The Scottish Parliament’s Constitution Committee has concluded that the UK’s Internal Market Act (UKIMA) places more emphasis on open trade than regulatory autonomy, when compared to the EU Single Market.
In a new report out today, the Scottish Parliament’s Constitution Committee has concluded:
· There are significant challenges in managing the tension which exists in any internal market between open trade and regulatory divergence, and that the UK internal market has significant economic benefits;
· In resolving this tension within the UK internal market, it is essential that the fundamental principles which underpin devolution are not undermined;
· The fundamental basis of devolution is to decentralise power so as to allow policy and legislation to be tailored to meet local needs and circumstances;
· Policy innovation and regulatory learning are one of the key successes of devolution.
The Committee also reports that it is essential as recognised by the Joint Ministerial Council (JMC) in 2017 that devolution outwith the EU continues to provide “as a minimum, equivalent flexibility for tailoring policies to the specific needs of each territory as is afforded by current EU rules.”
The Committee will invite the UK Government to explain how, in its view, UKIMA will provide for this equivalent flexibility.
The Committee’s report also noted that Common Frameworks in certain policy areas may ease this tension by managing divergence on a consensual basis. This could be achieved through creating opt-outs from UKIMA, allowing for divergence in certain areas.
However, the Committee has voiced concerns that because Common Frameworks are agreed between the UK and devolved governments, there is a lack of Parliamentary oversight and public consultation.
The Committee is working with counterparts in other parts of the UK as it seeks to press the Governments to open up the Common Frameworks process towards greater consultation and scrutiny.
Speaking as the report was launched, Committee Convener, Clare Adamson MSP, said:“We believe that policy innovation – being able to pass laws that are tailored to the situation in Scotland – is one of the key successes of devolution.
“As a Committee, we believe it is essential that outside the EU, devolution continues to provide at least the same level of flexibility.
“However, we have found that UKIMA places more emphasis on open trade than autonomy for the Scottish Parliament compared to the EU Single Market.”
Ms Adamson continued:“While the Common Framework process may resolve the issues between UKIMA and devolution, we have concerns about how these are created between UK and devolved governments, as well as their operation.
“Our view is that there needs to be a much wider public debate about how to deliver appropriate levels of parliamentary scrutiny and public engagement at an inter-governmental level.
“At present, we are concerned that lack of processes in place mean less democratic oversight of the Executive, and a less consultative policy-making process.”
Ms Adamson concluded: “The UK internal market has created tensions. We will seek answers from the UK and Scottish Governments on issues raised in the report, as well as continuing to work with our counterpart Committees across the UK.”
Funds spent protecting Scots from Tories means less money available to fight cost of living crisis, says SNP
The SNP Scottish Government had to spend £57.3 million in Edinburgh to mitigate vindictive Tory UK Government policies in Scotland this financial year, meaning there is less money available to support hard-pressed Scots families through the deepening Tory cost of living crisis.
Across Scotland as a whole, the range of Scottish Government spending commitments to counter negligent Westminster policies is now an astronomical £594 million a year. And the figures do not include almost £3.5billion of social security benefits which, while devolved, are needed to support and supplement insufficient welfare benefits paid by the Tory UK Government.
The figures also do not include the £290m announcement by Finance Secretary Kate Forbes last week to give hard-pressed households £150 each.
SNP MSP Gordon Macdonald said: “To protect the people of Edinburgh, the SNP Government is having to commit an estimated £57.3 million – a substantial amount from its restricted budget – to mitigate vindictive and immoral Tory policies inflicted on our community.
“If these Tory policies – which bring misery to the country’s most vulnerable – did not exist, then it would free up Scottish Government cash to spend the equivalent of an extra £109 for every man, woman and child in Edinburgh to deal with the spiralling cost of living.
“Devolution was meant to provide Scotland with the opportunity to do things differently but, with Westminster holding the key economic levers like borrowing, the Scottish Government is severely constrained.
“That opportunity is even further restricted if it is continually having to commit eye-watering amounts simply to right the wrongs of the Tories’ underhand austerity agenda at Westminster which is targeted at ordinary people and families.
“It says something about their priorities that, while they cut funding to help ordinary people, they pursue a tax cut for banks that will benefit them by £4bn at the expense of public spending.
“Scotland’s opposition parties are constantly demanding the Scottish Government spends its limited budget on opposition priorities without ever identifying where the money is coming from. Well, this is many millions of pounds that could be diverted to these areas if it was not being used to protect Scots from the worst elements of Westminster control.
“And it’s not just the Tories to blame. Labour and the LibDems, through their support for Westminster control, perpetuate vindictive Tory governance on the people of Scotland. In 2014 those parties promised that Westminster would be better at tackling those problems for Scotland. The sad fact is that those promises of Westminster support were empty.
“Almost £600million is a vast amount. If the Tories at Westminster would only properly fund the areas in which the SNP Scottish Government must spend to mitigate and protect people, jobs and businesses, this cash could be redirected to make transformational changes in other areas of Scottish life.
“Sadly, the direction of travel of this Westminster Government means things will only get worse. It is why the people of Scotland will have the opportunity to choose a different path with a post-pandemic independence referendum once the crisis has passed.”
Johnson attempts to deflect attention from the Downing Street parties scandal – and he’s heading to Edinburgh
Next week the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, will get out of Westminster to see how the government is delivering on the people’s priorities across the country.
Taking the message directly to people on the ground, he will emphasise that under his new No10 operation there will be a laser-focus on levelling up, clearing the covid backlogs and improving living standards across the UK.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson said: “I’m getting out of London this week and taking a simple message with me – this government is getting on with the job of uniting and levelling up the country.
“Access to good healthcare, a good education, skilled work, reliable transport – none of this should depend on where you live. We’re changing the rules of the game to put fairness back at the heart of the system and focusing on the priorities that really matter to people. This is our mission and we’re getting on with delivering it.”
Starting the week in Scotland, he will visit a manufacturing site to meet with some of their 800 highly skilled workers and discuss how they’re using advanced technology to revolutionise their manufacturing processes.
He will also see some of the projects contributing to the UK’s world leading research and development sector, which were funded under the UK and Scottish Government’s 2018 Edinburgh & South East Scotland City Deal.
As part of the Levelling Up White Paper, the government committed to increase domestic public investment in R&D by at least 40% outside of the Greater South East.
Recognising the importance of supporting young people into the workplace and delivering his vision of a high skill, high wage, high productivity economy, the Prime Minister will also use the trip to meet with apprentices who are developing a range of skills from Cyber to mechanical and electrical engineering.
Following the publication of the electives recovery plan earlier this week, the Prime Minister will travel to the North West (of England – Ed.) to see how an oncology centre is tackling the covid backlogs by using technology and developing new ways of working.
The recovery plan sets out how the NHS will address unprecedented waiting lists caused by the pandemic, while redesigning how services are delivered to improve care for the long term. It includes more community diagnostic centres, surgical hubs and ways to give patients greater control over their own health and care, rapidly increasing capacity while reducing wait times.
The mental health of pregnant women, new mothers and their families, including those affected by miscarriage, stillbirth and the death of an infant, has been highlighted by a Scottish Parliament Committee.
The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s inquiry into women’s mental health experiences before, during and after the birth of a child (otherwise referred to as the perinatal period) highlights a number of issues faced by new mothers over the support they have received, particularly during the pandemic.
In particular, the inquiry found there was a sharp rise in birth trauma incidences reported since the pandemic began. The Committee calls on the Scottish Government and NHS Boards to redouble their focus on delivering services that directly address birth trauma.
The Committee also looked into the of support for those suffering from miscarriage, stillbirth or death of an infant. During its inquiry, the Committee received evidence of some women affected by baby loss who reported being treated close to women giving birth to healthy babies, causing additional trauma to the women affected.
The report calls for accelerated action to establish specialist baby loss units and, in the meantime, for new national protocols to be set up “that ensure families affected by baby loss are consistently treated with respect and compassion and in a trauma-informed way”.
Alongside a focus on community care, the Committee also examined access to specialist Mother and Baby Units (MBUs), of which there are currently two in Scotland. The Committee emphasises the benefits of providing wider access to MBUs for new mothers with complex needs and they express support for the creation of a new MBU serving the north of Scotland.
Gillian Martin MSP, Convener of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, said:“Up to 20% of women in Scotland experience negative mental health impacts before, during and after giving birth and the aim of our inquiry was to shine a spotlight on this important issue and to see what more should be done to support these women.
“We heard of concerns in certain health board areas with the support structure in place for parents and families impacted by miscarriage, still birth and the death of an infant, and feel more action is needed to give them appropriate support.
“We had discussions with some new parents affected by baby loss who felt they didn’t receive the standard of care they are entitled to expect. That is why we are calling for every effort to be made to accelerate the establishment of specialist baby loss units
“The evidence we received suggests that during the pandemic, there was a sharp rise in incidences of birth trauma. In many instances this was a direct result of COVID-related restrictions, which limited the support women were able to receive from partners and families before, during and after giving birth.
“Our inquiry heard about the benefits of Mother and Baby Units for women who have complex mental health issues in the perinatal period and the Committee would like to see a concerted effort to widen access to these units in conjunction with the community care offer.
“We think there is a strong case to set up a new Mother and Baby Unit serving the north of Scotland but we also need to focus on issues around staffing, resources and general awareness to maximise the positive impact of perinatal mental health services and third sector organisations who support mothers.”
The Convener added:
“The extensive evidence we have gathered during the course of this inquiry has shown the importance of a preventative and community based approach to perinatal mental health. It is clear that only through accessible, joined up care across both the third sector and statutory services, women and families can get the care they need at this critical time.
“We’d like to put on record our thanks to all of the women who spoke with us and shared their stories.”
Other findings in the report include:
• concern that many women and families are currently having to wait longer than 6 weeks to access perinatal mental health support;
• the increased barriers faced by women and families from minority ethnic backgrounds, or for whom English is not their first language, and those from particularly vulnerable or at risk groups, to access perinatal mental health services;
• the critical role that stigma plays in perinatal mental health and the resulting reluctance for individuals to fully engage with healthcare professionals;
• a call for the Scottish Government to ensure further education institutions deliver perinatal mental health training as core training for all midwifery and nursing students as a priority.
The latest skirmish in the economics of independence wars relates to the state pension. Specifically, which government would pay State Pensions in an independent Scotland. Ian Blackford maintains that the UK government will pay the State Pension to Scottish residents who qualify for a UK state pension through their pre-independence national insurance contributions (NICs).
But state pensions are not paid for from a “pot” that individuals build up during their working lives. Instead they are paid using money from today’s taxes and borrowing – a pay-as-you-go scheme. Since individuals have no ownership rights over their past contributions, the UK Government can change the qualifying rules for state pensions as its sees fit.
Recent and proposed increases in the qualifying retirement age are examples of it such rule-changes. The State Pension is simply a benefit that UK government could reduce, or even, in principle, eliminate.
This pay-as-you-go aspect might seem to negate any commitment of the UK government to pay the State Pension in an independent Scotland – even to pensioners who contributed NICs and other taxes to the UK government during their working lives.
The UK government could argue that the tax and NICs made by Scottish residents were used to pay for public services that they previously enjoyed. Under this view, the Scottish Government would become responsible for paying the state pensions of qualifying Scottish residents from its own revenues post-independence.
But this is not the whole story. UK government pays State Pensions to those who retire abroad (providing that they have made sufficient qualifying NICs). Therefore if the UK government pays the State Pension to an individual living in, say, France, it would seem inconsistent for it not to pay the State Pension to an individual with a similar NICs record living in an independent Scotland[i].
It is this point that the SNP is now using to argue that the responsibility for paying the State Pension in an independent Scotland – for those who have sufficient NI contributions – would fall to the UK government.
The UK government is likely to argue that succession – and the transfer of a significant share of the UK’s tax base to the Scottish government – constitutes an unprecedented change in circumstances that renders comparisons with the treatment of individuals under current state pension policy irrelevant. It would expect the Scottish government to make a reasonable contribution to the costs of the State Pension in Scotland.
The issue would therefore become a matter for wider negotiations around the division of assets and liabilities in general, and reciprocity agreements for social security more specifically.
The UK has social security agreements with many countries. These stipulate how state pensions will be calculated when individuals have made contributions in more than one country. Similar agreements between the UK and an independent Scotland will be necessary to deal with individuals retiring post-independence who have made NI contributions in both Scotland and the UK.
The UK had such agreements with EU countries before Brexit, and maintained similar arrangements in the Trade and Co-operation Agreement between the UK and EU. The UK also has social security agreements with other countries, including the US and Australia.
There would clearly be pressure on an independent Scotland to make such an agreement with the remaining UK. The absence of an agreement would be an impediment to cross-border trade with potentially harmful economic effects.
In the post-independence long run, as those who have paid NICs to the UK government die off, the cost of supporting the state pension in Scotland will unambiguously fall on the Scottish Government.
In the short run, the Scottish government might refuse to contribute to these costs, but if it did so, there would be implications for the broader settlement. This final agreement is impossible to anticipate though it is worth noting that there is no arbitration procedure for the break-up of a state, in which case the outcome will likely depend on which party has most to lose by a failure to agree.
In summary, the question of which government would be liable for the State Pension in an independent Scotland is both more complex and more uncertain than either ‘side’ might claim.
And it likely cannot be resolved in isolation from other questions.
[i] The question of citizenship in an independent Scotland is immaterial to this analysis. Under current state pension rules, it is NICs rather than citizenship that determines eligibility. Thus whether an individual in an independent Scotland has Scottish, UK or dual citizenship (or any other nationality) would not under current policy influence eligibility for the state pension.
The Fraser of Allander Institute (FAI) is a leading economy research institute based in the Department of Economics at the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.
Bill strengthened with new list of criminal content for tech firms to remove as a priority
List includes online drug and weapons dealing, people smuggling, revenge porn, fraud, promoting suicide and inciting or controlling prostitution for gain
New criminal offences will be added to the bill to tackle domestic violence and threats to rape and kill
Flagship UK laws to protect people online are being toughened up with new criminal offences and extra measures to force social media companies to stamp out the most harmful illegal content and criminal activity on their sites quicker.
Digital Secretary Nadine Dorries has announced extra priority illegal offences to be written on the face of the bill include revenge porn, hate crime, fraud, the sale of illegal drugs or weapons, the promotion or facilitation of suicide, people smuggling and sexual exploitation. Terrorism and child sexual abuse are already included.
Previously the firms would have been forced to take such content down after it had been reported to them by users but now they must be proactive and prevent people being exposed in the first place.
It will clamp down on pimps and human traffickers, extremist groups encouraging violence and racial hate against minorities, suicide chatrooms and the spread of private sexual images of women without their consent.
Naming these offences on the face of the bill removes the need for them to be set out in secondary legislation later and Ofcom can take faster enforcement action against tech firms which fail to remove the named illegal content.
Ofcom will be able to issue fines of up to 10 per cent of annual worldwide turnover to non-compliant sites or block them from being accessible in the UK.
Three new criminal offences, recommended by the Law Commission, will also be added to the Bill to make sure criminal law is fit for the internet age.
Digital Secretary Nadine Dorries said: “This government said it would legislate to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online while enshrining free speech, and that’s exactly what we are going to do.
“Our world leading bill will protect children from online abuse and harms, protecting the most vulnerable from accessing harmful content, and ensuring there is no safe space for terrorists to hide online.
“We are listening to MPs, charities and campaigners who have wanted us to strengthen the legislation, and today’s changes mean we will be able to bring the full weight of the law against those who use the internet as a weapon to ruin people’s lives and do so quicker and more effectively.”
Home Secretary Priti Patel said: “The internet cannot be a safe haven for despicable criminals to exploit and abuse people online.
Companies must continue to take responsibility for stopping harmful material on their platforms. These new measures will make it easier and quicker to crack down on offenders and hold social media companies to account.”
The new communications offences will strengthen protections from harmful online behaviours such as coercive and controlling behaviour by domestic abusers; threats to rape, kill and inflict physical violence; and deliberately sharing dangerous disinformation about hoax Covid-19 treatments.
The UK Government is also considering the Law Commission’s recommendations for specific offences to be created relating to cyberflashing, encouraging self-harm and epilepsy trolling.
To proactively tackle the priority offences, firms will need to make sure the features, functionalities and algorithms of their services are designed to prevent their users encountering them and minimise the length of time this content is available. This could be achieved by automated or human content moderation, banning illegal search terms, spotting suspicious users and having effective systems in place to prevent banned users opening new accounts.
New harmful online communications offences:
Ministers asked the Law Commission to review the criminal law relating to abusive and offensive online communications in the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Communications Act 2003.
The Commission found these laws have not kept pace with the rise of smartphones and social media. It concluded they were ill-suited to address online harm because they overlap and are often unclear for internet users, tech companies and law enforcement agencies.
It found the current law over-criminalises and captures ‘indecent’ images shared between two consenting adults – known as sexting – where no harm is caused. It also under-criminalises – resulting in harmful communications without appropriate criminal sanction.
In particular, abusive communications posted in a public forum, such as posts on a publicly accessible social media page, may slip through the net because they have no intended recipient. It also found the current offences are sufficiently broad in scope that they could constitute a disproportionate interference in the right to freedom of expression.
In July the Law Commission recommended more coherent offences. The Digital Secretary today confirms new offences will be created and legislated for in the Online Safety Bill.
The new offences will capture a wider range of harms in different types of private and public online communication methods. These include harmful and abusive emails, social media posts and WhatsApp messages, as well as ‘pile-on’ harassment where many people target abuse at an individual such as in website comment sections. None of the offences will apply to regulated media such as print and online journalism, TV, radio and film.
The offences are:
A ‘genuinely threatening’ communications offence, where communications are sent or posted to convey a threat of serious harm.
This offence is designed to better capture online threats to rape, kill and inflict physical violence or cause people serious financial harm. It addresses limitations with the existing laws which capture ‘menacing’ aspects of the threatening communication but not genuine and serious threatening behaviour.
It will offer better protection for public figures such as MPs, celebrities or footballers who receive extremely harmful messages threatening their safety. It will address coercive and controlling online behaviour and stalking, including, in the context of domestic abuse, threats related to a partner’s finances or threats concerning physical harm.
A harm-based communications offence to capture communications sent to cause harm without a reasonable excuse.
This offence will make it easier to prosecute online abusers by abandoning the requirement under the old offences for content to fit within proscribed yet ambiguous categories such as “grossly offensive,” “obscene” or “indecent”.
Instead it is based on the intended psychological harm, amounting to at least serious distress, to the person who receives the communication, rather than requiring proof that harm was caused. The new offences will address the technical limitations of the old offences and ensure that harmful communications posted to a likely audience are captured.
The new offence will consider the context in which the communication was sent. This will better address forms of violence against women and girls, such as communications which may not seem obviously harmful but when looked at in light of a pattern of abuse could cause serious distress. For example, in the instance where a survivor of domestic abuse has fled to a secret location and the abuser sends the individual a picture of their front door or street sign.
It will better protect people’s right to free expression online. Communications that are offensive but not harmful and communications sent with no intention to cause harm, such as consensual communication between adults, will not be captured. It will have to be proven in court that a defendant sent a communication without any reasonable excuse and did so intending to cause serious distress or worse, with exemptions for communication which contributes to a matter of public interest.
An offence for when a person sends a communication they know to be false with the intention to cause non-trivial emotional, psychological or physical harm.
Although there is an existing offence in the Communications Act that captures knowingly false communications, this new offence raises the current threshold of criminality. It covers false communications deliberately sent to inflict harm, such as hoax bomb threats, as opposed to misinformation where people are unaware what they are sending is false or genuinely believe it to be true.
For example, if an individual posted on social media encouraging people to inject antiseptic to cure themselves of coronavirus, a court would have to prove that the individual knew this was not true before posting it.
The maximum sentences for each offence will differ. If someone is found guilty of a harm based offence they could go to prison for up to two years, up to 51 weeks for the false communication offence and up to five years for the threatening communications offence.
The maximum sentence was six months under the Communications Act and two years under the Malicious Communications Act.
Professor Penney Lewis, Commissioner for Criminal Law, said: “The criminal law should target those who specifically intend to cause harm, while allowing people to share contested and controversial ideas in good faith.
“Our recommendations create a more nuanced set of criminal offences, which better protect victims of genuinely harmful communications as well as better protecting freedom of expression.
“I am delighted that the Government has accepted these recommended offences.”
A call for views into the Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill has been launched by several Scottish Parliament Committees.
The wide-ranging Scottish Government Bill, seeks to make permanent some of the temporary, emergency legislation introduced during the pandemic, and to extend others, which are due to expire by March 2022.
The Bill covers a number of policy areas including alcohol licensing, bankruptcy, justice, education (closing establishments and continuity of education), freedom of information, and vaccinations and immunisations.
Some key proposals outlined in the Bill include:
• maintaining provisions in the UK Coronavirus Act that enable Scottish Ministers to enact measures via public health regulations for any future public health threats, in line with powers that are already in place in England and Wales;
• maintaining provisions that grant Scottish Ministers power to restrict access to educational establishments on public health grounds;
• maintaining pre-eviction protocols relating to rent arrears in the private rented sector, placing more responsibility on landlords to ensure correct procedures are followed and that tenants are fully informed of their rights;
• allowing extended time-limits for criminal proceedings to temporarily remain in place to help the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service manage the backlog of cases arising from COVID-19; and allowing cases to continue to be heard through digital and physical means.
Four Parliament Committees will analyse the Bill. The COVID-19 Recovery Committee is the lead Committee scrutinising the Bill; while the Criminal Justice Committee will consider the justice policy measures; the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee will consider the tenancy and eviction policy measures; and the Education, Children and Young People Committee will look into education related provisions.
Speaking as the inquiry was launched, Siobhian Brown MSP (above), Convener of the COVID-19 Recovery Committee, said:“This pandemic has impacted almost every aspect of our lives, from restrictions on how we live, to mass vaccinations and significant changes in how public services are delivered.
“The threat of COVID-19 meant a great number of temporary, emergency legislatives measure were introduced at speed, but with these measures due to expire in March 2022, the time is now to decide which of these in the Bill should be put in place permanently.
“We recognise the size and scope of this Bill mean a diverse range of people and organisations may wish to comment on it. That’s why respondents will have the option to complete a short survey, where they can give their views on a specific aspect of the Bill, or a longer form, more detailed option is also available.”
“The Scottish Government’s stated aim for the Bill is to support Scotland’s recovery from the pandemic but we want to make sure it does not go too far, and that any changes which are made permanent act to benefit the people of Scotland and ease pressure on the public services we all rely on.”
The Convener continued:“Given the wide-ranging nature of this proposed legislation, the Parliament was keen to ensure it was given an appropriate level of scrutiny.
“That’s why we are bringing several Committees together, who will work collaboratively and use their specific areas of expertise in order to assess the impact of this Bill as effectively as possible.”
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up Michael Gove has written to the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland following the publication of the Levelling Up White Paper.
In the letters the Secretary of State for Levelling Up:
calls for the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to work with the UK government to overcome shared challenges
The Scottish Government is yet to respond.
LEVELLING UP: REACTION
Responding to the publication of the levelling up white paper, TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady said: “If we don’t level up at work, we won’t level up the country.
“But the government has failed to provide a serious plan to deliver decent well-paid jobs, in the parts of the UK that need them most.
“Insecure work and low pay are rife in modern Britain. And for far too many families hard work no longer pays.
“With the country facing a cost-of-living crisis, working families need action now to improve jobs and boost pay packets – especially after more than a decade of lost pay.
“Ministers should have announced a plan to get real wages rising – starting with a proper pay rise for all our key workers and the introduction of fair pay deals for low-paid industries.
“And they should have delivered the long-awaited employment bill to ban zero hours contracts – as well as new, meaningful investment in skills and good green jobs of the future.
“Without a plan to deliver decent work up and down the country, millions will struggle on, on low wages, and with poor health and prospects.”
Recent polling published by the TUC found the British public’s number one priority for levelling up is more and better jobs.
The TUC polling, conducted by YouGov, reveals that the most popular priority for levelling up, chosen by one in two Britons, is increasing the number and quality of jobs available.
Increasing the number and quality of jobs is popular across the political spectrum. Half (49 per cent) of those who voted Conservative in the 2019 general election picked it as their top priority, along with more than half of Labour voters (56 per cent) and Lib Dem voters (54 per cent).
Matthew Fell, CBI Chief Policy Director, said:“The Levelling Up White Paper is a serious assessment of the regional inequalities which have hamstrung the UK’s economic potential for generations.
“It offers a blueprint for how government can be rewired and an encouraging basis for how the private sector can bring the investment and innovation to start overcoming those deep-rooted challenges, and power long term prosperity for every community, wherever they live.
“The picture it paints of a reinvigorated 2030 UK can inspire public and private sector partners to unite on shared missions for improving health, wealth, growth and opportunity across the country.
“Crucially, it accepts the CBI view that business-driven economic clusters – enabling every region and nation to build its own unique competitiveness proposition – can be a catalyst which brings levelling up ambitions to life.”
University of Birmingham’s John Bryson on the Levelling Up announcement: “The UK has always suffered from uneven development and this is reflected in all measures of well-being – from salaries to place-based differences in mortality rates and morbidity.
“There is no country on this planet that does not suffer from some form of uneven place-based outcomes. The implication is that any attempt to remove place-based uneven outcomes will and must fail. The policy outcome might mean some alteration in the extent or degree of unevenness, but unevenness will continue to persist.
“No political party will be able to develop effective solutions to create a level playing field. Nevertheless, this does not mean that policies should not be designed to support and facilitate some form of more even development. However, the outcome will still be the persistence of uneven outcomes.
“The key to any levelling-up agenda is to accept that every place is different and that there are multiple alternative place-based pathways; London can never become Newcastle and Newcastle can never become London.
“The levelling-up agenda needs to be positioned around a debate that is not based on closing the gap between the richer and poorer part of the country, but instead must be framed around facilitating place-based responsible inclusive prosperity.
“This must be the focus as any policy targeted at economic growth can never be sustainable. The levelling-up policy initiative ultimately must be designed to encourage inclusive carbon-light lifestyles. One implication is that levelling-up might also require some degree of levelling-down.”
Campbell Robb, Nacro chief executive said: “We know tackling poverty and inequality is key to levelling up. For over 50 years Nacro has been embedded in communities helping some of our nation’s most vulnerable people through our housing, education, and justice services.
“We see a huge amount of unmet need in our country. We need radical change to the systems that support people and significant funding to address this need, not just ambitions and slogans.
“Until there is right support, opportunity, and funding in place for everyone to succeed regardless of the circumstances, we cannot truly claim to be levelling up”
Torsten Bell, Chief Executive of the Resolution Foundation, said: “We now know what levelling up is – George Osborne plus New Labour.
“The White Paper is all about combining the devolution of the former Conservative Chancellor, with the bigger and more activist state focused on deprived areas of the last Labour government.
“There is a strong case for both. Whether they can be delivered very much remains to be seen.”
Responding to the publication of Government’s Levelling Up the United Kingdom White Paper, Social Mobility Commission Chair Katharine Birbalsingh and Deputy Chair Alun Francis said:“We welcome the publication of the Levelling Up White Paper, and the fact that it gives a clear framework to address disparities between regions and communities.
“These communities are full of talented individuals and we must do everything we can to empower them to thrive. Each of the missions the paper sets out are hugely important, and it is crucial that checks and balances are in place to ensure that local government bodies, both existing and new, are held to account for their delivery.
“The Commission has been clear that social mobility must be a core objective of levelling up. We are pleased to see that equipping young people with the tools they need to succeed in life is at the heart of this strategy, and that it includes measures that can contribute to social mobility through every stage of a young person’s journey, from early childhood through education, training and employment.
“The missions are aspirational and pose the right questions, but are also hugely ambitious. The test will be in the detail and the implementation – not just boosting skills, but which skills will be taught and how; not just aiming for essential literacy and numeracy, but defining the most effective ways to achieve them.
“Ultimately, levelling up will be judged on how well it creates opportunities in places they did not exist before. A key test will be how we help those with the fewest opportunities find decent work – this is not just about stories of rags-to-riches. More still needs to be done to stimulate the creation of much-needed quality private sector jobs in the most deprived areas.
“As the Social Mobility Commission we stand ready to work with the government to flesh out that detail, advise on the best ways to make these missions a reality, and ensure that levelling up empowers people up and down the country to stand on their own two feet.”
Finally, after months of delays, the levelling up White Paper is out! So was it worth the wait?
Levelling Up White Paper leaves low paid workers behind
As the TUC has argued, you can’t level up without levelling up at work. In-work poverty, driven by the prevalence of low-paid and insecure work, is sky-high in every region and nation of the UK. This reflects the fact that low-paid sectors, such as retail and social care, are major employers in every area of the country (writes TUC’s JANET WILLIAMSON).
And more and better jobs is the public’s top priority for levelling up, with recent polling for the TUC conducted by YouGov finding that increasing the number and quality of jobs is seen as a priority for levelling up by one in two people from right across the political spectrum. Does the White Paper deliver this?
The White Paper sets out 12 missions – or aims – spanning living standards, R&D, transport, digital connectivity, education, skills, health, well-being, pride in place, housing, crime and local leadership. There is not a specific mission on work, but the living standards mission is “By 2030, pay, employment and productivity will have risen in every area of the UK, with each containing a globally competitive city, and the gap between the top performing and other areas closing.”
So, what is the plan for achieving this?
In a nutshell, it is to grow the private sector and improve its ability to create new and better paid jobs. There are five strategies to support this aim, all of which fall under a typical ‘industrial strategy’ umbrella: improving SME’s access to finance; boosting institutional investment, including from the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) and the recently established National Infrastructure Bank; attracting foreign direct investment and using trade policy, in particular freeports, to boost investment; improving the diffusion of technologies and innovation; and supporting and growing the manufacturing sector.
There are some important questions to be answered in relation to some of these strategies; for example, it is vital that the LGPS is invested in the long-term interests of its members, without its funds being diverted towards other purposes. And each deserves proper examination in its own right.
But what they have in common is that all of them aim to create a better distribution of well-paid and highly skilled jobs around the country. This is needed – but what about the jobs that people are already in? There is no plan to address inequality within the labour market and nothing to level up work that is low paid and insecure.
The experience of London shows that the prevalence of high-paid jobs does not automatically lead to rising incomes for the wider community. Indeed, London has the highest rate of in-work poverty in the country, with people in low-paying service sector jobs priced out of housing and local amenities.
To level up, we must tackle low pay and insecurity head on, and focus on those sectors that need it most.
We need to strengthen the floor of employment protection for all workers by raising the minimum wage and tackling zero hours contracts. And the government should lead by example, giving public sector workers a proper pay rise and reversing the devastating cuts that public services have suffered in the last decade. Decent jobs should be a requirement of all government procurement, so that the power of government is used to drive up employment standards.
But we also need to change the way our economy works to hardwire decent work into business models and economic growth. Relying on the private sector to level up without changing how it works will fail. We need corporate governance reform to rebalance corporate priorities and give working people a fair share of the wealth they create. And we need a new skills settlement to give working people access to lifelong learning accounts and a right to retrain.
Levelling up at work means addressing the imbalance of power in the workplace
Working people need stronger rights to organise collectively in unions and bargain with their employer. Collective bargaining promotes higher pay, better training, safer and more flexible workplaces and greater equality – exactly what we need to level up at work. Unions should have access to workplaces to tell people about the benefits of unions, following the New Zealand model.
And to level up we must tackle entrenched low pay and poor conditions within sectors head on, bringing unions and employers together to set sectoral Fair Pay Agreements for low paid sectors, starting with social care.
Creating new and better jobs is important; but this Levelling Up White Paper has left those in low paid, insecure work behind.
The future of Scotland’s town centres, and how the changing nature of retail and ecommerce has impacted them, is to be investigated by the Economy and Fair Work Committee.
The Parliamentary Committee is looking to identify the current challenges for high streets, and the barriers to their success, and to explore the extent to which an increasing use of ecommerce is impacting on Scotland’s town centres. It aims to propose action needed to support modern and thriving town centres.
The Committee’s inquiry has three areas of focus:
Keeping town centres alive – including how they have changed over recent years, their strengths and weaknesses, and who or what can drive positive change in Scottish town centres.
The new realities of Scottish retail – including how this sector has evolved over the last decade, the impact of these changes on town centres and what role fiscal policy levers should have in supporting this sector.
Ecommerce in Scotland – including the implications for businesses of increased online shopping and digital activity, and the role of Scottish SMEs in the ecommerce sector.
Speaking as the inquiry was launched, Claire Baker MSP, Convener of the Economy and Fair Work Committee said:“Scotland’s town centres have traditionally been the heartbeat of our communities bringing people together to live, work, shop and socialise.
“However, traditional town centres are under pressure and under threat, with too many shops closing and too many high streets dominated by ‘to let’ signs.
“Changing retail trends, including the growth in ecommerce and the expansion of retail park alternatives, combined with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, continues to create a difficult trading environment.”
The Convener continued:“We want to find out how to diversify and grow high street activity, and are particularly keen to hear from businesses and members of the public on what makes a successful and thriving town centre.
“Our inquiry is seeking to bring forward recommendations to demonstrate how Scotland’s town centres can thrive in this post pandemic world, and be vibrant, resilient and accessible places which meet the economic, social and environmental needs of our communities.”
PM Boris Johnson made a statement on the long-awaited Sue Gray report in the House of Commons yesterday:
Mr Speaker, with permission I would like to make a statement.
First I want to express my deepest gratitude to Sue Gray, and all the people who have contributed to this report, which I have placed in the Library of this House and the government has published in full today, for everyone to read.
I will address its findings in this statement – but firstly I want to say: sorry. Sorry for the things we simply did not get right and sorry for the way that this matter has been handled. It is no use saying that this or that was within the rules. It is no use saying that people were working hard.
This pandemic was hard for everyone. We asked people across this country to make the most extraordinary sacrifices, not to meet loved ones, not to visit relatives before they died, and I understand the anger that people feel.
But, Mr Speaker, it is not enough to say sorry. This is a moment when we must look at ourselves in the mirror and we must learn. And while the Metropolitan Police must yet complete their investigation – and that means there are no details of specific events in Sue Gray’s report – I, of course, accept Sue Gray’s general findings in full, and above all her recommendation that we must learn from these events and act now.
With respect to the events under police investigation, she says – and I quote – “No conclusions should be drawn, or inferences made from this other than it is now for the police to consider the relevant material in relation to those incidents.”
But more broadly she finds that – “There is significant learning to be drawn from these events which must be addressed immediately across Government. This does not need to wait for the police investigations to be concluded.”
That is why we are making changes now to the way Downing Street and the Cabinet Office run so that we can get on with the job, the job that I was elected to do and that this government was elected to do.
First, it is time to sort out what Sue Gray rightly calls the “fragmented and complicated” leadership structures of Downing Street which she says have not evolved sufficiently to meet the demands of the expansion of Number ten.
And we will do that, including by creating an Office of the Prime Minister, with a Permanent Secretary to lead Number ten. Second, Mr Speaker, it is clear from Sue Gray’s report that it is time not just to review the Civil Service and Special Adviser codes of conduct wherever necessary to ensure they take account of Sue Gray’s recommendations but also to make sure those codes are properly enforced.
And third, I will be saying more in the coming days about the steps we will take to improve the Number ten operation and the work of the Cabinet Office to strengthen Cabinet Government and to improve the vital connection between Number ten and parliament.
Mr Speaker, I get it and I will fix it. And I want to say to the people of this country. I know what the issue is, it is whether this government can be trusted to deliver and I say yes we can be trusted yes we can be trusted to deliver.
We said we would deliver Brexit and we did. We are setting up freeports across the whole United Kingdom, I’ve been to one of them today, which is creating tens of thousands of new jobs Mr Speaker.
We said we would get this country through Covid and we did, we delivered the fastest vaccine roll out in Europe and the fastest booster programme of any major economy so that we have been able to restore people’s freedoms faster than any comparable economy and at the same time as we have been cutting crime by fourteen per cent and building 40 new hospitals and rolling out gigabit broadband, and delivering on all the other promises of that 2019 agenda so that we have the fastest economic growth in the G7.
We have shown that we can do things people thought were impossible and that we can deliver for the British people.
The reason we are coming out of Covid so fast is at least partly because we doubled the speed of the booster rollout and I can tell the House and this country, that we are going to bring the same energy and commitment to getting on with the job to delivering for the British people and to our mission to unite and level up across the country.
And I commend this Statement to the House.
Opposition leader Keir Starmer’s response:
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I would like to thank Sue Gray for the diligence and professionalism with which she has carried out her work.
It is no fault of hers that she only been able to provide an update. And not yet the full report.
The Prime Minister repeatedly told the House that all guidance were followed at all time.
We now know that 12 cases, 12 cases, have reached the threshold for criminal investigation – which I remind the House means that there is evidence of serious and flagrant breaches of lockdown, including:
The party on 20 May 2020, which we know the PM attended, and the party on the 13 November 2020 in the PM’s flat. There can be no doubt the Prime Minister is now under criminal investigation.
The PM must keep his promise to publish Sue Gray’s report in full when it is available, but it is already clear that the report discloses the most damning conclusion possible.
Over the last two years the British public have been asked to make the most heart wrenching sacrifices.
A terrible collective trauma. Endured by all, enjoyed by none.
Funerals have been missed. Dying relatives unvisited.
Every family has been marked by what we’ve been through.
And revelations about the Prime Minister’s behaviour have forced us all to relive and rethink those darkest moments.
Many have been overcome by rage, grief, and even guilt.
Guilt – that because they stuck to the law they did not see their parents one last time.
Guilt – that because they didn’t bend the rules their children went months without seeing friends.
Guilt – that because they did as they were asked they didn’t go and visit lonely relatives.
But people shouldn’t feel guilty. They should feel pride in themselves and in their country. Because by abiding by those rules. They have saved the lives of people they will probably never meet.
They have shown the deep public spirit. And the love and respect for others that has always characterised this nation at its best.
Our national story about Covid is one of a people that stood up when it was tested. But that will forever be tainted by the behaviour of this Conservative Prime Minister.
By routinely breaking the rules he set, the Prime Minister took us all for fools. He held people’s sacrifice in contempt. He showed himself unfit for office.
His desperate denials since he was exposed have only made matters worse.
First, the Prime Minister said there were no parties. Then he said he was sickened and furious about the parties.
Then it turned out he was there. Rather than come clean, every step of the way he has offended the public’s intelligence.
Finally, he’s fallen back on his usual excuse – it’s everybody’s fault but his. They go, he stays.
Even now, he is hiding behind a police investigation into criminality in his home, and in his office. He gleefully treats what should be a mark of shame as a welcome shield.
But, Prime Minister, the British public aren’t fools.
They never believed a word of it. They think the Prime Minister should do the decent thing and resign.
Of course, he won’t. Because he is a man without shame.
And just as he has done throughout his life. He is damaging everyone and everything around him along the way.
His colleagues have spent weeks defending the indefensible.
Touring the TV studios parroting his absurd denials. Degrading themselves and their offices.
Fraying the bond of trust between the Government and the public, eroding our democracy and the rule of law.
Margaret Thatcher once said: ‘The first duty of Government is to uphold the law. If it tries to bob and weave and duck around that duty when it is inconvenient, then so will the governed.’
To govern this country is an honour. Not a birth-right. It’s an act of service to the British people. Not the keys to a court to parade to your friends.
It requires honesty. Integrity. And moral authority.
I cannot tell you how many times people have said to me that this Prime Minister’s lack of integrity is somehow “priced in”.
That his behaviour and character don’t matter. I have never accepted that. And I never will accept that.
Whatever your politics. Whatever party you vote for. Honesty and decency matter. Our great democracy depends on it. And cherishing and nurturing British democracy is what it means to be patriotic.
There are members opposite who know that. And they know the Prime Minister is incapable of it.
The question they must ask themselves is what are they going to do about it?
They can go on degrading themselves. Eroding trust in politics. And insulting the sacrifice of the British public.
They can heap their reputations, the reputation of their party, and the reputation of this country, on the bonfire that is his leadership.
Or they can spare the country from a Prime Minister totally unworthy of his responsibilities.
It is their duty to do so.
They know better than anyone how unsuitable he is for high office.
Many of them knew in their hearts that we would inevitably come to this moment.
And they know that as night follows day, continuing his leadership will mean further misconduct, cover-up, and deceit.
It is only they who can end this farce. The eyes of the country are upon them. They will be judged on the decisions they take now.
Searches for ‘Boris Resign’ soar 458% after Sue Gray report is released
Analysis of Google search data reveals that online searches for ‘Boris Resign’ exploded 458% in the UK on the 31st of January, hours after Sue Gray’s report was published on the Downing Street parties, held whilst lockdown restrictions were in place.
A new finding by online tax calculator Income Tax UK reveals that online searches for ‘Boris Resign’ skyrocketed to almost five times the average volume in a matter of hours, an unprecedented spike in people Googling for the Prime Minister to leave his position in No.10.
The report, published on Monday 31st January, detailed the breaches of lockdown rules by members of the government including the Prime Minister, resulting in calls for Boris Johnson to step down.
A spokesperson for Income Tax UK commented on the findings: “The Sue Gray report finds that events held by senior members of the government ‘shouldn’t have been allowed to take place’, leading Brits to question the leadership of those running the country.
“These findings reveal the bitter taste that the public hold towards the actions of the Prime Minister and his cabinet, with the report prompting the highest rise in searches calling for the Prime Minister to resign in the last year. It will be fascinating to see if these searches will translate to votes in future elections.”
