People across Scotland are being invited to have a say on how crofting is reformed. A programme of meetings will take place from 3 July to 15 August, stretching from Oban to Shetland.
The consultation, which runs until 2 September 2024, seeks views on a range of proposals for crofting reform. These will help to create opportunities for new entrants, encourage the active management and use of crofts and common grazings, and support rural population.
The crofting system must support effective and sustainable land use.
The consultation seeks the public’s views on proposals on:
entry to crofting
crofting communities
use of common grazings
strengthening residency and land use
enhanced Crofting Commission powers
simplifying crofting
Agriculture Minister Jim Fairlie said: “Crofting has a special place in the cultural heritage of Scotland, and we want it to play its part in our future too.
“We want to ensure that legislation enables and supports the sustainability of crofting, crofters and crofting communities, while allowing for modernisation, innovation, diversification and adaptation to help meet today’s and tomorrow’s climate and environmental challenges.
“Crofting’s place in agriculture and food production will remain at the heart of the system, but alongside these we now see crofting playing an increasing role in tourism, renewable energy generation, forestry, peatland restoration, beekeeping and small-scale horticulture production.
“The consultation proposals range from relatively small technical changes to significant innovations and I would encourage everyone with an interest to respond to the consultation or come to one of the meetings if they are able.”
Mike Andersen, the Lib Dem candidate for Edinburgh North and Leith, has today called for Scotland’s sewage network to be upgraded and for a blue flag system for Scotland’s rivers to be introduced.
This comes as new analysis by the Liberal Democrats revealed that Edinburgh North and Leith is one of 14 Westminster constituencies in Scotland where there is no monitoring of sewage dumping pipes.
Across Scotland in 2023 sewage was dumped 21,660 times, an increase of 10% on 2022. However, the problem is likely to be far worse because, unlike in England, hardly any dumping pipes are monitored.
Scottish Liberal Democrats have launched plans for a Clean Water Act that would see:
Scotland’s Victorian sewage network updated;
Every sewage dump monitored and published with binding targets for their reduction;
A blue flag system for Scotland’s rivers;
A complete ban on the release of sewage in protected areas such as bathing waters.
The proposals for Scotland are part of a UK-wide campaign by the Liberal Democrats to clean up waterways and get governments to take action.
Mike Andersen said: “SNP ministers have become spin doctors for the government-owned water company and outdated standards. Bosses are taking home bumper bonuses while millions of litres of sewage gets dumped into our rivers, lochs and beaches.
“Monitoring of sewage dumping is so lacking that there is no monitoring whatsoever in Edinburgh North and Leith. In England, at least there is proper monitoring in place so that we know the scale of the problem.
“On Thursday, you can use your vote to end the appalling sewage scandal. Scottish Liberal Democrats want a Clean Water Act for Scotland to update the sewage network, proper monitoring to find all the dumping, and a complete ban on this filthy practice in protected areas such as bathing waters.
“Liberal Democrats up and down the UK have led the campaign to turn the tide on the sewage scandal. If you elect a Liberal Democrat MP in Edinburgh North and Leith you will get a hardworking local champion who is focused on getting the sewage out of our rivers and winning the change our country desperately needs.”
You can find data for all Scottish Westminster constituencies here.
Lothians MSP Foysol Choudhury, Scottish Labour’s Shadow Culture Minister, is pressing the Scottish Government to urgently act following reported comments by Francesca Hegyi, Chief Executive of Edinburgh International Festival, that the Scottish culture sector could face a “house of cards” collapse.
MSP Choudhury has joined Ms Hegyi in calling on the Scottish Government to save Scotland’s world-renowned culture sector and urgently roll out the £100 million pledged last year by the Government.
Foysol Choudhury and Scottish Labour colleagues have been calling for an urgent festivals crisis summit-a plea Ms Hegyi is seemingly now echoing with her calls for a crisis summit on the future of arts funding in Scotland.
MSP Choudhury said: “Francesca Hegyi’s comments lay bare the extent of the crisis in our culture sector – her concerns must be heeded by the Scottish Government.
“I have been calling for an urgent festivals crisis summit and have been raising questions on this at the Scottish Parliament, as well as meeting with the relevant stakeholders to try and secure action to save our culture sector before it is too late.
“It is clear that Scotland’s cultural sector is under enormous pressure, with cultural organisations crying out for support and venues and festivals under threat.
“Yet, the Scottish Government still won’t heed mine and Scottish Labour’s calls for a crisis summit on festival funding.
“We must save our world-renowned cultural sector, which contributes hugely to our creative economy, as well as having a huge positive impact on other industries such as tourism and hospitality.
“We need the concrete action of a festivals crisis summit now.”
Some cultural organisations are also complaining of ‘standstill’ funding which provides little opportunity for growth. Mr Choudhury has, in response, been pressing for long-term, sufficient funding which allows the culture sector to truly thrive.
With some reports suggesting that Edinburgh’s festivals bring in similar viewing numbers as the World Cup, which has years to prepare, Mr Choudhury says it is incredibly important that Scotland’s culture sector is also given the same level of economic stability and preparation time to maintain our world-class status as a global hub for culture.
Mr Choudhury says he and his colleagues will continue to press the Scottish Government on these matters and work to preserve Scotland’s cultural sector.
Legislation giving Ministers and local authorities the tools needed to increase reuse and recycling rates, as well as modernise and improve waste and recycling services, has been passed.
The Circular Economy Bill will give Ministers the powers to:
set local recycling targets, building on the experience of Wales, which has the best recycling rate in the UK
set statutory targets for delivery of a circular economy to measure progress in transforming the economy
restrict the disposal of unsold consumer goods, to prevent good products ending up in landfill
place charges on single-use items like disposable cups to encourage the move to reusable alternatives
give local authorities additional enforcement powers, allowing them to crack down on flytipping and littering from cars.
The measures will be underpinned by support and investment, building on the investments already made through the £70 million Recycling Improvement Fund.
Minister for Climate Action Gillian Martin said: “There are huge opportunities in having an economy which makes reuse and recycling the default choice for Scottish households, businesses and the public sector.
“We have already seen businesses creating jobs by turning what we might otherwise throw away into valuable new products and services.
“The measures in the Circular Economy Bill will give local Councils and the Scottish Government the powers needed to support the sustainable use of resources and cut greenhouse gas emissions.
“For people to do the right thing for the planet, it is crucial that everyone experiences a modern, easy to use waste service.
“We will continue to work with local authorities and householders to co-design how these powers are implemented to take account of different circumstances and needs on our journey towards a truly circular economy.”
Analysis shows number of kids growing up in poverty in working households increased by 44% (+900,000) between 2010 and 2023
Union body says a “toxic combination” of pay stagnation, rising insecure work and cuts to social security have had a “devastating impact on family budgets”
TUC calls for urgent economic reset and for a government that “makes work pay”
Child poverty in working households has increased by over 1,300 a week, on average, since 2010 – according to new TUC analysis published yesterday.
The analysis shows that the number of kids living in poverty with at least one parent in work increased by 900,000 (44%) between 2010 and 2023 – the equivalent to 1,350 a week.
The TUC says in 2023 there were 3 million kids in working households living below the breadline in the UK.
Children growing up in poverty in working households now account for:
69% of all children in poverty
24% of all children in working households
“Toxic combination”
The TUC says that a “toxic combination” of wage stagnation, rising insecure work and cuts to social security have had a “devastating impact” on family budgets.
Real wages are still worth less today than in 2008 and the union body estimates that had they grown at their pre-crisis trend since the Tories took power the average worker would be over £14,000 a year better off.
And separate analysis from the TUC shows that the number of people in insecure work, low-paid work has increased by nearly 1 million during the Conservatives’ time in office to a record 4.1 million.
Economic reset
The TUC says Britain urgently needs an economic reset.
It highlighted the importance of Labour’s New Deal for Working People and Green Prosperity Plan in creating good jobs and helping make work pay.
And it called on political parties to make reducing child poverty a national priority.
TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak said: “No child in Britain should be growing up below the breadline.
“But under the Conservatives we have seen a huge in rise in working families being pushed into poverty.
“A toxic combination of pay stagnation, rising insecure work and cuts to social security have had a devastating impact on family budgets.
“We urgently need an economic reset and a government that will make work pay. Reducing child poverty must be a priority in the years ahead.”
“Labour’s ambitions for growth can’t happen unless we get closer to Europe.” says Labour’s longest-serving former Member of European Parliament“
Food safety agreement with EU could cut weekly foods bills by £2”
David Martin, who was the Labour Party’s longest serving Member of the European Parliament, has said Labour’s ambitions for growth in the economy can only be achieved by closer alignment with the EU.
Speaking today (24 June) in a Bylines Scotland podcast, Mr Martin said: ““The programme Labour has put forward for government is dependent on growth. In my view that growth cannot happen unless we get closer to Europe. It’s just not going to happen if we are outside all the European decision-making processes.”
He said realigning with Europe is a long-term process: “Things won’t happen overnight, but a new Labour government can reach early accommodations with the EU that can benefit the UK and EU.”
Mr Martin who is President of the European Movement in Scotland, the leading all-party pro EU organisation, cited post-Brexit rules on food safety controls that currently cost UK and European exporters £40 for every consignment passing between the UK and the EU.
He argues that having mutually agreed new food hygiene standards would cut out these costs and protect public health.
“A new accord between the UK and EU on veterinary standards would benefit farmers, food importers and exporters. Most importantly, it’s estimated that it could cut household shopping bills by around £2 a week.”
The former MEP believes the UK’s hospitality and retail sectors would benefit from the UK agreeing to the EU’s proposal to allow people between the ages of 18 and 30 the right to study or work in the UK or EU for up to four years. Labour has rejected the proposal. David Martin thinks that if Labour wins the general election, it must be open to reviewing its position on Europe.
“The EU proposal on limited free movement would be beneficial to both sides. It would give our industries a source of valuable labour,”
“These figures, and our own research, clearly evidence the shameful and shocking reality of poorly patients who need to be cared for on hospital wards having to wait many hour hours, ever days, often on trolleys in corridors because there is not enough capacity in the system.
“There simply are not enough beds to admit people to, often because the people in those beds are medically well enough to go home but can’t because of inadequate or delayed social care support.
“It is not just a matter of inconvenience or lack of dignity – which is bad enough. The longer people’s in-patient admission is delayed, the greater the risk the risk to their life.
“There is no one quick fix, but the problems are fixable. RCEM is ready to work with whoever forms the next Government to begin the process of resuscitating our health system and ending these unacceptable and dangerous long waits.”
Recent events in the UK have brought to light a significant betting scandal involving political figures, underscoring the urgent need for stringent ethical standards and enforcement in public office.
As more names surface in the ongoing investigation, the scandal is set to have wide-ranging implications for political accountability and public trust.
The controversy began when it was revealed that Craig Williams, a senior aide to Rishi Sunak, placed a bet on the timing of the next general election just days before it was announced. This has sparked a broader investigation into betting activities among political figures, with more names expected to emerge in the coming days. Williams has since faced significant scrutiny and potential legal challenges.
Ethical Implications
This scandal highlights several critical issues:
Conflict of Interest: Politicians and their aides have access to privileged information. Betting on such information compromises their ability to act impartially and can lead to decisions influenced by personal gain rather than public interest.
Public Trust: Incidents of this nature severely erode public confidence in political institutions. When political figures are seen engaging in unethical behavior, it diminishes the public’s faith in their ability to govern fairly and transparently.
Regulatory Gaps: The current regulatory framework for political conduct may be insufficient to address modern challenges such as betting and financial conflicts of interest. This scandal underscores the need for comprehensive reforms.
Current Measures and Recommendations
In light of these events, several steps should be considered to strengthen ethical oversight in politics:
Enhanced Disclosure Requirements: Politicians should be mandated to disclose all betting activities and any financial interests that could pose a conflict of interest.
Regular Audits and Monitoring: Implementing regular financial audits and monitoring the activities of politicians can help detect and deter unethical behavior.
Clear Consequences: Establishing strict penalties for breaches of ethical conduct, including betting on privileged information, can serve as a significant deterrent.
Ethics Training: Providing regular ethics training for politicians and their aides can reinforce the importance of maintaining integrity and help them navigate complex ethical dilemmas.
Moving Forward
As the investigation continues, it is crucial for political parties and regulatory bodies to take decisive action to address these issues. Strengthening ethical standards and ensuring rigorous enforcement can help restore public confidence and ensure that political decisions are made in the best interest of the public.
Andy Bell from Bettingsites.ie says: “The unfolding scandal serves as a critical reminder of the importance of transparency, accountability, and integrity in public service. By addressing these challenges head-on, the UK can work towards rebuilding trust in its political institutions and ensuring that such issues are effectively managed in the future.”
The Scottish Parliament’s Cross-Party Group (CPG) on Bangladesh has called for action to promote educational links between Scotland and Bangladesh.
The CPG met on Wednesday 19th June 2024 and received updates from Convener Foysol Choudhury MSP and Deputy Convener Miles Briggs MSP, H.E. Saida Muna Tasneem, High Commissioner of Bangladesh to the UK, Peter Brown, Director of British Council Scotland, Dr Ibrahim Rashid, PhD Fellow from Stirling University and members of the Scottish Bangladeshi diaspora.
The High Commissioner was also joined by Mohammad Hazrat Ali Khan, Deputy High Commissioner, Tanvir Mohammad Azim, Commercial Counsellor, Wing Commander Md Saifur Rahman, Assistant Defence Adviser and Moumita Zeenat, Counsellor (Political).
The CPG meeting focused on education and followed on from a CPG visit to Dhaka last November 2023, where the CPG met with H.E. Sheikh Hasina and the Foreign Minister Dr A.K. Abdul Momen to discuss the importance of generating shared links between education institutions in Bangladesh and Scotland.
MSP Choudhury and MSP Briggs updated the CPG on Wednesday night on how they have already met with Scottish Universities to start the conversation and discuss how to move forward with opportunities for education and research collaboration, specifically around agriculture, climate change and fishing.
MSP Choudhury said: “The CPG is all about building the relationship between Scotland and Bangladesh in areas of shared importance.
“There is a definite need to bridge a gap and reinforce educational collaboration with Scottish and Bangladeshi universities, such as via creating Scottish University campuses in Dhaka and beyond.
“We have already written to H.E. Sheikh Hasina, had discussions with High Commissioner, Saida Muna Tasneem, contacted Universities Scotland’s Connected Scotland Partnership and the British Council.
“It was fantastic to hear the update from the High Commissioner and British Council at the CPG meeting this week to hear their commitment to building educational links and opportunities between Scotland and Bangladesh-as well as from some students to learn why educational collaboration is so beneficial!
“We look forward to continuing this collaboration between Scotland and Bangladesh on education and other areas such as climate change, and seeing our global partnership go from strength to strength.”
The CPG also got an update on many more areas of development between Scotland and Bangladesh, including cultural endeavours via the Edinburgh Military Tattoo.
The Scottish Parliament CPG on Bangladesh says it will continue to build these links and shared endeavours between Scotland and Bangladesh, exploring matters on the world stage and also for the domestic Bangladeshi diaspora in Scotland.
What impact has the ‘two-child limit’ in universal credit had, and what policy choices does the next government face? – a report by Institute for Fiscal Studies
Low-income families typically receive an additional £3,455 a year of universal credit (or child tax credit) for each child they have1 . But the ‘two-child limit’ means that claimants do not receive an additional amount for third or subsequent children born after 5 April 2017.
This policy has been the subject of controversy, and the Liberal Democrats and Green Party have both committed to abolishing the limit in their manifestos, while the Labour Party have said they will abolish it ‘when fiscal conditions allow’.
In this comment, we (IFS) outline the impact of the two-child limit on household incomes and work incentives, and the public finances.
To illustrate the impact of the policy, take a lone parent with three children who lives in social rented accommodation costing £500 per month2 , and not working.
Their universal credit entitlement will be made up of the basic £4,721 per year in universal credit for single adults; £6,000 to cover the cost of their housing; and – in the absence of the two-child limit – £10,365 for their children3 .
On top of this, they receive £3,102 a year in child benefit, which is unaffected by the two-child limit, giving them a total income of £24,188 (without the two-child limit); they would also generally have support to cover most or all of their council tax bill. The two-child limit means they receive £3,455 less each year in universal credit, representing a 14% cut to their income and putting them into relative poverty.
Turning to the impact across the population, we find that, when fully rolled out, on average affected households will lose £4,300 per year, representing 10% of their average income and 22% of average benefit income4 .
These losses are concentrated among 790,000 households (10% of working-age households with children) and would affect nearly one in five children (2.8 million).
As things stand, the policy affects only 550,000 households. The difference is because there are families with three children all of whom were born before 6 April 2017; as time passes, more and more large families will have children born after that date.
We estimate that 250,000 extra children will be affected by the policy next year and 670,000 extra children will be affected by the end of the next parliament. HMRC statistics show that in 2023, 50% of families affected by the two-child limit were single parents and 57% had at least one adult in paid work.
Figure 1 shows where in the household income distribution households that are affected by the two-child limit sit. For comparison, we also show the equivalent for all households with children and all households with children receiving universal credit.
Unsurprisingly, the two-child limit disproportionately affects poorer households, but the figure shows that affected households are also more likely to have low income than are all universal-credit-receiving families with children.
76% of households affected by the two-child limit are in the poorest 30% of working-age households. In comparison, 63% of households eligible for universal credit with children are in the poorest 30% of working-age households.
Figure 1. Distribution of households affected by two-child limit; universal credit claimants with children; and all households with children, by equivalised income decile
Note: Assumes full take-up of benefits and full roll-out of universal credit and the two-child limit. Only includes households where all adults are under 66.
Source: Authors’ calculations using the Family Resources Survey 2022–23 and TAXBEN, the IFS tax and benefit microsimulation model.
The two-child limit has an (even more) outsized impact on children living in low-income households, as, by definition, a household affected by the two-child limit has at least three children. It affects 23% of households with children in the poorest fifth of the income distribution, but 38% of children in the poorest fifth of the income distribution.
The two-child limit also has varied impacts across families of different ethnicities. We estimate that 43% of children in households with one adult of Bangladeshi or Pakistani origin (400,000 children) would be affected by the policy when fully rolled out, compared with 17% of children in other households (2.4 million children). This reflects both these families having more children and them being more likely to be on low income.
The two-child limit would be even more targeted at the poorest households if it was not for a separate policy: the benefit cap. The benefit cap limits the total amount that a family with no adults in work can claim to £22,020 a year outside London and £25,323 a year inside London (lower amounts are applied for single adults without children). 110,000 households are not directly affected by the two-child limit as the benefit cap already limits their entitlements. Almost all these households are in the poorest fifth of households.
Figure 2 shows relative child poverty rates, defined as being in a household with an income (after housing costs) below 60% of median income, split by the number of children in the household.
Since 2014–15, relative poverty rates have declined for families with one or two children, but they have increased for families with three or more children5 .
Absolute poverty rates have also diverged: they have fallen for small families but remained unchanged for large families. So, in absolute terms, low-income large families are about as well off as they were in 2015, but their incomes have fallen further behind relative to other households, including small families.
Figure 2. Relative child poverty rates after housing costs, 2008–09 to 2022–23
Note: The fall in poverty rates in 2020–21 is at least partly due to benefit expansions in that year, including raising maximum housing support and a temporary £20 per week uplift to universal credit.
The two-child limit is likely one driver of this recent increase in relative child poverty rates for larger families. However, it is not the only explanation. Other benefit cuts are likely to affect larger families more as they on average receive more of their income from benefits (the benefit cap also disproportionately affects larger families); and broader economic trends may also play a role.
Nevertheless, removing the two-child limit would certainly go some way to reversing the recent increase in poverty rates for large families. We estimate that removing the two-child limit would reduce relative child poverty by approximately 500,000 (4% of all children)6 .
The two-child limit has a relatively small effect on work incentives. One statistic that helps explain work incentives is replacement rates: the household’s income if an individual was out of work as a percentage of their in-work household income. The lower someone’s replacement rate, the more incentive they have to remain in work.
With the two-child limit, an average working parent with three or more children has a replacement rate of 62.1%; without it, they would have a slightly higher replacement rate of 63.0%.
This average difference is small for two reasons. First, 28% of these workers are unaffected entirely, as they would not be able to claim universal credit even if they lost work, due to having more than £16,000 in assets or their partner having a sufficiently high income.
Second, for 22% of these workers, the two-child limit actually increases their replacement rate, as it decreases their income when in work but does not affect them when they are out of work, as they would be benefit capped if out of work.
For those who when out of work are eligible for universal credit but not benefit capped – 50% of working parents with three or more children – their replacement rate falls by 4 percentage points.
Naturally, removing the two-child limit would come at a cost. We estimate that removing the two-child limit would cost the government about £3.4 billion a year. For a sense of scale, this is equal to roughly 3% of the total working-age benefit budget; it is also approximately the same cost as freezing fuel duties for the next parliament, or cutting the basic rate of income tax by half a penny.
The indirect fiscal impacts of the two-child limit are more uncertain. Previous research has found that investments in young children can sometimes partly or even entirely pay for themselves by causing better outcomes for those children in later life.
If the same is true of benefit spending in the UK, removing the two-child limit may be less costly in the long run than its up-front cost suggests. However, there is very little evidence on this issue in the UK, though ongoing IFS research is looking to study it.
