Tag: Westminster

New blueprint to protect public from scammers

UK Government launches new strategy to cut fraud, pursue fraudsters and empower the public

A new elite team of specialist investigators will turn the tables on fraudsters as part of the UK Government’s new action to tackle fraud and stop scammers from exploiting people.

The new National Fraud Squad will overhaul how these crimes are investigated by taking a proactive, intelligence-led approach, backed by 400 new specialist investigators. It will work with local forces, international partners and the UK intelligence community to ensure that callous fraud cells who target millions of Brits each day are shut down.

Fraud is now the most common crime in the UK, with 1 in 15 of us falling victim, costing nearly £7 billion a year. With developments in modern technology opening up new avenues for criminals to target victims, 9 in 10 internet users have also encountered online scams.

The Fraud Strategy, unveiled yesterday, marks a step forward in the government’s fight back against scammers, in response to how these crimes have evolved.

New measures will close the routes that scammers use to target victims, including by banning cold calls on all financial products – such as types of insurance or sham crypto currency schemes – and working with Ofcom to use new technology to further clamp down on number ‘spoofing’, so fraudsters cannot impersonate legitimate UK phone numbers.

Government will also ban other devices or methods commonly harnessed by scammers to reach thousands of people at once such as so-called ‘SIM farms’ and review the use of mass texting services to keep these technologies out of the hands of criminals.

To make it easier for victims to report fraud and rebuild confidence that cases are being dealt with properly, a new system, replacing the current Action Fraud service will be up and running within the year.

Backed by a £30 million investment, it will provide a simpler route for reporting fraud online, with reduced waiting times and an online portal to allow victims to get timely updates on the progress of their case.

This improved service will also ensure victims’ reports are acted upon more effectively, using data to ensure we can continue to build intelligence as criminals continue to find new ways to target victims.

Seventy per cent of fraud in the UK either starts overseas or has an international link – to drive forward global efforts to tackle these crimes, the government will work bilaterally to raise fraud as a key priority. The Home Secretary will host the first global fraud summit in the UK to guarantee international collaboration to tackle this threat.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said: Scammers ruin lives in seconds, deceiving people in the most despicable ways in order to line their pockets.

“We will take the fight to these fraudsters, wherever they try to hide. By blocking scams at the source, boosting protections for people and bolstering enforcement, we will stop more of these cold-hearted crimes from happening in the first place and make sure justice is done.”

Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: “Fraud is a blight on our country with ruthless criminals scamming the British public out of their hard-earned cash. They exploit people’s trust and steal their life savings, shattering their confidence and leaving them feeling vulnerable.

“It also fuels serious organised crime and terrorism. Meanwhile scammers are adapting, taking advantage of new technology to prey on more victims.

“It is vital we adopt a new approach to this threat. The Fraud Strategy outlines how we will use all levers available to us – through government, law enforcement, industry and international partners – to track down these criminals, intercept their scams and bring them to justice.”

To push the response to fraud at the highest level, a new Anti-Fraud Champion, Anthony Browne MP, has been appointed. He will draw on his considerable experience as the former CEO of the British Banking Association to drive collaboration with industry and represent the UK internationally.

Anti-Fraud Champion, Anthony Browne MP said: “Fraud has grown to be the biggest form of crime in the UK, causing financial and emotional distress to millions of people.

“The tech sector, phone companies and financial services firms must take responsibility for protecting their users by stopping fraud happening in the first place, and work together to design out fraud. We can use the technologies fraudsters are exploiting against them to stop them in their tracks, and I will work with industry to make sure that happens.”

In plans announced yesterday, banks will be allowed to delay payments from being processed for longer to allow for suspicious payments to be investigated, keeping cash out of the hands of fraudsters and stopping more people from falling victim.

We are working with the largest tech companies to make it as simple as possible to report fraud online, whether it be scam adverts or false celebrity endorsements. This means, regardless of which social media platform you are on, you should be able to find the ‘report’ button within a single click, and ‘report fraud or scam’ within another. TikTok and Snapchat already offer this for adverts but have committed to extending to other types of content.

Further measures include:

  • rolling out tailored support to victims at a local level across the whole of England and Wales through the National Economic Crime Victim Care Unit
  • launching an independent review of the challenges in investigating and prosecuting fraud to speed up the justice process, punishing more scammers and ensuring sentences match the severity of the impact on victims
  • deploying the UK intelligence community to identify and disrupt more fraudsters overseas
  • publishing regular data on the volume of fraudulent content hosted on different websites and platforms to incentivise companies to root these out and better protect users – government will launch a consultation on how best to deliver this, including regularity of publications

Wednesday’s plans build on action already taken to step up protections for victims and clamp down on the criminals responsible for these crimes. That includes:

  • legislating to ensure more victims of fraud get their money back, by requiring financial institutions to reimburse victims of authorised fraud
  • making fraud a national priority for police forces, to help ramp up the response at local force level
  • investing £400 million for law enforcement to tackle economic crime, including fraud, over the next 3 years
  • new duties on tech companies through the Online Safety Bill to put systems in place to tackle scams on their platforms and publish annual transparency reports on their work to tackle online harms

Graeme Biggar, Director General of the National Crime Agency, said: “The NCA welcomes the new Fraud Strategy and our role in the National Fraud Squad.

“Through the National Economic Crime Centre, we will drive a proactive intelligence led response, holding fraudsters to account and protecting the public from criminals who operate increasingly online and overseas.

“We want fraudsters to feel the same vulnerability they inflict upon their victims, as we target their infrastructure, expose their identities and bring them to justice.”

Commissioner Angela McLaren from the City of London Police, which is the National Lead Force for fraud, said: “We welcome this strategy and the much-needed investment in policing to deliver against it. 

“Tackling fraud requires a collective effort and we will continue to work with our partners across law enforcement and industry, doing everything in our power to pursue fraudsters and reduce the devastating harm they cause.”

Bury The Hatchet: Lords Committee calls for UK-EU relations reset after years of tension and mistrust

The European Affairs Committee has published a report on the UK-EU relationship

The report is based on an inquiry undertaken between July 2022 and March 2023. The inquiry involved 12 oral evidence sessions, with a total of 43 witnesses, as well as 58 written submissions.

The report examines the overarching state of the post-Brexit relationship between the UK and EU, and how this might be developed in the future, across four themes:

  • The overall political, diplomatic and institutional relationship;
  • the foreign policy, defence and security relationship;
  • energy security and climate change; and
  • mobility of people.

After years of tension and mistrust, recommendations focus on actions to be taken as a priority as part of a reset of UK-EU relations following the recent agreement of the Windsor Framework.

The Committee’s key findings and recommendations are as follows:

The political, diplomatic and institutional relationship

  • The opportunity the recent improvement in the mood around UK-EU relations this presents for a reset of UK-EU relations should, following years of tension and mistrust, must be grasped.
  • There should be a considerable increase in engagement between the UK and the EU. This should include greater use of existing institutional structures such as the TCA Specialised Committees. There would also be value in holding regular UK-EU summits. The UK’s participation in the new European Political Community is welcome.

The foreign policy, defence and security relationship

  • Cooperation between the UK and the EU has been close and productive in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Nevertheless, the ad hoc approach to sanctions coordination with the EU should be replaced by a more formal mechanism.
  • The Government’s decision to participate in the Military Mobility project under the EU’s Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) is welcome. It should consider future opportunities for defence cooperation with the EU that are complementary to NATO as they arise.
  • The Government should approach the EU with the aim of establishing appropriate structured cooperation arrangements on external affairs.

Energy security and climate change

  • Energy trading between the UK and the EU has continued without much disruption despite the energy security challenges experienced in Europe following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. However, an agreement should be reached to guarantee that energy flows can continue in the event of a critical supply shortage.
  • The UK and the EU should cooperate closely on the installation of additional interconnectors, including in the North Sea, which are needed to ensure future energy security.
  • There would be mutual benefits to be gained from the UK and the EU linking their respective Emissions Trading Schemes and the Government should approach the EU about this possibility. The Government should also engage closely with the EU in relation to the latter’s proposal for a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM).

Mobility of people

  •  The end of free movement of people between the UK and the EU has had a major impact on business and professional travel. Government guidance on business and professional mobility should be made more straightforward to navigate and interpret.
  • The substantial decline in school visits from the EU to the UK since 2019 is regrettable. To address this the Government should reintroduce a youth group travel scheme that would not require pupils travelling on school visits from any EU country to carry individual passports.
  • Post-Brexit barriers to mobility have had a disproportionate impact on younger people. The Government should approach the EU about the possibility of entering an ambitious reciprocal youth mobility partnership, similar to existing schemes with other jurisdictions such as Australia and Canada.

Lord Kinnoull, Chair of the Committee, said: “The UK’s post-Brexit relationship with the EU has regrettably come under significant strain over the period since the TCA came into force, characterised by tension and mistrust.

“While the recent change in mood for future UK-EU relations following the announcement of the Windsor Framework is welcome, there is now the opportunity to move the relationship forward to the mutual benefit of both the UK and the EU.

“A particular theme running through our Future UK-EU Relationship report evidence was the significant impact of post-Brexit barriers to mobility young workers and professionals in the early stages of their careers, emerging artists, as well as students across different educational levels. Making progress here will benefit all in the short term but especially in the long term.

“The Committee feels that it is now time to address the considerable lack of structure in the foreign policy, security and defence relationship. Here we particularly recommend means of seeking to make sanctions bite harder through analysis and enforcement cooperation.

“Another area we looked into was energy. Here again we have made many recommendations which will help our long term energy security.

“We have also made a number of recommendations about the current institutional relationship and how improvements can be made”.

Does the Civil Service need reforming? MPs launch new inquiry

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has launched a new inquiry into the relationship between ministers and officials and whether Government’s engine room still functions as intended.

Several high-profile dismissals of senior civil servants by ministers as well as criticisms of Civil Service impartiality and competence during the Brexit process and Covid-19 pandemic indicate a fundamental tension in relations between the Government and the Civil Service.

MPs are seeking evidence on whether civil servants feel confident in giving honest advice to ministers, the role of ministers and Civil Service leadership in creating an environment where officials can “speak truth to power” and if not, the consequences this has on good policymaking.

In a recent evidence session, Cabinet Secretary Simon Case highlighted how officials face a challenge managing the “juxtaposition” in the Civil Service Code between the “duty to support the Government of the day to the best of your ability and upholding the values” of an independent and impartial Civil Service.

MPs will examine whether the role of Cabinet Secretary is sufficiently empowered to effectively lead the Civil Service, where accountability lies in policymaking, and whether Ministers’ role in the hiring, firing, and promotion of Civil Service leaders is appropriate and conducive to effective government.

William Wragg MP, Chair of PACAC, said:  “It is a fundamental principle that the Civil Service serves the government of the day, yet growing tensions between ministers and their officials and public criticisms of Civil Service impartiality and competence have called into question the efficacy of the Westminster model.

“Events such as the Covid-19 pandemic response and Brexit, as well as high-profile dismissals of Civil Service leaders, have raised questions about where accountability lies in Government, but also the integrity of our public administration machine.

“Our inquiry aims to understand how the Civil Service leadership operates today, how the Government’s interaction with officials may have deviated from established practice, and, ultimately, whether our public administration still serves its intended purpose or whether it is in need of reform.”

Terms of reference

The Committee welcomes submissions by 5pm on Friday 16 June addressing any or all of the following questions on:

The status and constitutional position of the Civil Service, including: 

  1. The extent to which the established values of the Civil Service, enshrined in the Civil Service Code, continue to determine the conduct of Officials and are respected by the governments they serve.
  2. Whether the Civil Service feels sufficiently confident or empowered to give honest advice to Ministers and ‘speak truth to power’, and if not, what the consequences are for policy making and governance. To what extent does the Civil Service leadership have responsibility for ensuring that an environment exists where officials do feel empowered to give candid advice?
  3. What responsibility does the Civil Service have for ensuring constitutional propriety in the conduct of government?

Civil Service Leadership 

  1. What constitutes good leadership in the Civil Service?
  2. As the Head of the Civil Service, is the Cabinet Secretary sufficiently empowered to lead the Civil Service and how far is the Civil Service Board equipped to provide effective leadership?
  3. The extent to which the Civil Service has an obligation to enhance its capability and, if so, whether that can be exercised unless such an obligation also applies to governments. Should any such stewardship obligation be formalised?
  4. Whether Ministers’ current role in the hiring, firing, and promotion of Civil Service leaders is appropriate and conducive to effective government. 

Policymaking  

  1. Is the respective accountability of Ministers and Officials for policy formulation and delivery sufficiently clear and, if not, how might it be made more so? 
  2. Is the current system of Ministerial Directions effective and sufficient?
  3. In all of these areas, are there lessons from other countries that the UK can useful adopt?

The impact of the UK’s exit from the European Union to be debated by MPs

On Monday 24 April, MPs will debate a petition relating to the impact of the UK’s exit from the European Union.

Martyn Day MP, a member of the Petitions Committee, has been asked by the Committee to open the debate. MPs from all parties can take part, and the Government will send a minister to respond.

We call upon the Government to hold a Public Inquiry into the impact of Brexit

The petition, which has more than 137,000 signatures, states: “The benefits that were promised if the UK exited the European Union have not been delivered, so we call upon the Government to hold a Public Inquiry to assess the impact that Brexit has had on this country and its citizens.”

In its response to the petition, provided on 5 December 2022, the Government said: “The UK’s departure from the EU was a democratic choice and the UK-EU institutions are functioning as intended. The Government does not believe this to be an appropriate subject for a public inquiry.”

What are petitions debates?

Petitions debates are ‘general’ debates which allow MPs from all parties to discuss the important issues raised by one or more petitions, and put their concerns to Government Ministers.

Petition debates don’t end with a vote to implement the request of a petition. This means MPs will not vote on whether to hold a public inquiry into the impact of the UK’s exit from the European Union.  

Petition debates are scheduled by the Petitions Committee. Only e-petitions started on the parliament petitions site are considered by the Petitions Committee.

Benefits health assessments system continues to let people down, say MPs

The health assessments system to access vital benefits for those who cannot work or face extra costs due to disability or ill-health continues to let down those who rely on it, according to Westminster’s Work and Pensions Committee.

In its latest Report, the Committee calls for the implementation of several measures that would be relatively quick and easy wins to improve trust, drive down the high rate of decisions reversed on appeal and reduce waiting times.

It says assessments should be recorded by default, with claimants having the option to opt-out, adding that footage could be used to review cases more accurately without having to go to appeal, and help assessors learn from past mistakes.

Some of the improvements the Committee suggest could drive down the high rate of decisions reversed on appeal, which still stands at 69% for Personal Independence Payment (PIP). Although the Work Capability Assessment used for Universal Credit and Employment and Support Allowance is due to be abolished, it will remain in place until at least 2026. Meanwhile, PIP assessments will continue, so retaining the status quo is not an option.

MPs on the Committee also recommended allowing claimants to choose between remote or in-person assessments, extending the deadline to return forms, targets to reduce assessment waiting times, and payments to people who have been forced to wait beyond the new targets.

The predecessor Committee originally published a report on significant problems in assessments in 2018, but many of the recommended changes have not been made.

Committee Chair Sir Stephen Timms MP said: ““We surveyed eight and a half thousand people as part of our inquiry and found a profound lack of trust in the system as a consistent theme.

“Many will welcome abolition of the Work Capability Assessment.  The Government’s process improvements, and recognition that the system causes undue stress and hardship, are steps in the right direction.

“However, waiting years for changes won’t cut it when quicker wins are available:  flexibility of choice on assessment by phone or face-to-face; recording assessments by default; extending deadlines to reduce stress; and sending claimants their reports. All this will give much-needed transparency to a process that so few trust yet affects their lives so fundamentally.

“All efforts must be made for unnecessary limbo and stress for claimants to be put to an end.”

easy-readDownload

VOTE LABOUR, SAYS SCOTS TORY LEADER!

SNP STOOSHIE ‘DEEPLY DAMAGING FOR SCOTLAND’

DOUGLAS Ross says it is “absurd” for Nicola Sturgeon to claim her decision to stand down as SNP leader isn’t linked to the arrest of her husband.

The leader of the Conservatives in Scotland spoke out as it emerged a camper van had been seized by cops leading the financial probe into Peter Murrell.

Speaking during Camilla Tominey Today on GBNews, Mr Ross hit out at Ms Sturgeon’s explanation behind her reasons to leave her role as SNP leader.

He said: “For her to somehow suggest and continue to suggest it had nothing to do with this ongoing inquiry I think is frankly absurd.

“We’ve now seen the incredible sight of someone who has just been First Minister inside a house when the police came to arrest her husband. Now, obviously, that’s an ongoing live police inquiry and I can’t go much further into it but we have all seen the house being taped off.

“And now we have the incredible story of a camper van being removed from Nicola Sturgeon’s mother in law’s house. It continues to be an incredible story and one that is deeply damaging for Scotland.”

Commenting on what he’d like to see happen next he said: “I think the most important thing is we get to the bottom of this inquiry. It has now been going on for I think, 18 months, almost two years. I think people want answers.”

Mr Ross also hit out at the SNP’s record ahead of the 25th anniversary of the Hollyrood parliament. He said: “I think devolution has been a good thing in terms of bringing powers closer to the people of Scotland. It’s part of the reason I represent people in the Scottish Parliament.

“But for many remote and rural areas, Holyrood now seems as distant as Westminster ever was. So I want to see a Scottish Parliament actually deliver for people and representatives of all of Scotland and at the moment that’s not happening with the centralising SNP government.”

Mr Ross also praised the job Rishi Sunak had done since becoming PM. He said: “I think he’s doing a great job and I think we’ve seen a more progressive Conservative Party which is building more and more support because the public can see a Prime Minister who’s quietly getting things done.

He’s doing many things that commentators and other politicians felt would not be achievable. They have been delivered by the Prime Minister because he’s determined. He works with people across the political spectrum to get results. And we’ve seen that in a number of different areas. And I am very delighted that the Prime Minister is doing a great job across the board.”

Meanwhile Mr Ross also addressed criticism he has received for encouraging Scottish voters to vote Labour. “I always encourage Scottish people to vote Conservative,” he said. “But what I’m trying to say is that there are many seats across Scotland where the main challengers are SNP MPs and that people want to move on from the decade of tradition that we have under Nicola Sturgeon.

“And I think for many people, that’s an option they’re looking at because come the next Holyrood election some people will have been in charge for almost two decades. And no one can say Scotland’s in a better place as a result of that.”

Anti-strikes Bill will give ministers “unfettered power” to restrict the right to strike, top lawyers warn

  • Experts say government’s Strikes Bill will make Britain an international “outlier” on union laws 
  • Unions will be forced to “undermine” their own strikes, lawyers say 

Leading employment lawyers have warned that government’s new Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill will give ministers “unfettered power” to restrict the right to strike. 

In a joint statement, the legal specialists say the new legislation will make Britain “an outlier” on strike laws compared to other European and Western democracies. 

Those adding their names to the statement include:  

  • Alan Bogg, Professor of Labour Law, University of Bristol 
  • Keith Ewing, Professor of Public Law, King’s College London 
  • Ruth Dukes, Professor of Labour Law, University of Glasgow   

Highlighting the new sweeping powers the Bill will give to ministers, the lawyers say: 

“The legislation gives a Secretary of State a largely unfettered power to determine what a minimum level of service should be in a particular service, and consequently the circumstances in which and the extent to which workers in these sectors can lawfully exercise their freedom to strike.” 

Highlighting how Britain risks becoming an international outlier on strike laws, the lawyers say: 

“The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill would place an unacceptable restriction on a worker’s right to take strike action to defend their terms and conditions of employment. It adds to an existing body of highly restrictive laws on strikes, including the Trade Union Act 2016. 

“It would make Great Britain an outlier among comparable countries. If ministers are keen to learn from overseas, a more promising place to start would be the creation of a culture of social dialogue and balanced cooperation through the introduction of sector-wide collective bargaining, together with the clear legal recognition of a positive right to strike.” 

Highlighting the strain the Bill will put on industrial relations, the lawyers say: 

“Trade unions will be required by an employer acting with the authority of the state to take steps actively to undermine its own strike, for which its members will have voted in a ballot with high thresholds of support. Such an obligation is unprecedented in British law, and it places trade unions in an intolerable conflict with their own members. 

“The legislation also removes significant protections for individual workers exposing them to the risk of dismissal and victimisation. It will do nothing to resolve the current spate of industrial action, which will be settled by negotiation and agreement, rather than by the introduction of even tighter restrictions on trade unions.” 

The TUC has accused the government of ducking scrutiny over the Bill. 

If passed, the Strikes Bill will mean that when workers democratically and lawfully vote to strike they can be forced to work and sacked if they don’t comply.  

The Bill gives ministers power to impose new minimum service levels through regulation.   

But consultations on how these regulations will work in specific services have not been completed, and parliamentarians have been given few details on how minimum service levels are intended to operate.  

The TUC says the new legislation will “do nothing” to solve the current disputes across the public sector, and “only make matters worse”. 

Alan Bogg, Professor of Labour Law at the University of Bristol said:  “This Bill would risk leaving Britain an international outlier in its restrictive laws on trade unions. 

“When combined with existing legislation, these proposals constitute a further departure from established norms and international treaty obligations.  

“Rather than bringing Britain into line with other European countries, it deviates significantly from the legal traditions of our neighbours where the right to strike is often given explicit constitutional protection.” 

Ruth Dukes, Professor of Labour Law at the University of Glasgow said:  “These minimum service requirements will do nothing to help workers and employers reach agreement. 

“But they might well prolong and inflame disputes.” 

Commenting on the lawyers’ letter, TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak said: “This is a damning assessment of the government’s Strikes Bill. Make no mistake – these new laws are a naked power grab that will allow ministers to severely restrict the right to strike. 

“This spiteful legislation would mean that when workers democratically vote to strike, they can be forced to work and sacked if they don’t comply.     

“Compulsory work notices during strikes will place a huge strain on employer and union relations and will do nothing to help resolve disputes. 

“If this nasty legislation gets on to the statute book, the TUC will fight it all the way – including through the courts.  

“The Conservatives cannot legislate away worker dissatisfaction.” 

The full statement reads: 

We the undersigned are specialists in employment law. 

Between us we have decades of experience as academics and practitioners in analysing the existing statutory regime for industrial action and the wider industrial relations landscape in Great Britain and internationally. 

In our view the Strikes Bill (Minimum Service Levels) Act would place an unacceptable restriction on a worker’s right to take strike action to defend their terms and conditions of employment. It adds to an existing body of highly restrictive laws on strikes, including the Trade Union Act 2016. The cumulative effects of this legislation would place the UK well outside the mainstream of industrial relations in comparable countries. 

The right to strike is guaranteed in international law by a succession of important treaties. These include the Council of Europe’s Social Charter of 1961; and the UN’s International Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights of 1966. It has also been recognised as a human right by the International Labour Organisation, and by the European Court of Human Rights. Our obligation to respect ILO conventions and the Social Charter was reinforced by the 2020 Trade and Cooperation Treaty with the European Union. 

In Great Britain the right to strike is already heavily limited. The statutory regime places significant requirements on trade unions contemplating industrial action including the need to conduct a postal ballot under highly complex rules, the need to clear high thresholds of support (even higher in ‘important public services’), and to give 14 days’ notice of action. 

The Strikes Bill as drafted would remove none of these requirements while placing a hugely onerous new set of requirements on unions and union members. 

The legislation gives a Secretary of State a largely unfettered power to determine what a minimum level of service should be in a particular service, and consequently the circumstances in which and the extent to which workers in these sectors can lawfully exercise their freedom to strike. If a strike takes place in these services, an employer will have the power to issue a work notice effectively to requisition workers during the strike.   

Trade unions will then be under a duty to take “reasonable steps” to ensure that workers comply with the work notice. Trade unions will thus be required by an employer acting with the authority of the state to take steps actively to undermine its own strike, for which its members will have voted in a ballot with high thresholds of support. Such an obligation is unprecedented in British law, and it places trade unions in an intolerable conflict with their own members. 

The legislation also removes significant protections for individual workers exposing them to the risk of dismissal and victimisation. It will do nothing to resolve the current spate of industrial action, which will be settled by negotiation and agreement, rather than by the introduction of even tighter restrictions on trade unions. 

The proposed minimum service legislation constitutes a further departure from established norms and treaty obligations. It would make Great Britain an outlier among comparable countries. If ministers are keen to learn from overseas, a more promising place to start would be the creation of a culture of social dialogue and balanced cooperation through the introduction of sector-wide collective bargaining, together with the clear legal recognition of a positive right to strike. 

Professor Alan Bogg, Professor of Labour Law, University of Bristol 

Professor Nicola Countouris, Director of the Research Department, European Trade Union Institute (ETUI) and Professor in Labour Law and European Law, University College London 

Professor Ruth Dukes, Professor of Labour Law, University of Glasgow 

Professor Keith Ewing, Professor of Public Law, King’s College London 

Professor Lydia Hayes, Professor of Labour Rights, University of Liverpool 

Dr Ioannis Katsaroumpas, Lecturer in Employment Law, University of Sussex 

Professor Aristea Koukiadaki, Professor of Labour Law and Industrial Relations, Head of The University of Manchester Law School 

Professor Virginia Mantouvalou, Professor of Human Rights and Labour Law, University College London 

Dr Ewan McGaughey, Reader in Law, King’s College London 

Professor Tonia Novitz, Professor of Labour Law, University of Bristol 

Lothian MSP calls on First Minister to commit to swimming pools fund

Scottish Conservative and Unionist MSP, Miles Briggs, has called on new First Minister Humza Yousaf to commit to additional funding to support leisure centres and swimming pools in Scotland.

The call comes following the UK Government’s decision to release £63 million of investment to support leisure centres and swimming pools in England.

The Scottish Government is set to receive an additional £320 million from the UK Treasury in Barnett consequentials as a result of the latest Budget, with Scottish Swimming among groups calling on the Scottish Government to make extra funding available for the sector.

In Scotland, local councils and leisure trusts operate over 200 swimming pools which are responsible for hosting swimming g lessons for over 106,000 per week.

Public pools in Scotland receive massive support from the public, with a poll in February by JL partners revealing that 94% of Scots backed pools as being good for safety and 93% of Scots agreeing that all children should learn to swim.

Earlier this month, East Lothian sports operators enjoyleisure were handed £40,000 to help cover losses after one of its swimming pools was closed until further notice.

Swimming pools across the region are at risk of closure due to soaring energy costs, with West Lothian Council announcing that every swimming pool is at threat of closure due to the associated cost of running.

Lothian MSP, Miles Briggs said: “The news that the Scottish Government will receive an additional £320m from the UK Treasury is a welcome one.

“However, we now need to see that money spent on real, tangible change for the better of Scotland. Investment in swimming pool across Scotland would be a tremendous use of that money and would benefit both old and young.

“Swimming pools and leisure centres do not just offer recreational opportunities for people; they are a vital way of keeping the nation healthy, both mentally and physically. It is therefore essential that we do whatever we can to prevent their closure.

“That is why I am calling on the new First Minister to commit to new funding for our swimming pools.”

Day of Reckoning? Ex-PM Boris Johnson faces Partygate grilling

Westminster’s Committee of Privileges has published written evidence submitted by Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP, ahead of hearing his oral evidence today (Wednesday).

The Committee initially received the written evidence from Mr Johnson on Monday afternoon at 2.32pm in unredacted form.

The evidence submitted had a number of errors and typos, and, a final corrected version was not submitted to the Privileges Committee until 8.02 am yesterday morning.

Redactions have been made in the published version to protect the identity of some witnesses, in consultation with Mr Johnson, particularly junior-ranking civil servants.

Mr Johnson’s written submission contains no new documentary evidence.

The Committee has set out its own views of its processes in reports published in July and September 2022. The Committee will consider carefully the further arguments made by Mr Johnson and respond to them in its final report.

Throughout this inquiry the Committee has received and followed the advice of its legal adviser, former Senior President of Tribunals and Lord Justice of Appeal Rt Hon Sir Ernest Ryder, as well as the impartial Clerks of the House. The Committee remains confident in the fairness of its processes and in its compliance at all times with the rules and practice of the House of Commons.

From the start of its inquiry the Committee has offered Mr Johnson the opportunity to provide written evidence. In its report published on 2 March 2023, the Committee set out a summary of principal issues to be raised with Mr Johnson in oral evidence, at his request, and at the same time disclosed to him all the evidence received by the Committee and the identities of all witnesses.

Mr Johnson has now provided written evidence, which can be read here.

Ahead of the oral evidence session on Wednesday, the Committee will be publishing, again by agreement with Mr Johnson, a “core bundle” of documents to which the Committee and Mr Johnson may refer in the course of the questioning.

These documents will be published on the Committee website at 9.00 am today.

The Committee of Privileges will hear oral evidence in public from Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP from 2pm today (Wednesday 22 March).

The session can be watched on Parliament TV here. There is no approximate end time for the session.

Strikes Bill fails to meet human rights obligations – JCHR report

UK Government plans to impose minimum service levels on public services during strike action are likely to be incompatible with human rights law in their current form, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has found.

In a report published following legislative scrutiny of the Strikes (Minimum Service Level) Bill, the Committee finds that reforms that would make it easier to sack striking workers and leave unions at risk of million-pound fines do not appear to be justified and need to be reconsidered. The Committee finds that it would be possible to introduce minimum service levels in some sectors in a way that is more likely to be compliant with human rights law.

While the European Convention on Human Rights does not include a ‘right to strike’, Article 11 which guarantees freedom of association has been interpreted to cover the taking of strike action. This requires that any restrictions on strike action must be “in accordance with the law”, which requires its consequences to be foreseeable to those affected. Changes to the law must also meet a “pressing social need” and be proportionate to the aim being pursued.

The Joint Committee finds that the Government’s Bill risks failing to meet these benchmarks in its current form. Ahead of the Committee Stage in the House of Lords on 9 March, it has called on the Government to reconsider the legislation and ensure it meets the UK’s human rights obligations. The draft report includes five proposed amendments to the Bill intended to rectify key concerns.

The Government brought forward the Strikes Bill in response to growing industrial unrest and strikes in a number of sectors, including transport, health and education. It has argued that legislation is needed to provide greater protection to the lives and livelihoods of those that may be disrupted by industrial action in key public services.

The Bill would allow ministers to set minimum service levels on public and private services subject to strike action. The employer would then be given the power to issue a ’work notice’ to a trade union, identifying who will be required to work and the work needed to meet the minimum service level.

Individual employees who failed to comply with a work notice would lose legal protections against dismissal. Trade unions who failed to take steps to ensure notices were complied with could be required to pay damages of up to £1 million.

The Joint Committee warns that the Government has not made a compelling case that such measures are necessary and finds that the Bill as drafted contains inadequate protection against arbitrary use and is unclear.

Under the European Convention on Human Rights, restrictions on strikes must meet a ‘pressing social need’. However, the Government has not proven that existing strike laws and voluntary minimum service levels are insufficient across all the sectors identified in the Bill.

Claims that strike action in the sectors named in the Bill has caused significant and disproportionate damage to the public and wider economy have not been backed up with sufficient evidence, with the Government providing supporting data for the costs of previous transport strikes only.

Measures that interfere with the right to free association must be proportionate. This is more likely to be achieved if minimum service levels are established though negotiation and disputes resolved through independent arbitration. The Government has previously accepted that such an approach would work, in the Transport Strikes Bill introduced in October. The Bill, which would abandon this in favour of the Secretary of State imposing minimum service levels by regulations, risks failing to meet the requirement of proportionality.

Penalties for employees and unions who don’t meet the Bill’s requirements are high and potentially disproportionate, the Joint Committee finds. It calls on the Government to reconsider whether less severe measures would be more appropriate, particularly where a strike does not involve essential services. Existing penalties, such as loss of pay or suspension would be more appropriate in such cases.

The Bill has insufficient clarity in several key areas, the Joint Committee finds. Trade unions would be required to take ‘reasonable steps’ to ensure their members comply with a work notice, however the Bill does not provide sufficient detail to ensure they will know when this duty has or has not been met.

The definitions of the services in respect of which minimum service levels could be imposed are currently too vague, meaning that ‘education services’ could include private tutors and ‘transport services’ private taxi drivers. 

Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Joanna Cherry KC MP said: “The Strikes Bill will be debated in the House of Lords this Thursday and needs amending to resolve some of the deep flaws it has.

“If this proposed legislation becomes law in its current form, ministers would have the power to set minimum service levels that would leave striking workers at risk of the sack if they are not met, and unions liable to million-pound fines. Yet, the Government has not proven that such draconian measures are needed or that the current framework is inadequate.

“Heavy-handed sanctions are compounded by vague rules that would leave striking workers and unions in confusion as to whether they had been met or not. The sectors included in the Bill are also ill-defined, risking over-reach into areas only tangentially linked to the maintenance of vital public services. This means the Bill, in our view, is likely to be incompatible with human rights law which provides a right to association and with it, protection for strike action.

“The Government needs to think again and come back with legislation that better respects the protections guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.”

strikes-billDownload