happened to the work that CEFAS did on data-limited stocks and that biomass trend approach? Will he seek to reinvigorate that work or update Members here on what CEFAS is doing in this area? Most importantly, will he ensure that we use the soft power we have through pre-eminent scientific knowledge in fisheries to shape how not just the EU and Norway, but ICES approaches these difficult issues?

Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)

My right hon. Friend has taken the case study of Celtic sea pollack. Would he consider how his approach might also help solve the dilemma with southern North sea spurdog? I was on CEFAS Endeavour on Monday morning and saw its excellent work, so could he quickly help us out of our dilemma on spurdog?

George Eustice

I will be quick because I explained this earlier. My understanding—as a former Fisheries Minister, one’s knowledge decays over time and the existing Minister will have far more knowledge than me—is that there is at least some evidence now to make an assessment on spurdog. I do not know whether it is a full dataset to provide a MSY assessment. Nevertheless, a TAC has been set on that basis and I believe it is simply a parliamentary procedure to get a regulation in place to enable that TAC to take effect, but I am sure the Minister will have heard my hon. Friend’s question.

23/01/2023
Damian Hinds – 2023 Speech on the Future of the Parole Board

The speech made by Damian Hinds, the Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair and serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) on securing this important debate. His speech was thoughtful, deliberative and balanced. He spoke in the light of some of the most appalling and horrific crimes, murders and rapes that we have known in our lifetimes. The thoughts of all of us in this House are with the victims of those terrible crimes and their families. Their loss—their tragedy—does not dim with time. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, victims must always be paramount in the system. The system must work for them and must be seen to do so.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the vital and difficult role that the Parole Board plays, as the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton said, in protecting the public by making decisions about the release of some of the most serious offenders in our system. It is critical that the parole system works as effectively as possible to keep the public safe. That is, and must be, the top priority. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the September hearing of the Science and Technology Committee, of which he is a member. I have read the transcript of that hearing and agree that it was important and useful. He rightly said that statistics are important, as is understanding the statistics. He also said, and he was right, that statistics can only ever take us so far, because a serious reoffence is the most complete catastrophe—I think those were the words he used—for an individual and their family.

He made a specific point about reoffending statistics. I want to clarify that under the probation serious further offence procedures, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service captures data on every serious further offence that is committed by an offender who has been released by the Parole Board, regardless of how long afterwards that serious further offence was committed. I will write to him with the data behind that.

As has been mentioned by Members, including the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), the Government conducted a root-and-branch review of the parole system, which was published last year. It set out our proposals for making further improvements. I will say a little about the measures that we are taking, as well as seeking to address some of the points that colleagues have made.

We have heard about the impact on victims when offenders are considered for release by the Parole Board. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton for his unfailing support for constituents who have been so dreadfully affected by serious offending. These are difficult and deeply distressing times for them, and I want to apologise to any who have not received the service that they should have. Their experiences demonstrate why it is so important to ensure that they, and the victims of other terrible crimes, are properly supported.

To that end, I will explain the measures that we are taking to improve the way the victim contact scheme operates, particularly when it comes to tracing and working with victims of offences that were committed before the scheme was established. I hope my comments about the action that we are taking will reassure colleagues about how seriously we take these matters and that, despite the problems that sometimes regrettably occur, we do have an effective system for keeping victims informed about the parole process.

One of the Government’s priorities, as set out in the root-and-branch review, is to improve openness and transparency. We want to enhance public understanding and bolster confidence. It is clear that in all cases, victims need to be kept updated on what is going on in their case, and we are looking at ways to improve that.

Before I say more about our plans to reform the system, it might be helpful if I first briefly go through the legislative framework within which the Parole Board operates. The Parole Board’s purpose is to decide whether prisoners convicted of serious, violent or sexual offences, who are serving certain types of sentences, can be safely released into the community on licence. The sentences dealt with by the Parole Board include life sentences, indeterminate sentences for public protection, extended determinate sentences and the sentences of those who are recalled to prison for breaching the terms of their licence. When passing sentence, the trial judge will set a minimum custodial period, which the offender must serve in prison for the purposes of punishment and deterrence. Once the minimum period has been served, the Secretary of State is required to refer these cases to the Parole Board so that the prisoner’s suitability for release on licence can be considered.

That decision is about the offender’s current risk, having completed the part of the sentence that the judge has said must be spent in prison for the offences committed. The wording of the statutory test for release is clear. The Parole Board must not give a direction for a prisoner’s release unless the board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner be confined in prison. When applying the public protection test, the Parole Board needs to consider whether there is a risk of serious harm. If release is directed, the Secretary of State must comply with that direction unless it appears legally flawed, in which case the Secretary of State has the power to ask for the decision to be reconsidered.

The Parole Board is an independent body with expertise in risk assessment. It takes robust and fully-evidenced decisions. The board takes public protection very seriously. In around three out of four of the cases that are referred to the board, it decides to keep the offender in prison for the protection of the public. Where the board does direct release, less than 0.5% of the people in those cases go on to commit a serious further offence within three years. Any serious further offence is, of course, a tragedy and is fully investigated. The vast majority of offenders released by the board do not go on to cause serious further harm.

The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton raised the Worboys case. That awful case highlighted the need for improved transparency, especially for victims, about the reasons for a Parole Board release decision. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in 2018 we introduced decision summaries, which are now routinely provided to victims and others to explain why the board has directed a prisoner’s release. The case also highlighted the need for a better and easier way to challenge parole decisions if they can be shown to be flawed. That led to the introduction in 2019 of the reconsideration mechanism, which the Secretary of State uses in cases in which he considers that a release decision should be looked at again.

We intend to go further to ensure that the system is as robust as possible. The root-and-branch review set out key proposed reforms that aim to ensure that public protection is the overriding consideration for release decisions and to introduce additional safeguards into the system.

Graham Stringer

I thank the Minister for his kind remarks. Will he respond to the two points that I made in the area that he is considering at the moment? One was that there seems to be an unexplained and dramatic increase in the 25% of prisoners who, as he just mentioned, are being released. The other was that category A, B and C prisoners are also being recommended for parole, which was not previously the case.

Damian Hinds

I will respond to the hon. Gentleman on the precise numbers in correspondence, if I may. The important point is that every case is considered individually on its merits; that has to be at the heart of how the Parole Board goes about its business.

We will make the release test more prescriptive, so it is absolutely clear that prisoners should continue to be detained unless it can be demonstrated that they no longer present a risk of further serious offending. Secondly, for a top tier of the most serious offenders—I think that the hon. Member for Stockton North asked for clarification on what the tier consists of; it is those sentenced for murder, rape, causing or allowing the death of a child, and terrorist offences—we will legislate to give Ministers the power to refuse a release decision made by the Parole Board if they disagree with the board’s view that the release test has been met. That will provide an additional safeguard and, I hope, further reassurance to victims that for the most serious offenders, including murderers and rapists, there will be oversight by Ministers, who will be able to prevent release if that is considered necessary to keep the public safe.

Thirdly, we will legislate to ensure that the Parole Board’s membership includes more people with law enforcement backgrounds, who will sit on panels dealing with the most serious cases. Having more members who are, for instance, ex-police officers with first-hand experience of tackling crime in our communities and dealing with serious offenders will further enhance the Parole Board’s expertise in assessing the risk such offenders present. The measures that I have described will require primary legislation, which, to respond to the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton, we will introduce at the earliest opportunity.

We have already taken other steps within the system to enhance public protection and increase confidence. For example, we have reformed the way indeterminate sentence prisoners are moved to open prison conditions, and Ministers can block such moves if they do not meet new, tougher criteria. Also, we have introduced a new system whereby Ministers can submit an overarching view to the Parole Board about release in some of the most serious and troubling cases before any decisions are taken. That ensures that it is made very clear to the board at the outset if there is a case where Ministers would be opposed to the prisoner’s release.

I return to the important issue of victims’ experience of the parole system, which is at the heart of the case that the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton made, and the measures that we are taking on it. When offenders are being assessed for release by the Parole Board, it can be a very difficult and distressing time for victims. We want to improve the way victims are engaged in that process, give them additional opportunities to hear about what is going on, and make them feel and know that they have more of a voice.

The mechanism by which victims are kept informed about parole is the victim contact scheme, which is operated by the probation service. It was first established in 2001 and applies to victims of sexual and violent offending where the offender is sentenced to imprisonment of 12 months or more. Victims who have signed up to the contact scheme should always be notified when a prisoner is coming up for potential release.

Victims have a choice about joining the victim contact scheme. If they choose to join, they will be kept up to date with key developments, including prisoners’ parole reviews, parole decisions and release decisions, by a dedicated victim liaison officer. During parole cases, victims can make a victim personal statement to the board, setting out the impact of the offence against them, and they may read it aloud to the Parole Board panel if an oral hearing is convened.

Victims also have the legal right to make requests about licence conditions, including a no-contact condition and an exclusion zone that prohibits the offender from entering areas where the victim lives, works or travels to frequently. Victims can also request a summary of the Parole Board decision and, where the Parole Board has directed release, they can ask the Secretary of State to consider applying to the Parole Board for the decision to be reconsidered.

It should be noted that some victims choose not to sign up to the victim contact scheme. Understandably, they may seek to do what they can to put the events of the case behind them. If there is no response to a second and third invitation to join the scheme, the probation service will properly respect their wishes and not keep contacting them. Victims can, however, join the scheme at any time, even if they have previously said no. A system in which all victims are notified about parole releases would not be practical for a number of reasons. For example, as I have said, not all victims will want to receive information, and unwanted contact from the service could retraumatise them.

The scheme was set up in 2001. For cases in the system before then, in relation to the victims of offences committed many years ago, it does not operate retrospectively. However, in the most serious and notorious of cases, such as some of those that have been referred to in this debate, the probation service should ask the police, through multi-agency public protection arrangements —known as MAPPAs—for support with tracing victims. In the Andrew Barlow case, which the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton talked about, the Greater Manchester probation region is working with Greater Manchester Police to trace victims of the offences that Mr Barlow committed in the 1980s and 1990s and invite them to join the victim contact scheme. I should also confirm that, as has been said, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State is applying to the Parole Board to reconsider its decision to direct Mr Barlow’s release on life licence. Probation victim liaison officers will keep victims in the scheme informed of progress with the application for reconsideration.

As for the measures we are taking to make further improvements, particularly to increase transparency and the information available to victims and others, we committed in the root-and-branch review to allowing victims to observe parole hearings for the first time. We also confirmed that we would change the rules to allow for public hearings in some cases. I know that that has come up this morning, and I will say a little bit about the progress that has been made on both those commitments.

Since October last, victims have been able to observe Parole Board hearings as part of a testing phase that is running in the south-west probation region. During the hearings, victims are supported by probation staff, who discuss the parole process with them and ensure that they are directed to relevant support. We are working closely with the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners to ensure that tailored local support services are readily available, should victims require. We recognise that it could be retraumatising for a victim to hear the evidence that is explored during a parole hearing, so we are initially conducting a relatively small-scale testing phase to ensure we get the processes and support arrangements right. My paramount concern is to ensure that victims can observe the hearing in a way that is safe for them while not compromising the Parole Board’s ability to conduct a fair and rigorous assessment of risk.

The hon. Member for Stockton North asked for an update on progress. During the testing phase so far, victims have welcomed the opportunity to observe hearings. Following their feedback, we are working to improve the process to prepare for its expansion across England and Wales.

Last year, having made changes to the Parole Board rules, we also saw the first public Parole Board hearing, which was in the case of Russell Causley in December. A second public hearing has been agreed by the board and will take place this year in the case of Charles Salvador, formerly known as Charles Bronson. These changes will help to improve public understanding and awareness of the parole process.

In the root-and-branch review, we also committed to reviewing the current guidance and requirements for providing victims with information about the parole process. Our review will identify areas for improving the information that victims currently receive through the victim contact scheme. We will ensure that, where victims have requested it, they receive effective, clear and timely communication about the parole process so that they are sufficiently informed as their case is progressed.

As part of the primary legislative reforms that I referred to earlier, we intend to require the Parole Board to consider written submissions from victims about the release of the prisoner. That will be in addition to the victim personal statement that victims are already permitted to make to the board. Again, that is about doing more to give victims a voice and an opportunity to put their concerns and views to the Parole Board.

I want briefly to cover a few other points that came up during the debate. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton raised the sex offender treatment programme. The SOTP was discontinued in the light of research evidence, and a new treatment programme has been introduced, which relies less on group work.

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), who is no longer in her place, indirectly raised a couple of points—one of which was also raised by the hon. Member for Stockton North—about the important issue of what is in the dossiers that are brought to the Parole Board and the content that comes from different perspectives and analyses. They both asked about not having individual staff recommendations. Reports will continue to provide all the same information, evidence and assessments about the prisoner as they currently do, with the exception of a recommendation or review from the report writer. The reason for that is that it is the Parole Board’s responsibility to decide whether the prisoner is safe to be released or should stay in prison for the protection of the public, based on the entirety of the evidence received. The written reports, including those from prison, probation and psychology staff, and the questioning of witnesses at oral hearings, will continue to provide all the evidence the board needs to enable it to reach fully informed decisions.

Alex Cunningham

The point about the information staff provide and how confident they are that it is being shared is important. I mentioned that staff appear to be concerned that we are releasing prisoners they would never have recommended be released. What does the Minister have to say to them about the credibility of information that is before the Parole Board, and the confidence in the decision?

Damian Hinds

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises, the situation he describes could have happened anyway. I reassure him and other colleagues that this is not a diminution of the information that goes into the risk assessment. All of that information is still there, and that totality of information will be considered in the round.

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd and the hon. Member for Stockton North asked about the impact assessment on changes to the recommendation system. The right hon. Lady specifically asked about impact on minority ethnic offenders. I want to reassure them that that impact is being monitored, though it is too early to assess on a segmented basis. It is important that we keep such matters under review.

I hope I have been able to provide some reassurance that, through the actions the Government are taking, victims’ concerns and the protection of the public are at the heart of our vision for the future of the parole system. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this important, thoughtful and measured debate, and thank everybody who has taken part—in particular the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton, who secured it.

Graham Stringer

I thank the Secretary of State for applying for reconsideration, and I thank the Minister and right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in the debate, which I agree has been thoughtful. I hope it has brought to light some of the procedural failings of the past that need to be put right, and that there are worrying gaps in the information available, the statistics and the trend in those statistics, particularly the increase in the number of prisoners getting parole. There appears to be no obvious reason for that, and we need to understand it. Thank you for chairing the debate, Mrs Murray.

23/01/2023
Dan Neidle – 2023 Article on the Personal Tax Affairs of Nadhim Zahawi

A small section of the full article written by Dan Neidle at Tax Policy on 19 January 2023.

I think I’ve proven that Zahawi has lied about the YouGov structure – that and everything else makes me reasonably certain that he has avoided around £3.7m in tax. But there’s been little media interest. Why? Partly Zahawi firing out libel threats. But I think mostly that we’ve been overwhelmed by politics, and scandal, and this just didn’t break through. All I can do is keep plugging away.

I ask Zahawi, through his lawyers, why there are so many inconsistencies in his story. And specifically, why he told Kay Burley he doesn’t benefit from the trust, when we know he received £99,000 from it. They duck the question. But they tell me Zahawi’s taxes are “fully declared and paid in the UK”.

23/01/2023
Emily Thornberry – 2023 Comments on the Personal Conduct of Nadhim Zahawi

The comments made by Emily Thornberry, the Shadow Attorney General, on Twitter on 22 January 2023.

Next up in today’s cavalcade of Tory corruption, Nadhim Zahawi spent more than £1,000 of taxpayers’ money on a ‘keep the meter running’ luxury car service when visiting COP26 to preach about children being taught to conserve the planet.

23/01/2023
Angela Rayner – 2023 Comments on the Personal Conduct of Nadhim Zahawi

The comments made by Angela Rayner, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, on Twitter on 23 January 2023.

Nadhim Zahawi’s position is clearly untenable. Every hour that Rishi Sunak refuses to sack him shows just how weak the Prime Minister is.

23/01/2023
Caroline Lucas – 2023 Comments on the Personal Conduct of Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak and Nadhim Zahawi

The comments made by Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, on Twitter on 22 January 2023.

Sunak shamed for breaking the law (again) over his seat belt embarrassment. Zahawi condemned for his “error” over millions in unpaid tax. Johnson exposed over his jobs-for-loans quid pro quo. There’s not an ounce of “integrity, professionalism and accountability” in this Tory Government.

23/01/2023
Andrew Bridgen – 2023 Speech at Vaccine Harms Rally

The speech made by Andrew Bridgen, the Independent MP for North West Leicestershire, on 22 January 2023.

12 year ago, I was elected as a Member of Parliament. And as a Parliamentarian, I have been guided by one principle. Members of Parliament are servants of the people, not their masters.

Ladies and gentlemen, I work for you.

As a young man, I trained in science. And in science, we are taught one thing above all others. To pursue the truth, no matter where it might lead.

And if I want to live by those principles, then I must ask the question no one in power or positions of authority want to answer.

We were told 100% effective.

That was a lie.

We are told no onward transmission.

That was a lie.

We were told “safe”.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have been sent email after email, letter after letter, and message after message. They all say the same thing.

That it was a lie.

Ladies and gentlemen, I made my choice. I will continue to ask the questions asked of me. From people who have been hurt. From people who have lost loved ones. From people threatened with their livelihoods if they did consent to a treatment that hadn’t even existed a year before.

And if we wish to live by the light of science, then we must ask these questions courageously, and put them to people who think themselves your masters.

They are not. We are not.

We work for you.

Orwell once said, that in an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. In that case, you are the revolutionaries. The people sending me those messages, day after day. They are the revolutionaries because they are telling the truth.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I am fed up with the threats.

I am fed up with the smears.

I am fed up with the lies.

The truth will prevail.

23/01/2023
PRESS RELEASE : Talented individuals in aviation help inspire next generation of workers [January 2023]
The press release issued by the Department for Transport on 23 January 2023.

New aviation ambassadors to inspire young people to pursue a rewarding and successful career in aviation.
- new cohort of ‘aviation ambassadors’ announced to help inspire next generation to take up rewarding careers in the sector
- this year’s group includes the UK’s youngest qualified flying instructor, a trailblazing air traffic controller, and a former Air League scholar
- forms part of wider Generation Aviation where government and industry are working together to build an aviation workforce fit for the future
The government has revealed the names of the next cohort of aviation ambassadors who will engage with young people and help inspire them to pursue a rewarding and successful career in aviation.

Working with the government, the ambassadors will share their skills and experience, particularly with young people and underrepresented groups, to highlight the wide range of opportunities available in the sector.

They will help to raise the profile of aviation, promoting it as an exciting and accessible career, supporting the development and expansion of career pathways, developing outreach activities in communities across the country, and supporting efforts to champion diversity, accessibility and social mobility.

This work is vital to ensuring we have a workforce fit for the future, helping retention and recruitment, and ensuring a sustainable talent pipeline.

Aviation Minister Baroness Vere said:

This year’s cohort of aviation ambassadors yet again shines a light on the enormous talent we have in our world-leading sector.

From champions for women and girls’ opportunities to young people who have already proven themselves to be rising stars in the industry, I look forward to working with our ambassadors to encourage more and more people to consider a career in aviation.

We’ll continue doing everything in our power to support ongoing growth in the sector following the pandemic, nurture fresh talent, and realise a new generation of aviation workers.

This year’s group of inspirational individuals includes 16-year-old Jack Jenner-Hall, the UK’s youngest pilot who qualified as a glider pilot at the age of 14. Jack is passionate about aviation and STEM and is keen to share this passion to inspire people to get involved with the aviation industry and show that anything is possible, whatever your age.

Kanchana Gamage also joins this year’s cohort. As the founder of the Aviatrix Project, Kanchana leads initiatives to encourage women and girls and those from disadvantaged backgrounds to consider a career in aviation and aerospace.

The group also includes Brian Wheeler, who’s was paralysed in May 2018 with a rare condition called Cauda Equina Syndrome and was told it was unlikely he would ever walk again. He not only learnt to walk, he ran a half marathon in 2021 raising money for the disabled flying charity Aerobility, where he is a trustee.

The full group includes:
- Adel Charles, UK HR Director at dnata UK Ltd
- Brian Wheeler, NATS Deputy General Manager of Operations
- Carol Anderson, aviation lawyer, Clyde & Co
- Daniela Agachi, fuel cell engineer and mentor at ZeroAvia
- Emma Henderson MBE, CEO of Project Wingman
- Jack Jenner Hall, glider pilot and aviation advocate
- Keith Bennett, drone and counter-drone capability lead for West Midlands Police
- Kanchana Gamage, founder of the Aviatrix Project
- Kathan Dudhela, the UK’s youngest flight instructor and the world’s youngest flight examiner
- Katherine Moloney, Director of Transair Flight Equipment
- Krystina Pearson-Rampeearee, Senior Flight Systems Engineer at BAE Systems
- Suzy Morgan, captain on the Boeing 777 at British Airways
- Tetyana Shevchenko, accountable manager, airworthiness coordinator, compliance manager and pilot
Outreach programmes will see the ambassadors inspiring young people by providing practical experience, and engaging with the next generation to help solve current and future challenges faced by the industry.

Importantly, the work of this year’s cohort will showcase the varied job opportunities in aviation, including for those that have worked in aviation roles before and those that haven’t, and including less well known roles that people may not have considered before.
23/01/2023
PRESS RELEASE : New Government figures shine a light on which suppliers are supporting households this winter [January 2023]
The press release issued by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on 23 January 2023.

The government today publishes figures showing how many vouchers have been used across energy suppliers.
- New figures reveal which suppliers are meeting their responsibilities and who needs to do more to deliver £400 government energy bill support for prepayment meter customers.
- £5.7 billion has been provided to 99% of households in Great Britain through the Energy Bills Support scheme, with 71% of all prepayment vouchers redeemed so far.
- Government also announces off-grid homes will receive their £200 energy bill support payment from 6th February.
Households across Great Britain are now able to see which suppliers are doing the most – and the least – to ensure prepayment meter customers are receiving £400 of support with their winter energy bills, as the government today (23 January) publishes figures showing how many vouchers have been used across suppliers.

For the first time, figures released today reveal voucher redemption rates for the Energy Bills Support Scheme (EBSS) broken down by supplier. E Gas and Electricity are at the top with an 85% success rate and Bulb coming in second with 79%. Those with the fewest redemptions include Good Energy, Utilita and Scottish Power, with the government calling on them and others to make sure they are doing all they can to ensure their customers with prepayment meters know what to look out for and exactly how to redeem their vouchers.

Administered by energy suppliers, EBSS is designed so customers receive the discount in the same way they pay their energy bills, such as via direct debit, credit, smart meters and traditional prepayment meters. Most people will receive the support automatically, with no action necessary. However, people who use traditional prepayment meters are sent monthly vouchers by their supplier via text, email or post with suppliers having contacted customers in advance of the scheme launching in October to advise how the discount would be applied.

Yesterday, the Business Secretary pledged to crack down on the mistreatment of energy users by suppliers, following reports showing some aren’t doing enough to support vulnerable customers. As part of this he committed to publishing a list of supplier redemption rates for Energy Bills Support Scheme vouchers – showing who is meeting their responsibilities and who needs to do more.

Business and Energy Secretary Grant Shapps said:

“The public have a right to know which suppliers are leading the charge with getting this help to them, and that’s why I’m holding energy companies to account to make sure they are doing everything they can to support their customers at this time.

“We’re ramping up efforts so consumers know exactly what they need to do to redeem these vouchers, but we need suppliers to do much more and I want to see these numbers rise.”

Today’s figures show nearly £5.7 billion of support has now been provided to 99% households across Great Britain through the Energy Bills Support Scheme to help with their winter energy bills, provided in monthly instalments that began in October and will continue until March.

71% of vouchers have now been redeemed since the scheme launched, up from 65% following continual engagement with energy suppliers and consumers throughout the delivery of the scheme. However, ministers want to see this rise as figures show 99% of vouchers have been issued.

The Government is furthering campaign activity to reach eligible customers with additional advertising rolling out from today (Monday) across community radio, social media and national magazine titles.

Energy and Climate Minister Graham Stuart said:

“Government support has directly cut billions from household bills over the last few months, but we also want everyone to get the extra £400 help as well. With the return of freezing conditions, it’s more important than ever that those with prepayment meters look out for and redeem their vouchers as soon as possible.

“I want energy suppliers to do more to alert people to this help and make sure that everyone eligible is prompted to cash the vouchers in – particularly those who are struggling most. Everyone can help though. If you know someone with a prepayment meter, ask them if they’ve got their vouchers and prompt them to use them.”

Suppliers will tell customers where to redeem vouchers, which will be at a Post Office branch or a PayPoint shop, and must make several attempts to contact customers who have not redeemed their vouchers.

Off-grid households to receive Alternative Fuel Payments from February

The UK government has today also set out more detail on which households will be eligible to receive £200 of support under its Alternative Fuel Payments (AFP) scheme, with the vast majority of eligible households due to receive the payment automatically from 6 February.

The scheme will deliver £200 to households who use alternative fuels such as biomass, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) or heating oil, helping around 2 million off-grid households to meet their energy costs this winter. The scheme will particularly support households in rural areas that are not connected to the gas grid. Support was doubled to £200 in the Autumn Statement to reflect the price rises experienced by people using alternative fuels to heat their homes.

Details set out today outline how households can expect to receive the payment, with delivery mirroring the methods used to provide support under the government’s other energy bill support schemes. Most households will not need to take any action to receive the support. A small proportion of households will need to apply for the AFP, for example because they do not have a relationship with an electricity supplier. Today’s publication includes more detail on how the scheme will determine which households need to apply for support.

Wider government support with energy bills

The EBSS and AFP come in addition to wider government support to help households with the cost of living this Winter. As well as discounts provided through the EBSS, the government’s Energy Price Guarantee (EPG) will save a typical household around £900 this winter, based on what energy prices would have been under Ofgem’s current price cap – reducing bills by roughly a third.

The EPG will continue to provide support for another 12 months from April 2023, and with energy prices forecast to remain high, this equates to an average of £500 support for households in 2023 to 2024. An additional £1,200 of support in direct payments is being provided to vulnerable households this year, with £26 billion worth of targeted support to help protect the most vulnerable announced by the Chancellor for the next financial year.
23/01/2023
PRESS RELEASE : Mental health services boosted by £150 million government funding [January 2023]

The press release issued by the Department for Health and Social Care on 23 January 2023.

Anyone experiencing a mental health emergency will benefit from more tailored emergency care and support in the community through specialised mental health ambulances, more crisis services, and improved health-based places of safety.

A £150 million investment up to April 2025 will better support people experiencing – or at risk of experiencing – mental health crises to receive care and support in more appropriate settings outside of A&E, helping to ease pressures facing the NHS.

Patients presenting with mental health problems are twice as likely to spend 12 hours or more in emergency departments than other patients. While some of these patients will be in A&E for urgent medical care, we know that often they would be better treated elsewhere.

The funding will allow for the procurement of up to 100 new mental health ambulances, which will take specialist staff directly to patients to deliver support on scene or transfer them to the most appropriate place for care.

It will also fund 150 new projects centred on supporting the provision of mental health crisis response and urgent mental health care. The new projects include over 30 schemes providing crisis cafes, crisis houses and other similar safe spaces, as well as over 20 new or improved health-based places of safety which provide a safe space for people detained by the police. Improvements to NHS 111 and crisis phone lines will also be rolled out.

In the middle of a challenging winter, the government is doing everything it can to ease the pressure on the NHS, particularly A&E, by making sure people are receiving the care they need in the most appropriate setting.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said:

People in mental health crisis deserve compassionate care in a safe and appropriate setting. Too often, they end up in A&E when they should be receiving specialist treatment elsewhere.

This important funding will make sure they get the help they need, while easing pressures on emergency departments and freeing up staff time – which is a huge priority for the government this winter.

Health and Social Care Secretary Steve Barclay said:

With the health systems facing huge challenges this winter from the rise in flu, ongoing Covid cases and the impact of the pandemic, we need to ensure people are still receiving the right specialist care.

These dedicated facilities will ensure patients experiencing a mental health crisis receive the care they need in an appropriate way, whilst freeing up staff availability including within A&E departments.

These schemes – along with the up to 100 new mental health ambulances – will give patients across the country greater access to high-quality, tailored support when needed the most.

The new ambulances have been designed to provide a calmer environment, avoiding the bright yellow interior of traditional NHS ambulances and using simple NHS service logos, dimmable lighting and space for family and friends to accompany the patient during assessment. These are backed by £7 million in government funding.

The remaining £143 million of capital funding, announced in the 2021 Spending Review, will go towards the 150 new projects. It will be invested in providing and improving a range of spaces to support people experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, mental health crises. This includes new mental health urgent assessment and care centres and the redesign and refurbishment of existing mental health suites and facilities including in emergency departments, creating spaces outside of A&E, and the expansion of crisis lines.

With planned projects located across the country, the 150 schemes support the wider government commitment to level up mental health and wellbeing across the country – including some of the most deprived local authority areas in England.

Programmes will also focus on preventative measures, including improvement of sanctuary spaces, to improve mental wellbeing, and community mental health facilities that will work to help people before reaching crisis point.

This builds on our existing plans to improve mental health services. We are investing at least £2.3 billion of additional funding a year by April 2024 to expand and transform mental health services in England so that two million more people will be able to get the mental health support they need.

Every area now has in place 24/7 NHS open access urgent mental health helplines; the helplines are currently taking around 200,000 calls per month, with only 1 to 2% reported as being directed to 999 or A&E. In the community, NHS Mental Health Support Teams are being rolled out in schools and colleges, offering early mental health help to children and young people, we are on target to reach 35% of pupils by the end of this year.

This comes as the government has committed to increase mental health spend to 8.9% of all NHS funding.

NHS mental health director Claire Murdoch said:

Despite the disruption caused by the pandemic the NHS is on track to deliver its Long Term Plan commitment to boost mental health spending by £2.3 billion a year, enabling around 4.5 million adults and over 700,000 young people to access mental health services.

As well as expanding capacity to meet record demand, the NHS is transforming mental health services to help people get more appropriate care when they contact services and this investment will see specialist mental health ambulances deployed, new crisis cafes opened, and existing facilities modernised, to deliver urgent and emergency mental health care to more people who need it.

So as ever anybody in need of help should not hesitate in contacting the NHS so they can get the care they need.

Olly Parker, Head of External Affairs at YoungMinds said:

We welcome further investment in the ways young people can access support and hope that this goes some way to ensuring that there are appropriate settings for those experiencing a mental health crisis.

Ultimately, we want to prevent young people reaching crisis in the first place and for there to be better access to early support. We therefore look forward to the government publishing its promised long-term plan for mental health, and for it to have young people at its heart.

Dr Adrian James, President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said:

It’s good to see the renewed commitment of £150 million Government funding into mental health services. Having reached record levels of referrals in the past year, the pressures on crisis care is immense. We welcome the investment to build and improve 150 new services which will support those most in need, in some of the most deprived communities.

It’s clear more must be done to reach people as early and as quickly as possible. The concept of tailored emergency care is positive, and we’re pleased to see the investment of 100 new specialist mental health ambulances, staffed by both physical and mental healthcare professionals.

This will go some way in easing system pressures, however, we must remember that times are hard for everyone, with the cost-of-living crisis adding to this, demand for mental health services will continue to rise.

23/01/2023