Tag: Speeches

  • George Eustice – 2021 Statement on the Fishing Industry

    George Eustice – 2021 Statement on the Fishing Industry

    The statement made by George Eustice, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in the House of Commons on 14 January 2021.

    As hon. Members will know, before Christmas the UK and the EU concluded a new trade and co-operation agreement, which established tariff-free trade in all goods and, among other things, sets a new relationship with the EU on fisheries. Before turning to the specifics of that agreement, I should briefly set the wider context.

    The withdrawal agreement that was agreed by this House in January last year established the United Kingdom as an independent coastal state. Over the course of the last year we have taken our independent seat at the regional fisheries management organisations, including the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission and the North Atlantic Fisheries Organisation. In September, we reached a partnership agreement with Norway—our most important partner on fishing interests, and with whom we have responsibility for shared stocks in the North sea.

    We have also developed new bilateral arrangements with our other north-east Atlantic neighbours, including the Faroes, Greenland and Iceland. We have recently commenced annual bilateral fisheries negotiations with the Faroes in relation to access to one another’s waters, and a UK-Norway-EU trilateral is about to begin to agree fishing opportunities on shared stocks in the North sea. There will also be a UK-EU bilateral negotiation on fishing opportunities for the current year in remaining areas. For the first time in almost 50 years, the UK has a seat at the table and represents its own interests in those important negotiations.

    The trade and co-operation agreement establishes an initial multi-annual agreement on quota, sharing and access, covering five and a half years. It ends relative stability as the basis for sharing stocks. Under the agreement, we have given an undertaking to give the EU access to our waters on similar terms as now and, in return, it has agreed to relinquish approximately 25% of the quota that it previously caught in our waters under the EU’s relative stability arrangement. That means that we move from being able to catch somewhat over half the fish in our waters to two thirds of the fish in our waters at the end of the multi-annual agreement. The transfer of quota is front-loaded, with the EU giving up 15% in year 1. On North sea cod, we have an increase from 47% to 57%. On Celtic sea haddock, our share has moved from 10% to 20%. On North sea hake, we secured an uplift from 18% to 54%, and on West of Scotland anglerfish, we have an increase from 31% to 45%. After the five-and-a-half-year agreement, we are able to change access and sharing arrangements further. The EU, for its part, will also be able to apply tariffs on fish exports in proportion to any withdrawal of access.

    Although we recognise that some sectors of the fishing industry had hoped for a larger uplift, and, indeed, the Government argued throughout for a settlement that would have been closer to zonal attachment, the agreement does, nevertheless, mark a significant step in the right direction. To support the UK industry through this initial five and a half years, the Prime Minister announced, just before Christmas, that we will invest £100 million in the UK fishing industry, and I will be bringing forward proposals for this investment in due course.

    Finally, although it is not a consequence of the trade and co-operation agreement, the end of the transition period and the fact that we have left both the customs union and the single market does mean that there is some additional administration accompanying exports to the EU. I am aware that there have been some teething issues as businesses get used to these new processes. Authorities in the EU countries are also adjusting to new procedures. We are working closely with both industry and authorities in the EU to iron out these issues and to ensure that goods flow smoothly to market.

    Mr Carmichael

    For years, this Government have promised our fishing industry a sea of opportunity, but, today, our boats are tied up in harbour, their propellers fouled with red tape manufactured in Whitehall. Boats that are able to go to sea are landing their catches in Denmark—an expensive round trip of at least 72 hours, which takes work away from processors and other shoreside businesses in this country. Our Fisheries Minister describes promises made by Ministers as “dreams” and apparently did not think it was worth reading the agreement as soon as it was made, even though every second counted. How on earth was it allowed to come to this? The EU trade agreement allows a grace period on customs checks for EU businesses. Why was there no grace period allowed for our exporters, and will the Government engage with the EU as a matter of urgency to make good that most fundamental of errors?

    Yesterday, the Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee that compensation is being considered for our fishing industry. Who will be compensated, for what, and by how much? When will our scheme be published and what steps will be taken to help processors, catchers and traders in the meantime? On the loss of quota swaps and other mechanisms, as the Fisheries Minister said yesterday, this could be done Government to Government in-year. Can the Secretary of State explain today how the literally hundreds of producer organisation to producer organisation swaps done every year will be done on a Government-to-Government basis?

    Finally, what will happen at the end of a five-and-a-half year transition period? A transition normally takes us from point A to point B. This transition takes us from point A to point A with a new negotiation. Is zonal attachment still the Government’s policy on quota shares?

    This is a shambles of the Government’s own making; there is no one else to blame now. When will the Minister start listening to the industry? I make him this offer: I can convene a virtual roundtable of all the affected sectors today or tomorrow. Will he meet with me and them to sort this out? The time for complacency has passed.

    George Eustice

    May I begin where the right hon. Gentleman ended and say that we are looking and working very closely with industry on this matter? We are having twice-a-week meetings with all the key stakeholders and all the key sectors to help them understand these issues. Yesterday, we had a meeting with the Dutch officials; earlier this week, we had a meeting with the French; and, on Friday, we had a meeting with the Irish to try to iron out some of these teething problems. They are only teething problems. When people get used to using the paperwork, goods will flow normally. Of course, it would have been open to the EU to offer us a grace period, just as we have had a grace period for its goods coming to us. For reasons known only to the EU and the way that it approaches its particular regulations, that was not something that it was willing to do, so we have had to work with these arrangements from a standing start and, clearly, that causes certain issues.

    The right hon. Gentleman asked what happens after five and a half years. As I said in my opening statement, after that period, we are free to change access arrangements and change sharing arrangements, and we will do so. He asked specifically about swaps. It is important to note that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has all of the information on all of the swaps that have taken place in recent years, since each of those producer organisation to producer organisation swaps requires the Government to agree them. It is, therefore, quite possible for us to build those swaps into the annual exchanges. Annual exchanges of fishing opportunities are a normal feature of annual negotiations, and we have also retained the ability to do in-year swaps on behalf of those POs.

    The right hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of what the fisheries Minister said yesterday. I think the record will show that she did not say she did not have time to read the agreement; what she actually said was that her jaw did not drop when she was told what was in the agreement. There may be a reason for that, which is that she knew what was likely to be in the agreement for at least a week, since I had been discussing it with her and we were both in regular contact with our negotiators.

    Finally, I am aware that the Prime Minister mentioned yesterday that the Government remain open to considering compensation for sectors that might have been affected through no fault of their own. We will look closely at this issue, but in the meantime, we are going to work very closely with the industry to ensure that we can iron out these difficulties.

  • Paul Scully – 2021 Comments on the Prompt Payment Code

    Paul Scully – 2021 Comments on the Prompt Payment Code

    The comments made by Paul Scully, the Small Business Minister, on 19 January 2021.

    Our incredible small businesses will be vital to our recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, supporting millions of livelihoods across the UK.

    Today, we are relieving some of the pressure on small business owners by introducing significant reforms to the UK payments regime – pushing big businesses to pay their suppliers on time.

    By signing up to the Prompt Payment Code and sticking to its rules, large firms can help Britain to build back better, protecting the jobs, innovation and growth which small businesses drive right across the UK.

  • Keir Starmer – 2021 Comments on Universal Credit

    Keir Starmer – 2021 Comments on Universal Credit

    The comments made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 18 January 2021.

    Families across the UK have spent the past year worried for their loved ones, their jobs and their family’s security.

    Millions of people have had to juggle childcare with working from home, have seen jobs or incomes cut or been excluded from self-employed support. If we don’t give a helping hand to families through this pandemic, then we are going to slow our economic recovery as we come out it.

    We began 2021 with one of the worst death tolls in Europe and the deepest recession of any major economy. Without action from Government, millions of families face a £1,000 per year shortfall in the midst of a historic crisis.

    We urge Boris Johnson to change course and give families certainty today that their incomes will be protected.

  • Kate Green – 2021 Comments on Free School Meals

    Kate Green – 2021 Comments on Free School Meals

    The comments made by Kate Green, the Shadow Secretary of State for Education, on 18 January 2021.

    Gavin Williamson has created a catalogue of chaos on free school meals. Time and time again he has let down the parents desperately trying to put food on the table and the children who have gone hungry through his incompetence.

    He must guarantee that children will get free school meals over the February half term and put trust in parents by give them the money for free school meals to ensure their children do not go hungry.

    Conservative MPs will have the opportunity to vote with Labour today to finally give families the support they need to get through this crisis.

  • Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2021 Comments on Priti Patel Refusing to Appear in Commons

    Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2021 Comments on Priti Patel Refusing to Appear in Commons

    The comments made by Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Shadow Home Secretary, on 18 January 2021.

    It’s shameful – and, frankly, embarrassing – for the Home Secretary not to come to Parliament today.

    It’s an abject failure of leadership and dereliction of duty not to grip a crisis that has seen 400,000 records deleted and criminals set to walk free.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2021 Statement on Legal Protections for England’s Heritage

    Robert Jenrick – 2021 Statement on Legal Protections for England’s Heritage

    The statement made by Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, on 15 January 2021.

    For hundreds of years, public statues and monuments have been erected across the country to celebrate individuals and great moments in British history.

    They reflected the people’s preferences at the time, not a single, official narrative or doctrine. They are hugely varied, some loved, some reviled, but all part of the weft and weave of our uniquely rich history and built environment.

    We cannot – and should not – now try to edit or censor our past. That’s why I am changing the law to protect historic monuments and ensure we don’t repeat the errors of previous generations, losing our inheritance of the past without proper care.

    What has stood for generations should be considered thoughtfully, not removed on a whim, any removal should require planning permission and local people should have the chance to be properly consulted. Our policy in law will be clear, that we believe in explaining and retaining heritage, not tearing it down.

  • Dominic Raab – 2021 Comments on Alexey Navalny

    Dominic Raab – 2021 Comments on Alexey Navalny

    The comments made by Dominic Raab, the Foreign Secretary, on 18 January 2021.

    It is appalling that Alexey Navalny, the victim of a despicable crime, has been detained by Russian authorities. He must be immediately released. Rather than persecuting Mr Navalny Russia should explain how a chemical weapon came to be used on Russian soil.

  • Oliver Dowden – 2021 Article on Free Speech

    Oliver Dowden – 2021 Article on Free Speech

    The article written by Oliver Dowden, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on 18 January 2021.

    If the last decade has been defined by anything, it’s the power of social media. Its opening saw the hope of the Arab Spring, whilst its closing witnessed last week’s disgraceful scenes at the US Capitol.

    Both were the product of social media’s unprecedented ability to spread ideas and bring people together, for both good and bad. Put simply, we have a new printing press – but it’s an invention whose implications society and governments are just beginning to grapple with.

    With so many of us now consuming our news and information through social media, a small number of companies wield vast power in shaping how we see the world. To an outsider, it doesn’t always seem this power is wielded transparently or consistently.

    Iran’s Ayatollah has a Twitter account, whilst the elected President of the United States is permanently suspended from holding one. Trump’s supporters have labeled that move censorship; the other half of the country has asked what took so long.

    Norway’s Prime Minister has had posts defending freedom of expression deleted on Facebook because they contained the iconic “Napalm Girl” photo – an unintentional violation of the site’s child nudity policy – whilst in Myanmar, the same platform has been used to whip up hatred towards Rohingya Muslims.

    Those facts alone should make anyone who loves democracy pause for thought. The idea that free speech can be switched off with the click of a button in California is unsettling even for the people with their hands on the mouse.

    Just this week, Twitter’s CEO, Jack Dorsey, said that while he felt that it was right for his platform to ban Trump, leaving platforms to take these decisions “fragments” the public conversation and sets a dangerous precedent.

    So as we enter a new era in our relationship with tech, who should decide its rules?

    We need to be able to define what social media is and isn’t. Given it is now so crucial a part of public discourse, should we compare it to a utility? Or should we see social media companies as publishers, akin to newspapers – and therefore liable for everything they publish?

    In reality, neither the passive “platform” nor the editorialised “publisher” truly hit the mark. Holding companies liable for every piece of content – for 500 hours a minute of uploads on YouTube alone – would break social media.

    But equally, when these companies are curating, editorialising, and in some cases removing users, they can no longer claim to be bystanders with no responsibility whatsoever.

    However we categorise social media, one thing is clear: as with other forms of mass communication, democratically elected governments must play a role in regulating it.

    In the UK, we are leading the world by starting to deal with this dilemma. I have been clear that we are entering a new age of accountability for tech.

    At the end of last year, we outlined plans for a groundbreaking new rulebook for social media companies: one that would make sites like Facebook and Twitter responsible for dealing with harmful content on their platforms, while also holding them answerable for their wider role and impact on democratic debate and free speech.

    We can no longer outsource difficult decisions. There’s now a burning need for democratic societies to find ways to impose consistency, transparency, fairness in the online sphere.

    And it needs to be flexible enough to adapt as social media evolves. There’s always another platform somewhere else on the horizon. No-one had ever used TikTok in the UK before 2018 but now 17 million of us do: almost double the total newspaper circulation in 2019.

    It also means navigating some complex philosophical disputes. How do you resolve the inherent tension, for example, between protecting people from dangerous misinformation in a global pandemic, whilst also protecting their right to express an opinion?

    There are no easy answers. But we are setting out the parameters.

    We need to do everything we can to protect our most vulnerable citizens, and particularly children, from harm. Our upcoming Online Safety Bill holds them as our number one priority.

    The second is the protection of free speech. As Lord Justice Sedley put it in 1999, that definition has to include “not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative.” Without the latter, we are making an empty promise.

    So, under our legislation, social media giants will have to enforce their terms and conditions consistently and transparently. This will prevent them from arbitrarily banning any user for expressing an offensive or controversial viewpoint.

    If users feel like they’ve been treated unfairly, they’ll be able to seek redress from the company. Right now, that process is slow, opaque and inconsistent.

    And it’s absolutely vital that internet regulations can’t be used as a tool to silence an opponent or muzzle the free media. So news publishers’ content on their own sites will be exempt.

    The decisions governments around the world take will shape democracies for decades to come. As the UK takes up the G7 Presidency this year, we want to work with our democratic allies to forge a coherent response.

    We are just taking the first steps in this process. But decisions affecting democracy should be made democratically – by governments accountable to parliament, not executives accountable to shareholders.

  • Rebecca Pow – 2021 Comments on the Joint Unit for Waste Crime

    Rebecca Pow – 2021 Comments on the Joint Unit for Waste Crime

    The comments made by Rebecca Pow, the Environment Minister, on 18 January 2021.

    The past year has been a real challenge for our enforcement agencies as they carry out their important work, and I commend the Joint Unit for Waste Crime for its vital efforts in disrupting the criminals and gangs who show complete disregard for our waste industry, local communities and the environment.

    We are absolutely committed to clamping down on waste crime and I look forward to seeing the Joint Unit go from strength to strength over the coming years as it protects the public and the environment from harm and brings waste criminals to justice.

  • Boris Johnson – 2021 Speech on the Build Back Better Council

    Boris Johnson – 2021 Speech on the Build Back Better Council

    The speech made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 18 January 2021.

    We know the best way to rebuild our economy is to beat Covid which is why we have invested billions in new vaccines and a national testing operation so that we can reopen the economy safely as soon as possible in the future.

    But despite this we – like many other countries – face a huge economic challenge. And as we recover from this crisis it won’t be enough to just go back to normal – our promise will be to Build Back Better and level up opportunity for people and businesses across the UK.

    This Build Back Better Council will ensure that government and businesses continue to work closely together. It will provide an important forum for frank feedback on our recovery plans and will help ensure the steps we are taking are the right ones.