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:
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.
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?
What responsibility does the Civil Service have for ensuring constitutional propriety in the conduct of government?
Civil Service Leadership
What constitutes good leadership in the Civil Service?
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?
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?
Whether Ministers’ current role in the hiring, firing, and promotion of Civil Service leaders is appropriate and conducive to effective government.
Policymaking
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?
Is the current system of Ministerial Directions effective and sufficient?
In all of these areas, are there lessons from other countries that the UK can useful adopt?
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.
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.”
Work is a central aspect of people’s live as it often provides their principal source of income and can provide a sense of purpose. Employment can also contribute to an individual’s feelings of self-respect and dignity. However, the world of work has also been recognised as involving an imbalance of power between employer and workers This imbalance can lead to exploitation, discrimination and other harmful practices.
States have an obligation to protect workers from breaches of their human rights. This can include ensuring employers don’t interfere with their worker’s freedom of association, for example by preventing them from joining a trade union. States also have an obligation to ensure workers aren’t subject to surveillance and workplace monitoring that amounts to a breach of their right to private and family life.
There are a large number of laws and regulations that protect rights at work. This inquiry will specifically look at how the universal protections guaranteed in the European Convention on Human Rights apply to the world of work and the rights of workers.
The Committee is undertaking a separate piece of work providing legislative scrutiny of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill.
Committee Chair Joanna Cherry KC MP said: “Employment often has an inherent power imbalance that can leave workers vulnerable to exploitation or discrimination. There is an obligation on the Government to ensure that there is a comprehensive framework in place that ensure the rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights are protected at work.
“The Joint Committee on Human Rights has launched this inquiry to understand how rights are currently protected at work and pinpoint where greater safeguards may be needed.”
Terms of reference
The Committee invites written evidence on the following questions. The deadline for submitting written evidence is 24 March 2023. Please note, your submission does not need to address every question in the terms of reference.
Does the current law effectively protect the rights of trade unions and workers to take industrial action under Article 11 ECHR? Does the law effectively protect the right to strike for the purposes of other international human rights instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Labour Organisation Conventions?
The right to privacy and surveillance at work
What forms of surveillance, if any, that are used to monitor workers raise concerns under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to private and family life)? Are there any associated concerns under Article 14 (freedom from discrimination)?
What is the legal framework in the UK that governs surveillance in the workplace?
Where surveillance is used to monitor workers, does the current legal framework adequately protect their Article 8 right to private and family life? If not, what changes need to be made to ensure it does?
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion and freedom of expression in the workplace
Does domestic law strike the right balance between workers’ Article 9 right to freedom of religion or belief and the rights of employers? If not, what changes are needed?
Does domestic law strike the right balance between workers’ Article 10 right to freedom of expression and the rights of employers? If not, what changes are needed?
Does domestic law provide adequate protection for the rights of workers to be free from harassment at work by third parties on account of their religion or beliefs?
Labour market exploitation
What is the current legal and policy framework for tackling labour exploitation in the UK? Is that framework effective to protect workers’ rights under Article 4 ECHR, which prohibits slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour?
Are there any improvements that could be made to better tackle exploitative labour practices which are contrary to Article 4 in the UK?
Do workers from particular groups or in precarious employment disproportionately experience labour market exploitation? Does this raise concerns under Article 14 ECHR (freedom from discrimination)?
Retained EU Law and workers’ rights
To what extent is the UK’s compliance with its human rights obligations, in relation to the protection of workers, currently dependent on retained EU law?
International human rights treaties
Does the UK effectively comply with its international obligations to protect workers’ rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights, and International Labour Organisation Conventions? If not, what improvements should be made?
Closing date for written submissions is 24 March 2023.
The Government response to the Women and Equalities Committee report on menopause and the workplace is a “missed opportunity to protect vast numbers of talented and experienced women from leaving the workforce.”
Published today, the UK Government’s response rejects five of the Committee’s recommendations outright, including the recommendation to consult on making menopause a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and pilot a specific menopause leave policy.
In a letter to Health Minister Maria Caulfield, the Chair of the Committee Caroline Nokes expressed concern that the Government has “ignored the significant evidence base” for equality law reform and called on the Government to review its position.
The Committee also highlights the low cost but high impact opportunities for model workplace menopause policies and menopause leave, which the Government has dismissed.
In the letter, the Committee highlighted it was “extremely disappointing that the Menopause Taskforce has not met since prior to the summer recess, and that the industry roundtable on HRT supplies has been delayed a number of times.”
The Committee’s report, published in July 2022, argued that the overlooked impact of menopause is causing the UK economy to ‘haemorrhage talent’.
It also argued that the current law does not sufficiently protect women experiencing menopause and does not offer proper redress to those who suffer menopause related discrimination, with evidence that many women have to demonstrate their menopausal symptoms amount to a disability to get redress.
Though the Government said it has accepted, partly accepted or accepted in principle six of the recommendations, it comes under criticism from the Committee for not actually committing to any new work in response to the report.
Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, Rt Hon Caroline Nokes MP, said: “This belated response to our report is a missed opportunity to protect vast numbers of talented and experienced women from leaving the workforce, and leaves me unconvinced that menopause is a Government priority.
“For too long women have faced stigma, shame and dismissive attitudes when it comes to menopause. The evidence to our inquiry was crystal clear that urgent action was needed across healthcare and work settings to properly address women’s needs, yet Government progress has been glacial and its response complacent.
“Its refusal to even consult on reforming equalities law doesn’t make sense and we urge it to look again.”
“Problems in the energy supply market were apparent in 2018 – years before the unprecedented spike in prices that sparked the current crisis, and Ofgem was too slow to act.“
In a report published today Westminster’s Public Accounts Committee calls on the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Ofgem to say how they will make “the energy retail market work in the best interests of customers during the transition to net zero” after finding that failures at the energy regulator have come “at a considerable cost to billpayers”.
Since July 2021, 29 energy suppliers have failed, affecting around 4 million households. Customers have been left to pay the £2.7 billion cost of supplier failures. This means an extra £94 per household, a cost that will very likely increase.
The Committee found that this was due to “Ofgem’s failure to effectively regulate the energy supplier market”.
Ofgem “did not strike the right balance between promoting competition in the energy suppliers market and ensuring energy suppliers were financially resilient”.
Despite problems with the financial resilience of energy retailers emerging in 2018 Ofgem did not tighten requirements for new suppliers until 2019, and for existing suppliers until 2021. By this point wholesale gas and electricity prices increased to unprecedented levels.
The price cap “is providing only very limited protection to households from increases in the wholesale price of energy”, and Ofgem expects prices could “get significantly worse through 2023”. The Committee says BEIS and Ofgem should “review the costs and benefits of the price cap from a consumer’s perspective” to inform decisions about the future of energy price controls.
The position of vulnerable customers, who already pay higher energy prices, is “unacceptable”.
Dame Meg Hillier MP, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said: “ “It is true that global factors caused the unprecedented gas and electricity prices that have caused so many energy supplier failures over the last year, at such terrible cost to households. But the fact remains that we have regulators to set the framework to shore us up for the bad times.
“Problems in the energy supply market were apparent in 2018 – years before the unprecedented spike in prices that sparked the current crisis, and Ofgem was too slow to act.
“Households will pay dear, with the cost of bailouts added to record and rising bills. The PAC wants to see a plan, within six months, for how Government and Ofgem will put customers’ interests at the heart of a reformed energy market, driving the transition to Net Zero.”
The Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry examines the Government’s policies and procedures relating to asylum seekers and the impact these have on their human rights.
This will include the UK’s approach the availability of “safe and legal” routes for asylum seekers, the treatment of those arriving outside of these routes, and attempts to relocate asylum seekers outside the UK. It will also examine the treatment of asylum seekers once in the UK, including treatment in short-term holding facilities, conditions in detention, accommodation, restrictions on movement, and the right to work.
The inquiry also assesses whether the UK’s current legal framework is adequate to meet its human rights obligations to those who are victims of modern slavery or human trafficking.
Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Joanna Cherry KC MP said: “The UK has a long-standing obligation to provide a place of sanctuary to those fleeing war and persecution.
“We have launched this inquiry to examine whether the current approach to asylum meets the UK’s human rights obligations. Are the current routes for asylum seekers to come to the UK adequate, and is it right for those excluded from “safe and legal routes” to be punished for coming to the UK even if they have fled conflict or persecution?
“Can the UK outsource its asylum obligations to third countries and still ensure the human rights of those seeking asylum are protected?
“We want to look beyond fearful headlines about the cost of hotel accommodation or the numbers of asylum seekers arriving, to consider the experience of those going through the asylum system and the way they are treated.
“Fundamentally, is the way asylum seekers are treated appropriate and lawful, or is the UK Government falling short of the human rights standards designed to protect them, and all of us?
“Given the terrible conditions we have witnessed at Manston and the new Home Secretary’s seeming delight at the prospect of further flights to Rwanda, this inquiry could not be more timely.”
Background
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states in Article 14 that “everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution”.
The Refugee Convention built on this with the establishment of a regime of international refugee protection, which was ratified by the UK in 1954. The Convention defines a refugee as a person outside their country of nationality or habitual residence, due to well-founded fear of persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, and unable or unwilling to return to that country for fear of persecution.
In addition, the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. Amongst other things, it prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3 ECHR), as well as slavery and forced labour (Article 4 ECHR). It also provides for a right to liberty and security (Article 5 ECHR) and a right to private and family life (Art 8 ECHR).
Asylum seekers often come from countries affected by violence, conflict, and human rights abuses, and a portion of those who leave come to the UK.
In 2022, the number of new asylum applications rose to 63,089, from 48,540 in the previous year. As of June 2022, there were 122,213 asylum claims pending an initial decision, out of which 89,231 cases had been pending an initial decision for more than 6 months. Most asylum claims in the UK are successful – in 2021, the estimated overall grant rate where a final outcome has been reached was 77%.
The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 made significant amendments to the legislative framework for the asylum system. Changes include the introduction of new powers to remove asylum seekers, the creation of a two-tier system for asylum claims, and the inadmissibility of claims by persons with a connection to safe third States.
The Government has also sought through the UK Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership to send certain asylum seekers to Rwanda to make claims for asylum in Rwanda.
Terms of reference
The Joint Committee on Human Rights is looking into the rights of asylum seekers in the UK, with a view to identifying human rights concerns. To inform its work, the Committee invites submissions of no more than 1,500 words from interested groups and individuals. The deadline for submissions is 15 December 2022. We would welcome evidence covering the following questions:
1. Is it compatible with the UK’s human rights obligations to deny asylum to those who do not use what the Government calls “safe and legal routes”? 2. What “safe and legal routes” currently exist for asylum seekers in the UK? Should new routes be introduced?
Relocation of asylum seekers
3. Is the policy of relocating asylum seekers to third countries consistent with the UK’s human rights obligations?
Detention
4. Are the rules on detention and processing, and the treatment of detained asylum seekers, consistent with the UK’s human rights obligations?
Electronic tagging
5. Is the electronic tagging of asylum seekers a necessary and proportionate interference with their human rights?
Legal aid, accommodation, and subsistence
6. Is the support available to asylum seekers under the legal aid, accommodation, and subsistence rules compliant with the UK’s human rights obligations?
Right to work
7. How do the rules on right to work impact on the human rights of asylum seekers?
Modern slavery
8. Is the UK’s legal framework for tackling modern slavery and human trafficking effective, and is it compatible with our human rights obligations? Are there changes that should be made?
9. Is there any evidence that modern slavery laws are being abused by people “gaming” the system?
Nationality and Borders Act 2022
10. To what extent has the enactment of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 had an impact on the human rights of asylum seekers?
We understand that the issues raised in this work may be sensitive or upsetting and the following organisations may be able to offer support or further information:
Asylum Aid – free legal aid advice and representation to asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. Call 020 7354 9631 Email advice@asylumaid.org.uk
British Red Cross – support to refugees and asylum seekers in the UK including emergency assistance to those who are destitute, and family reunion and resettlement services. Call 0808 196 3651
London Destitution Service – Refugee Council – support for asylum seekers or rejected asylum seekers who are destitute, and support to vulnerable and homeless asylum seekers who have lost contact with their asylum application and have no legal representation. Call 02073466700 Email destitution@refugeecouncil.org.uk
Migrant Help – free 24/7 helpline providing independent advice and support to asylum seekers in the UK in your own language. Call 0808 8010 503 Webchat; Online Enquiry Form
Samaritans – for everyone, 24 hours a day, every day. Call 116 123
A new report by Westminster’sinfluential Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee has urged the Government to publish a draft Digital Markets Bill that would help deter predatory practices by big tech firms ‘without delay’.
Proposals for a Digital Markets Competition and Consumer Bill were trailed by the Government in the Queen’s Speech. It announced measures that would empower the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) Digital Markets Unit (DMU) to rein in abusive tech giants by dropping the turnover threshold for immunity from financial penalties from £50 million to £20 million, and hiking potential maximum fines to 10% of global annual income.
The Committee concluded that fines have been viewed as ‘a small business cost’ by large companies, adding that there is ‘strong evidence of abuses of market dominance’ within digital markets. It warned that ‘consumers and others are at risk’ until a Bill is published and passed.
BEIS Committee Chair Darren Jones said: “The Competition, Consumer and Digital Markets Bill has wide support and should be prioritised, especially given the difficulty the Government currently has at passing other laws which are more controversial.
“There are many areas in the economy where stronger competition is required in the interests of consumers, small business and economic growth and this bill is an essential stepping stone to driving this issue forward.”
The report also called on the Government to ‘end [the] uncertainty’ caused by its failure to publish final guidance on the post-Brexit subsidy control regime, which the Committee found had left subsidy awarding bodies ‘in limbo’. The guidance needs to be published as soon as possible, MPs said.
Passed in April, and due to come into full force in early January, the Subsidy Control Act omits key details of the regime for public authorities to follow when awarding money. These gaps are due to be filled in by final guidance, which authorities will need if they are to have confidence when preparing bids for funding from the Shared Prosperity Fund. The Fund is a replacement for money formerly awarded through EU structural funding.
Mr Jones added: “The Government promised to replace previous EU funding into projects across the country as part of its Brexit and levelling up offers to the public. This has not yet been delivered and without full guidance and proper financing of the new subsidy schemes, funds that help deliver projects will be further delayed.
“The public will no doubt be disappointed to have not yet seen the so called ‘Brexit opportunities’ that were promised to level up their local community.”
Following the death of Her Majesty The Queen, all official flags, including the Union Flag, should be half-masted from as soon as possible until 08.00 the day following The Queen’s State Funeral. Flags may be flown overnight during this period but should remain at half-mast.
Official flags in this instance are defined as national flags of the home nations, Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories, Ensigns and Ships’ colours.
Any non-official flags flying or due to be flown, such as the Rainbow Flag or the Armed Forces Day Flag, should be taken down and replaced with a Union Flag at half-mast. Other official flags scheduled to be flown can be flown as normal, but at half-mast.
Half-mast means the flag is flown a third of the way down the flagpole from the top, with at least the height of the flag between the top of the flag and the top of the flagpole.
On poles that are more than 45° from the vertical, flags cannot be flown at half-mast and should not be flown at all.
The Union Flag must be flown the correct way up – in the half of the flag nearest the flagpole, the wider diagonal white stripe must be above the red diagonal stripe. Please see the College of Arms website
Royal Standard
The Royal Standard is never flown at half-mast even after the death of a monarch, as there is always a Sovereign on the throne and it would therefore be inappropriate for it to fly at half-mast.
The Union Flag will be flown at half mast on all Royal Residences.
UK PARLIAMENT
Following the announcement of the death of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, the House of Commons, the House of Lords and everyone at UK Parliament extend their sympathies to the Royal Family.
Statement from the Speaker of the House of Commons, The Rt Hon. Sir Lindsay Hoyle:
‘For all of us, the Queen has been a constant presence in our lives – as familiar as a member of the family, yet one who has exercised a calm and steadying influence over our country. Most of us have never known a time when she was not there. Her death is not only a tragedy for the Royal family, but a terrible loss for us all.
During her 70 years on the throne – and even before that, as a teenager, reassuring and engaging with children and families disrupted by the Second World War – she has given our lives a sense of equilibrium. While her reign has been marked by dramatic changes in the world, Her Majesty has maintained her unwavering devotion to the UK, the British Overseas Territories and the Commonwealth of Nations – and her gentle authority and sound reason have been felt throughout.
She has travelled the world extensively, modernised the Royal family, and is credited with inventing the royal ‘walkabout’, which enabled her to meet people from all walks of life during her visits. As Head of State, she has provided advice and the benefit of long experience to 15 prime ministers during her reign – and met more than a quarter of all the American presidents in the history of the US.
The Queen has been involved in everything that is important to us and which makes us who we are – from state occasions to Royal weddings, and especially at Christmas, with her wise words and reflective annual message.
She has been a mother, grandmother and great-grandmother – but she has been our Queen, and we will miss her beyond measure.’
Statement from the Lord Speaker, The Rt Hon. Lord McFall of Alcluith:
‘Following the death of the Queen, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, the nation and the whole Commonwealth is united in deep mourning.
For 70 years she has been a loyal and steadfast presence in the national life of the United Kingdom.
Her integrity, unique record of public service, deep sense of faith and commitment to her role have ensured that she will be regarded as a supreme example of a constitutional Monarch.
Her vital relationship with our Chamber, where the three elements of Parliament come together during the State Opening, ensures that she will be forever remembered and cherished by the House of Lords.
Today my thoughts, and indeed those of the whole House, will go out to His Majesty the King and to the members of the Royal family, for whom this feeling of loss will be profound.
Today the nation reflects on the service Queen Elizabeth II gave to the Crown and to her people, and gives thanks for her life.
Members may wish to be aware that information about arrangements for the House will be issued by Black Rod and the House authorities shortly.
In fondest remembrance of a Queen dedicated to Her nation and Her people.’
MPs will have the opportunity to pay tribute at a special parliamentary session at Westminster this afternoon:
Business
Tributes to Her late Majesty The Queen.
12:00pm – 10:00pm
ROYAL MOURNING
Following the death of Her Majesty The Queen, it is His Majesty The King’s wish that a period of Royal Mourning be observed from now until seven days after The Queen’s Funeral. The date of the Funeral will be confirmed in due course.
Royal Mourning will be observed by Members of the Royal Family, Royal Household staff and Representatives of the Royal Household on official duties, together with troops committed to Ceremonial Duties.
Flags at Royal Residences
Flags at Royal Residences were half masted yesterday, Thursday 8th September, and will remain half-masted until 0800hrs on the morning after the final day of Royal Mourning.
The half-masting of flags at Royal Residences does not apply to the Royal Standard and the Royal Standard in Scotland when The King is in residence, as they are always flown at full mast.
Guidance on flags at other public buildings has been issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Royal Gun Salute
Royal Salutes will be fired in London today at 1300hrs BST in Hyde Park by The King’s Troop Royal Horse Artillery and at the Tower of London by the Honourable Artillery Company. One round will be fired for each year of The Queen’s life.
Closure of the Royal Residences
Royal Residences will close until after The Queen’s Funeral. This includes The Queen’s Gallery and the Royal Mews at Buckingham Palace, and The Queen’s Gallery in Edinburgh. Balmoral Castle and Sandringham House, The Queen’s private estates, will also close for this period. In addition, Hillsborough Castle, The Sovereign’s official residence in Northern Ireland, will be closed.
Floral Tributes at the Royal Residences
Following the death of Her Majesty The Queen, the following guidance is given to members of the public who wish to leave floral tributes at Royal Residences:
At Buckingham Palace members of the public will be guided to lay floral tributes at dedicated sites in The Green Park or Hyde Park. Flowers left outside the gates of Buckingham Palace will be moved to The Green Park Floral Tribute Garden by The Royal Parks. Further guidance will be issued by The Royal Parks.
At Windsor Castle, floral tributes can be left at Cambridge Gate on the Long Walk. These flowers will be brought inside the Castle every evening, and placed on the Castle Chapter grass on the south side of St George’s Chapel and Cambridge Drive.
At the Sandringham Estate, members of the public are encouraged to leave floral tributes at the Norwich Gates.
At Balmoral Castle, floral tributes can be left at the Main Gate.
At the Palace of Holyroodhouse, members of the public are encouraged to give floral tributes to the Wardens at the entrance to The Queen’s Gallery. Those flowers will be laid on the Forecourt grass in front of the North Turret of the Palace.
At Hillsborough Castle, floral tributes may be laid on the Castle Forecourt, in front of the main gates.
Information on Floral Tributes at other public buildings and locations will be issued by the Cabinet Office.
Books of Condolence at the Royal Residences
There are no physical Books of Condolence at the Royal Residences.
Since the early 1960s plans have been in place in the event of the death of the Queen. These have undergone numerous changes in the decades since. As Her Majesty the Queen died in Scotland, “Operation Unicorn” will now be triggered.
Details of “Operation Unicorn” were first reported to the public in 2019, although the codename appeared in the Scottish Parliament’s online papers in 2017.
Holyrood Palace, St Giles’ Cathedral, and the Scottish Parliament will serve as the focal point of gatherings. A condolence book will be open to the public and set up at the Parliament building.
It’s reported that the Scottish Parliament will be suspended to allow authorities to prepare for the Queen’s state funeral.
The Queen’s coffin will initially lie in repose at the Palace of Holyrood, before being carried to St Giles’ Cathedral where there will be a service of reception.
Thousands of people are expected in Edinburgh to pay their respects and they will be encouraged to gather around the Scottish Parliament, Holyrood Palace and St Giles’ Cathedral.
More details to follow.
Edinburgh road closures and public transport information
Road closures are in place in the city centre, with further closures planned in the coming days.
We expect significant disruption in the city over the next few days. We will update this page with further details of which roads will be closing and public transport information.
Half a million people across Scotland who are dependent on cash risk being forgotten by banks due to the unprecedented rate of closures. Since 2015, 53% of Scotland’s bank branches have closed, which represents the highest percentage loss across the UK’s four nations.
From difficulties adapting to a society built on digital payments, to older people on lower and fixed incomes using it as a budgeting tool, many people opt to use cash for a number of reasons.
However, Westminster’s Scottish Affairs Committee raises concern that not enough support is being offered to support these individuals as the UK transitions to an increasingly digital society, nor has adequate research been undertaken to understand the full implications of such a move.
The Committee welcomes the Government’s introduction of its Financial Services and Markets Bill, which includes added protections on access to cash. The then-Treasury Minister John Glen, when appearing before the Committee, recognised the need for a more detailed picture of cash usage in Scotland.
The Committee is concerned that the rapid rate of bank branch closures may be as a result of banks rushing to close branches before legislation can take effect to protect access to cash and banking services.
In addition to Government legislation hoping to support access to cash, there have also been a number of voluntary agreements championed within the sector. This includes LINK’s Financial Inclusion Programme, which provides free access to cash via free-to-use ATMs in the most rural and deprived areas of the UK.
The Committee is of the view however that this should not be left to a voluntary agreement which leaves it vulnerable: future legislation should complement industry-led initiatives to guarantee free access to cash.
While access to cash in Scotland paints a deeply concerning picture, the Post Office has filled the void of many banking services within communities. It is deeply disappointing that Scotland has seen the highest percentage of Post Office closures anywhere in the UK, yet its resource and the service it offers appears to be steady.
In recent years, its offering of banking services has grown, and now offers customers more services than ever before, with the recent renewal of the Banking Framework Agreement. The Committee recommends that a long-term commitment is sought from banks to maintain appropriate banking services for their customers using the Post Office network.
Scottish Affairs Committee Chair, Pete Wishart MP, said: “Access to cash across Scotland has been decimated in recent years, leading to Westminster Committees investigating the issue multiple times.
“While the move to digital banking and payments has offered a method at which to do transactions that many of us enjoy, we cannot forget the 500,000 people in Scotland who rely on cash in their day-to-day lives. With the cost-of-living crisis deepening, many people are using cash for budgeting.
“But what is deeply worrying is that bank branches are closing at a record rate with very limited research or thought conducted of the possible widespread implications.
“Since the predecessor Committee’s inquiry considering this very issue, it is welcome that the Government is legislating to protect access to cash. However, this positive announcement is beset by the risk that banks may close their doors before legislation on this matter comes into force.
“We are aware of the commercial considerations affecting banks, which has played a role in the recent increase of branch closures. We welcome the effort taken by the banking industry to protect access to cash, although we still feel that there is a clear need for legislation.
“In our report today, we are calling for more research into the implications of a cashless society and more secure and longer-term agreements to ensure the continued access to cash. The Government appears to be in listening mode on this issue, and I look forward to its response in due course.”
Recommendations
The Committee’s recommendations are:
The UK Government should consider asking the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to investigate and monitor cash acceptance levels across the UK.
If the FCA find a substantial number of retailers refusing to accept cash, the UK Government should introduce additional protections to ensure that consumers reliant on cash are not disadvantaged.
The UK Government should clarify how the Financial Services and Markets Bill will interact with pre-existing industry-led solutions such as LINK’s Financial Inclusion Programme.
We recommend that the UK Government consider legislating in the Financial Services and Markets Bill to mandate the membership of LINK for card issuers and ATM operators to ensure that the Financial Inclusion Programme can continue to provide free access to cash for as long as it is needed.
Attempts to introduce deposit-taking ATMs for both consumers and SMEs have been constrained by a considerable lack of progress from both the banking industry and the UK Government. Considering the strength of the evidence to support their introduction, we repeat our predecessor Committee’s recommendation that the UK Government set up a working group with industry to introduce network-wide deposit-taking ATMs.
Building on the structure and objectives of the Banking Framework Agreement, we recommend that the UK Government seek a long-term commitment from banks to maintain appropriate banking services for their customers using the Post Office network, to guarantee access to cash and basic banking services for all communities in Scotland.
The Department for Health & Social Care (DHSC) lost 75% of the £12 billion it spent on personal protective equipment (PPE) in the first year of the pandemic to inflated prices and kit that did not meet requirements – including fully £4 billion of PPE that will not be used in the NHS and needs to be disposed of.
There is no clear disposal strategy for this excess but the Department says it plans to burn significant volumes of it to generate power – though there are concerns about the cost-effectiveness and environmental impact of this “strategy”.
In a report today the Public Accounts Committee says that as a result of DHSC’s “haphazard purchasing strategy” 24% of the PPE contracts awarded are now in dispute – including contracts for products that were not fit for purpose and one contract for 3.5 billion gloves where there are allegations of modern slavery against the manufacturer.
The Committee says this only exacerbates DHSC’s “track record of failing to comply with the requirements of Managing Public Money even before the further exceptional challenges of the pandemic response”. It also raises concerns about “inappropriate unauthorised payoffs made to staff by health bodies”, with the planned large-scale NHS restructuring “increasing the risk of this happening again.”
Dame Meg Hillier MP, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said: “The story of PPE purchasing is perhaps the most shameful episode the UK government response to the pandemic.
“At the start of the pandemic health service and social care staff were left to risk their own and their families’ lives due to the lack of basic PPE. In a desperate bid to catch up the government splurged huge amounts of money, paying obscenely inflated prices and payments to middlemen in a chaotic rush during which they chucked out even the most cursory due diligence.
“This has left us with massive public contracts now under investigation by the National Crime Agency or in dispute because of allegations of modern slavery in the supply chain.
“Add to that a series of inappropriate, unauthorised severance payoffs made by clinical commissioning groups in the first year of the pandemic and the impression given falls even further from what we expect.
“DHSC singularly failed to manage this crisis, despite years of clear and known risk of a pandemic, and the challenges facing it now are vast, from getting the NHS back on its feet to preparing for the next major crisis. There are frankly too few signs that it is putting its house in order or knows how to.”
