conservativehome--2020-11-23--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Commissioner for Public Appointments – and

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Commissioner for Public Appointments – and more

Eight years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party , compared to less than a third for the Conservatives .
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts , over time , the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number as Labour supporters .
To help remedy this , each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ As the independent regulator of public appointments made by ministers in the UK and Welsh governments , the Commissioner ’ s statutory functions are set out in the Public Appointments Order in Council 2019 .
The Order in Council also sets out those bodies and posts that are within the Commissioner ’ s regulatory remit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to provide independent assurance that public appointments are made in accordance with the Governance Code for Public Appointments , including the Principles of Public Appointments .
The new Commissioner will need to work closely with a number of stakeholders including ( but not limited to ) UK and Welsh Government Ministers , Chairs of public bodies , senior officials/accounting officers in departments and officials in the Cabinet Office ’ s Public Appointments Policy team.
” “ We are seeking to appoint a new Chair of the Royal Mint Advisory Committee , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committee ’ s task of recommending designs for United Kingdom coins , official medals , seals and decorations .
The new chair will be responsible for leading numismatic design in the United Kingdom , collaborating closely with Government departments , the Royal Household and the Royal Mint .
This role will involve leading all aspects of new and innovative ways of commemorating events , individuals and symbology of national significance in numismatic form .
The chair of the RMAC will lead and guide meetings of the committee , reaching consensus on various design @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other government departments and the Crown on artistic excellence in design .
The RMAC chair is responsible for leading the committee in an ethical manner , acting impartially , ensuring effective governance and excellence in delivery.. ” “ The Prime Minister ’ s Council for Science and Technology ( CST ) is the Government ’ s top-level advisory body on science and technology issues .
It reports directly to the Prime Minister on matters of science and technology that cut across the responsibilities of government departments .
It is co-chaired by the Government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The SARS-CoV-2 ( Covid-19 ) pandemic has highlighted the importance of science and technology in facing a challenge of such epic proportions , and in building a robust , sustainable , and equitable recovery plan for the UK , post Covid .
The Government is seeking to appoint a new Independent Co-Chair for the Council for Science and Technology .
The Government will appoint an Independent Co-Chair who will share responsibility for chairing the Council with the Government Chief Scientific Adviser ( GCSA ) .
” Bank of England – External Member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FPC is responsible for identifying , monitoring and taking action to remove or reduce systemic risks with a view to protecting and enhancing the resilience of the UK financial system .
The FPC also has a secondary objective to support the Government ’ s economic policies.The FPC has wide-ranging powers of recommendation and can direct the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority to take action to address systemic risks to financial stability .
The appointment of external members to the FPC is designed to ensure that the Committee benefits from thinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inside the Bank of England , and to provide constructive challenge during the Committee ’ s deliberations .
Each member of the FPC should have expertise in the field of financial services and economics .
External members will be independent – they will not represent or lobby for individual groups , interests or sectors.
” “ The Steering Board ’ s role is to : advise on external drivers , strategic direction and development of targets , within the framework of the UK Space Agency ’ s objectives , BEIS and wider Government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide a strategic challenge on the business and corporate plans and review and endorse the annual report and accounts for submission by the Accounting Officer ; advise on and provide independent assessment of performance , including process of setting of targets and performance against them ; advise on major business developments which imply a significant change in the Agency ’ s role or activities and on its exposure to and management of risk ; and to advocate and advise in relation to the promotion and awareness of the work of the UK Space @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As an FE Adviser , you will work as part of a team with the FE Commissioner , Deputy FE Commissioners and other Advisers .
FE Advisers are generally either finance or curriculum and quality specialists and we are looking for candidates from both backgrounds to help grow our team .
In this exciting and demanding role you will support colleges through carrying out Diagnostic Assessments , designed to help them to improve the quality of education for learners , strengthen financial resilience , improve the quality of leadership and reduce the risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ integrated part of the Department for Education ( DfE ) ’ s overall approach to intervention , within the context of the ESFA case management approach .
As such you will work closely with teams within ESFA , as well as the wider DfE and Ofsted.
” Time : Up to 200 days per annum .
“ The Panel Chair will provide strategic direction and oversight for the Agricultural Advisory Panel for Wales .
Developing and maintaining a close relationship with the Minister and key members of the Welsh agricultural sector is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role .
The Panel Chair need not be an expert in the field of agriculture , he or she must have senior level experience in the private , public or voluntary sector .
The Panel Chair will have the following strategic leadership responsibilities : lead the formulation of the Panel ’ s strategy and business plans , monitoring in-year performance and examining change proposals with rigour to maintain delivery ; ensure issues are brought forward in a timely manner for effective resolution ; ensure that the Panel ’ s decisions are informed and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provided by the Welsh Ministers and Welsh Government officials… ” “ The Sports Grounds Safety Authority ( SGSA ) was established by statute as an Arms Length Public Body in 2011 taking on the full responsibilities of its predecessor body , The Football Licensing Authority .
The SGSA is the safety regulator for football grounds in England and Wales and the UK Government ’ s independent advisor on sports grounds safety .
The three core functions of the SGSA are : to issues licences to league and international football grounds in England and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to watch matches and to oversee local authorities in their duties to sports grounds safety and safety certification ; provide strategic support for sports grounds , governing bodies and others , both in the UK and internationally ; set and raise standards globally through developing guidance , particularly the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds ( Green Guide ) .
” Time : Up to two days per week .
“ This Government is committed to improving the lived experience of social housing tenants and will publish the Social Housing White Paper shortly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in protecting and empowering social housing tenants through a robust regulatory framework , and will therefore have a key role to play in delivering the reforms set out in the White Paper .
This will be an exciting and challenging time to join the organisation , leading transformational change to the way the Regulator works with the wider social housing sector .
All of this is likely to provide a challenging task for a new Chair of the regulator .
The role will require ensuring the organisation continues to deliver in these more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forward it can respond and evolve to future policy changes and significant cultural change in the organisation.
” Time : Up to two days per week .
“ The Chair is accountable to the MOD Sponsor ( and ultimately to the Permanent Secretary and Ministers ) for the performance and effective operation of the OPA Board .
The OPA Board Chair sets the Board ’ s agenda and has a personal role in advising the Sponsor about the high-level business issues affecting OPA .
The Chair is responsible for : providing advice to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s strategic direction , objectives and risks , business performance and governance arrangements ; leading the Board to provide support and challenge to the OPA CEO and Executive Team regarding their performance , delivery consistent with the OPA strategic direction and assurance of risk management ; ensuring that the Board is effective , including assessing the performance of the Board and its NEDs , and making recommendations on areas of development , typically through an annual board effectiveness review ; and when considering re-appointments… ” “ The mission of the Financial Reporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transparency and integrity in business .
These are cornerstones to generating public trust and confidence in UK business and help attract investment in successful companies that provide jobs , create prosperity and generate economic growth .
The FRC sets the UK Corporate Governance & Stewardship Codes which aim to make investors more accountable to their clients and beneficiaries .
The FRC also sets standards for accounting , auditing and actuarial work .
As the UK ’ s independent regulator and Competent Authority for Audit it monitors , and takes action where necessary , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and audit .
It also operates independent enforcement arrangements for accountants and actuaries.
” “ UK Shared Business Services Ltd ( UK SBS ) is a non-profit making company limited by shares .
It was established in 2007 by the UK Research Councils as part of a drive for greater value for money .
The Company provides HR & Payroll , Finance , Procurement and IT services to its owners the Department for Business , Energy & Industrial Strategy ( BEIS ) , UK Research and Innovation ( UKRI ) and other public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Cabinet Office as a government shared service provider and forms part of the Shared Service Strategy for Government… This is an exciting , interesting and challenging time for UK SBS ; the newly appointed Chair will provide strong leadership to guide the Company through this transformation , delivering leading-edge shared services to multiple clients at the best value and providing our end-users with the high-quality user experience they have become accustomed to in the digital age .
”

Eight years ago, the TaxPayers’ Alliance reported that “in the last year, five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories”.
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party, compared to less than a third for the Conservatives.
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts, over time, the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments. One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply don’t apply in the same number as Labour supporters.
To help remedy this, each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies, so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented.
– – – – – – – – – –
Commissioner for Public Appointments
“As the independent regulator of public appointments made by ministers in the UK and Welsh governments, the Commissioner’s statutory functions are set out in the Public Appointments Order in Council 2019. The Order in Council also sets out those bodies and posts that are within the Commissioner’s regulatory remit. The Commissioner’s primary role is to provide independent assurance that public appointments are made in accordance with the Governance Code for Public Appointments, including the Principles of Public Appointments. The new Commissioner will need to work closely with a number of stakeholders including (but not limited to) UK and Welsh Government Ministers, Chairs of public bodies, senior officials/accounting officers in departments and officials in the Cabinet Office’s Public Appointments Policy team.”
Time: 2 days per week on average.
Remuneration: £56,000 per annum.
Closes: 24 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Royal Mint Advisory Committee – Chair
“We are seeking to appoint a new Chair of the Royal Mint Advisory Committee, who will play a central role in the committee’s task of recommending designs for United Kingdom coins, official medals, seals and decorations. The new chair will be responsible for leading numismatic design in the United Kingdom, collaborating closely with Government departments, the Royal Household and the Royal Mint. This role will involve leading all aspects of new and innovative ways of commemorating events, individuals and symbology of national significance in numismatic form. The chair of the RMAC will lead and guide meetings of the committee, reaching consensus on various design proposals and ultimately advise HM Treasury, other government departments and the Crown on artistic excellence in design. The RMAC chair is responsible for leading the committee in an ethical manner, acting impartially, ensuring effective governance and excellence in delivery..”
Time: Six meetings per annum.
Remuneration: None.
Closes: 27 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology – Co-Chair
“The Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology (CST) is the Government’s top-level advisory body on science and technology issues. It reports directly to the Prime Minister on matters of science and technology that cut across the responsibilities of government departments. It is co-chaired by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and an independent appointee. The SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) pandemic has highlighted the importance of science and technology in facing a challenge of such epic proportions, and in building a robust, sustainable, and equitable recovery plan for the UK, post Covid. The Government is seeking to appoint a new Independent Co-Chair for the Council for Science and Technology. The Government will appoint an Independent Co-Chair who will share responsibility for chairing the Council with the Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA).”
Time: 2-3 days per month.
Remuneration: None.
Closes: 29 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Bank of England – External Member of the Financial Policy Committee
“The FPC is responsible for identifying, monitoring and taking action to remove or reduce systemic risks with a view to protecting and enhancing the resilience of the UK financial system. The FPC also has a secondary objective to support the Government’s economic policies.The FPC has wide-ranging powers of recommendation and can direct the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority to take action to address systemic risks to financial stability. The appointment of external members to the FPC is designed to ensure that the Committee benefits from thinking and expertise in addition to that existing inside the Bank of England, and to provide constructive challenge during the Committee’s deliberations. Each member of the FPC should have expertise in the field of financial services and economics. External members will be independent – they will not represent or lobby for individual groups, interests or sectors.”
Time: 23 days per quarter.
Remuneration: £97,200.
Closes: 29 November
– – – – – – – – – –
UK Space Agency – Non-Executive Members/Audit Chair
“The Steering Board’s role is to: advise on external drivers, strategic direction and development of targets, within the framework of the UK Space Agency’s objectives, BEIS and wider Government objectives; bring an external perspective to provide a strategic challenge on the business and corporate plans and review and endorse the annual report and accounts for submission by the Accounting Officer; advise on and provide independent assessment of performance, including process of setting of targets and performance against them; advise on major business developments which imply a significant change in the Agency’s role or activities and on its exposure to and management of risk; and to advocate and advise in relation to the promotion and awareness of the work of the UK Space Agency with stakeholders and partners.”
Time: 20/22 days per annum.
Remuneration: £8,000/10,000 per annum honorarium.
Closes: 29 November
– – – – – – – – – –
Further Education Commissioner’s Team – Adviser
“As an FE Adviser, you will work as part of a team with the FE Commissioner, Deputy FE Commissioners and other Advisers. FE Advisers are generally either finance or curriculum and quality specialists and we are looking for candidates from both backgrounds to help grow our team. In this exciting and demanding role you will support colleges through carrying out Diagnostic Assessments, designed to help them to improve the quality of education for learners, strengthen financial resilience, improve the quality of leadership and reduce the risk of interventions… You will work as an integrated part of the Department for Education (DfE)’s overall approach to intervention, within the context of the ESFA case management approach. As such you will work closely with teams within ESFA, as well as the wider DfE and Ofsted.”
Time: Up to 200 days per annum.
Remuneration: £600 per diem.
Closes: 02 December
– – – – – – – – – –
Agricultural Advisory Panel (Wales) – Chair
“The Panel Chair will provide strategic direction and oversight for the Agricultural Advisory Panel for Wales. Developing and maintaining a close relationship with the Minister and key members of the Welsh agricultural sector is a crucial part of the Chair’s role. The Panel Chair need not be an expert in the field of agriculture, he or she must have senior level experience in the private, public or voluntary sector. The Panel Chair will have the following strategic leadership responsibilities: lead the formulation of the Panel’s strategy and business plans, monitoring in-year performance and examining change proposals with rigour to maintain delivery; ensure issues are brought forward in a timely manner for effective resolution; ensure that the Panel’s decisions are informed and fair, taking proper account of guidance provided by the Welsh Ministers and Welsh Government officials…”
Time: Minimum 12 days per annum.
Remuneration: £300 per diem plus reasonable expenses.
Closes: 04 December
– – – – – – – – – –
Sports Grounds Safety Authority – Chair
“The Sports Grounds Safety Authority (SGSA) was established by statute as an Arms Length Public Body in 2011 taking on the full responsibilities of its predecessor body, The Football Licensing Authority. The SGSA is the safety regulator for football grounds in England and Wales and the UK Government’s independent advisor on sports grounds safety. The three core functions of the SGSA are: to issues licences to league and international football grounds in England and Wales to allow them to permit spectators to watch matches and to oversee local authorities in their duties to sports grounds safety and safety certification; provide strategic support for sports grounds, governing bodies and others, both in the UK and internationally; set and raise standards globally through developing guidance, particularly the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds (Green Guide).”
Time: Up to two days per week.
Remuneration: £36,260 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 08 December
– – – – – – – – – –
Regulator of Social Housing – Chair
“This Government is committed to improving the lived experience of social housing tenants and will publish the Social Housing White Paper shortly. The Regulator plays a key role in protecting and empowering social housing tenants through a robust regulatory framework, and will therefore have a key role to play in delivering the reforms set out in the White Paper. This will be an exciting and challenging time to join the organisation, leading transformational change to the way the Regulator works with the wider social housing sector. All of this is likely to provide a challenging task for a new Chair of the regulator. The role will require ensuring the organisation continues to deliver in these more challenging times, whilst ensuring that going forward it can respond and evolve to future policy changes and significant cultural change in the organisation.”
Time: Up to two days per week.
Remuneration: £65,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 13 December
– – – – – – – – – –
Oil & Pipeline Agency – Chair
“The Chair is accountable to the MOD Sponsor (and ultimately to the Permanent Secretary and Ministers) for the performance and effective operation of the OPA Board. The OPA Board Chair sets the Board’s agenda and has a personal role in advising the Sponsor about the high-level business issues affecting OPA. The Chair is responsible for: providing advice to the Sponsor and wider MOD on OPA’s strategic direction, objectives and risks, business performance and governance arrangements; leading the Board to provide support and challenge to the OPA CEO and Executive Team regarding their performance, delivery consistent with the OPA strategic direction and assurance of risk management; ensuring that the Board is effective, including assessing the performance of the Board and its NEDs, and making recommendations on areas of development, typically through an annual board effectiveness review; and when considering re-appointments…”
Time: 30 days per week.
Remuneration: £27,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 14 December
– – – – – – – – – –
Financial Reporting Council – Chair
“The mission of the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) is to promote transparency and integrity in business. These are cornerstones to generating public trust and confidence in UK business and help attract investment in successful companies that provide jobs, create prosperity and generate economic growth. The FRC sets the UK Corporate Governance & Stewardship Codes which aim to make investors more accountable to their clients and beneficiaries. The FRC also sets standards for accounting, auditing and actuarial work. As the UK’s independent regulator and Competent Authority for Audit it monitors, and takes action where necessary, to promote the quality of corporate reporting and audit. It also operates independent enforcement arrangements for accountants and actuaries.”
Time: 1.5 days per week.
Remuneration: £75,000 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 03 January
– – – – – – – – – –
UK Shared Business Services Ltd – Chair
“UK Shared Business Services Ltd (UK SBS) is a non-profit making company limited by shares. It was established in 2007 by the UK Research Councils as part of a drive for greater value for money. The Company provides HR & Payroll, Finance, Procurement and IT services to its owners the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS), UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and other public sector clients. It is recognised by the Cabinet Office as a government shared service provider and forms part of the Shared Service Strategy for Government… This is an exciting, interesting and challenging time for UK SBS; the newly appointed Chair will provide strong leadership to guide the Company through this transformation, delivering leading-edge shared services to multiple clients at the best value and providing our end-users with the high-quality user experience they have become accustomed to in the digital age.”
Time: Max 36 days per annum.
Remuneration: £575 per annum, plus expenses.
Closes: 03 January


conservativehome--2020-11-23--The Prime Minister’s full text. ‘Scientific breakthroughs will ultimately make these restrictions ob

The Prime Minister’s full text. ‘Scientific breakthroughs will ultimately make these restrictions obsolete’.

Mr Speaker , thank you very much and with your permission , I will make a statement on the Government ’ s Covid Winter Plan .
For the first time since this wretched virus took hold , we can see a route out of the pandemic .
The breakthroughs in treatment , in testing and vaccines mean that the scientific cavalry is now in sight and we know in our hearts that next year we will succeed .
By the Spring , these advances should reduce the need for the restrictions we have endured in 2020 and make the whole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When that moment comes , it will have been made possible by the sacrifices of millions of people across the United Kingdom .
I am acutely conscious that no other peacetime Prime Minister has asked so much of the British people and just as our country has risen to every previous trial , so it has responded this time , and I am deeply grateful .
But the hard truth , Mr Speaker , is that we are not there yet .
First we must get through Winter without the virus spreading out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at exactly the time when the burden on the NHS is always greatest .
Our Winter Plan is designed to carry us safely to Spring .
In recent weeks , families and businesses in England have , once again , steadfastly observed nationwide restrictions and they have managed to slow the growth of new cases and ease the worst pressures on our NHS .
I can therefore confirm that national restrictions in England will end on 2nd December , and they will not be renewed .
From next Wednesday people will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purpose , and meet others in outdoor public spaces , subject to the Rule of Six .
Collective worship , weddings and outdoor sports can resume , and shops , personal care , gyms and the wider leisure sector can reopen .
But without sensible precautions , we would risk the virus escalating into a Winter or New Year surge .
The incidence of the disease is , alas , still widespread in many areas , so we are not going to replace national measures with a free for all , the status @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go back instead to a regional tiered approach , applying the toughest measures where Covid is most prevalent .
And while the previous local tiers did cut the R number , they were not quite enough to reduce it below 1 , so the scientific advice , I am afraid , is that as we come out is that our tiers need to be made tougher .
In particular , in tier 1 people should work from home wherever possible .
In tier 2 , alcohol may only be served in hospitality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In tier 3 , indoor entertainment , hotels and other accommodation will have to close , along with all forms of hospitality , except for delivery and takeaways .
And I am very sorry obviously for the unavoidable hardship that this will cause to business owners who have already endured so much disruption this year .
Mr Speaker , unlike the previous arrangements , tiers will now be a uniform set of rules .
That ’ s to say we won ’ t have negotiations on additional measures with each region , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules .
We have learnt from experience that there are some things we can do differently .
So from the 10pm closing time for hospitality we ’ re going to change that to so that it is last orders at 10 with closing at 11 .
In tiers 1 and 2 , spectator sports and business events will be free to resume inside and outside – with capacity limits and social distancing – providing more consistency with indoor performances in theatres and concert halls .
We will also strengthen the enforcement ability of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and new powers to close down premises that pose a risk to public health .
Later this week we will announce which areas will fall into which tier , I hope on Thursday , based on analysis of cases in all age groups , especially the over 60s , also looking at the rate by which cases are rising or falling , the percentage of those tested in a local population who have Covid , and the current and projected pressures on the NHS .
I am sorry to say we expect that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temporarily – into higher levels than before , but by using these tougher tiers and by using rapid turnaround tests on an ever greater scale to drive R below 1 and keep it there , it should be possible for areas to move down the tiering scale to lower levels of restrictions .
By maintaining the pressure on the virus , we can also enable people to see more of their family and friends over Christmas .
Mr Speaker , I can ’ t say that Christmas will be normal this year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time spent with loved ones is even more precious for people of all faiths and none .
We all want some kind of Christmas , we need it , we certainly feel we deserve it .
But what we don ’ t want is to throw caution to the winds and allow the virus to flare up again , forcing us all back into lockdown in January .
So to allow families to come together , while minimising the risk , we are working with the Devolved Administrations on a special , time-limited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United Kingdom , and reflecting the ties of kinship across our islands .
But this virus is obviously not going to grant us a Christmas truce , it doesn ’ t know it ’ s Christmas , Mr Speaker , and families will need to make a careful judgement about the risk of visiting elderly relatives .
We will be publishing guidance for those who are clinically extremely vulnerable on how to manage the risks in each tier , as well as over Christmas .
As we work to suppress the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breakthroughs will ultimately make these restrictions obsolete .
As soon as a vaccine is approved , we will dispense it as quickly as possible .
But given that this can not be done immediately , we will simultaneously use rapid turnaround testing , the lateral flow testing that gives results within 30 minutes , to identify those without symptoms so they can isolate and avoid transmission .
We are beginning to deploy these tests in our NHS and in care homes in England , so people will once again be able to hug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead of waving at them through a window .
By the end of the year , this will allow every care home resident to have two visitors , who can be tested twice a week .
Care workers looking after people in their own homes will be offered weekly tests from today .
And from next month , weekly tests will also be available to staff in prisons , food manufacturing , and those delivering and administering Covid vaccines .
We are also using testing as the House knows to help schools and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enable students to know they can go home safely for Christmas and indeed back from home to university .
But there is another way of using these rapid tests , and that is to follow the example of Liverpool , where in the last two and a half weeks over 200,000 people have taken part in community testing , contributing to a very substantial fall in infections .
So together with NHS Test and Trace and our fantastic Armed Forces , we will now launch a major community testing programme , offering all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ England a six week surge of testing .
The system is untried and there are of course many unknowns , but if it works , we should be able to offer those who test negative the prospect of fewer restrictions , for example , meeting up in certain places with others who have also tested negative .
And those towns and regions which engage in community testing will have a much greater chance of easing the rules , the tiering , that they currently endure .
Mr Speaker , we will also use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has impinged on many lives .
We will seek to end automatic isolation for close contacts of those found positive .
Beginning in Liverpool later this week , contacts who are tested every day for a week will only need to isolate if they themselves test positive .
If successful , this approach will be extended across the health system next month , and to the whole of England from January .
And , of course , we are working with the Devolved Administrations to ensure that Wales , Scotland , Northern Ireland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from these advances in rapid testing .
But clearly the most hopeful advance of all is how vaccines are now edging ever closer to liberating us from the virus , demonstrating emphatically that this is not a pandemic without end .
We can take heart from today ’ s news , which has the makings of a wonderful British scientific achievement .
The vaccine developed with astonishing speed by Oxford University and AstraZeneca is now one of three capable of delivering a period of immunity .
We don ’ t yet know when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but we have ordered 100 million doses of the Oxford vaccine , and over 350 million in total , more than enough for everyone in the UK , the Crown Dependencies and the Overseas Territories .
And the NHS is preparing a nationwide immunisation programme , ready next month , the like of which we have never witnessed .
Mr Speaker , 2020 has been in many ways a tragic year when so many have lost loved ones and faced financial ruin .
This will be still a hard Winter , Christmas can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a long road to Spring .
But we have turned a corner : and the escape route is in sight .
We must hold out against the virus until testing and vaccines come to our rescue and reduce the need for restrictions .
Everyone can help speed up the arrival of that moment by continuing to follow the rules , getting tested and self-isolating when instructed , remembering hands , face and space , and pulling together for one final push to the Spring , when we have every reason to hope and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will finally lift the shadow of the virus .
Mr Speaker , I commend this Statement to the House .

Mr Speaker, thank you very much and with your permission, I will make a statement on the Government’s Covid Winter Plan.
For the first time since this wretched virus took hold, we can see a route out of the pandemic.
The breakthroughs in treatment, in testing and vaccines mean that the scientific cavalry is now in sight and we know in our hearts that next year we will succeed.
By the Spring, these advances should reduce the need for the restrictions we have endured in 2020 and make the whole concept of a Covid lockdown redundant.
When that moment comes, it will have been made possible by the sacrifices of millions of people across the United Kingdom.
I am acutely conscious that no other peacetime Prime Minister has asked so much of the British people and just as our country has risen to every previous trial, so it has responded this time, and I am deeply grateful.
But the hard truth, Mr Speaker, is that we are not there yet.
First we must get through Winter without the virus spreading out of control and squandering our hard-won gains, at exactly the time when the burden on the NHS is always greatest.
Our Winter Plan is designed to carry us safely to Spring.
In recent weeks, families and businesses in England have, once again, steadfastly observed nationwide restrictions and they have managed to slow the growth of new cases and ease the worst pressures on our NHS.
I can therefore confirm that national restrictions in England will end on 2nd December, and they will not be renewed.
From next Wednesday people will be able to leave their home for any purpose, and meet others in outdoor public spaces, subject to the Rule of Six.
Collective worship, weddings and outdoor sports can resume, and shops, personal care, gyms and the wider leisure sector can reopen.
But without sensible precautions, we would risk the virus escalating into a Winter or New Year surge.
The incidence of the disease is, alas, still widespread in many areas, so we are not going to replace national measures with a free for all, the status quo ante Covid.
We are going to go back instead to a regional tiered approach, applying the toughest measures where Covid is most prevalent.
And while the previous local tiers did cut the R number, they were not quite enough to reduce it below 1, so the scientific advice, I am afraid, is that as we come out is that our tiers need to be made tougher.
In particular, in tier 1 people should work from home wherever possible.
In tier 2, alcohol may only be served in hospitality settings as part of a substantial meal.
In tier 3, indoor entertainment, hotels and other accommodation will have to close, along with all forms of hospitality, except for delivery and takeaways.
And I am very sorry obviously for the unavoidable hardship that this will cause to business owners who have already endured so much disruption this year.
Mr Speaker, unlike the previous arrangements, tiers will now be a uniform set of rules.
That’s to say we won’t have negotiations on additional measures with each region, it’s a uniform set of rules.
We have learnt from experience that there are some things we can do differently.
So from the 10pm closing time for hospitality we’re going to change that to so that it is last orders at 10 with closing at 11.
In tiers 1 and 2, spectator sports and business events will be free to resume inside and outside – with capacity limits and social distancing – providing more consistency with indoor performances in theatres and concert halls.
We will also strengthen the enforcement ability of Local Authorities, including specially trained officers and new powers to close down premises that pose a risk to public health.
Later this week we will announce which areas will fall into which tier, I hope on Thursday, based on analysis of cases in all age groups, especially the over 60s, also looking at the rate by which cases are rising or falling, the percentage of those tested in a local population who have Covid, and the current and projected pressures on the NHS.
I am sorry to say we expect that more regions will fall – at least temporarily – into higher levels than before, but by using these tougher tiers and by using rapid turnaround tests on an ever greater scale to drive R below 1 and keep it there, it should be possible for areas to move down the tiering scale to lower levels of restrictions.
By maintaining the pressure on the virus, we can also enable people to see more of their family and friends over Christmas.
Mr Speaker, I can’t say that Christmas will be normal this year, but in a period of adversity, time spent with loved ones is even more precious for people of all faiths and none.
We all want some kind of Christmas, we need it, we certainly feel we deserve it.
But what we don’t want is to throw caution to the winds and allow the virus to flare up again, forcing us all back into lockdown in January.
So to allow families to come together, while minimising the risk, we are working with the Devolved Administrations on a special, time-limited Christmas dispensation, embracing the whole of the United Kingdom, and reflecting the ties of kinship across our islands.
But this virus is obviously not going to grant us a Christmas truce, it doesn’t know it’s Christmas, Mr Speaker, and families will need to make a careful judgement about the risk of visiting elderly relatives.
We will be publishing guidance for those who are clinically extremely vulnerable on how to manage the risks in each tier, as well as over Christmas.
As we work to suppress the virus with these local tiers, two scientific breakthroughs will ultimately make these restrictions obsolete.
As soon as a vaccine is approved, we will dispense it as quickly as possible.
But given that this cannot be done immediately, we will simultaneously use rapid turnaround testing, the lateral flow testing that gives results within 30 minutes, to identify those without symptoms so they can isolate and avoid transmission.
We are beginning to deploy these tests in our NHS and in care homes in England, so people will once again be able to hug and hold hands with loved ones, instead of waving at them through a window.
By the end of the year, this will allow every care home resident to have two visitors, who can be tested twice a week.
Care workers looking after people in their own homes will be offered weekly tests from today.
And from next month, weekly tests will also be available to staff in prisons, food manufacturing, and those delivering and administering Covid vaccines.
We are also using testing as the House knows to help schools and universities stay open, and testing will enable students to know they can go home safely for Christmas and indeed back from home to university.
But there is another way of using these rapid tests, and that is to follow the example of Liverpool, where in the last two and a half weeks over 200,000 people have taken part in community testing, contributing to a very substantial fall in infections.
So together with NHS Test and Trace and our fantastic Armed Forces, we will now launch a major community testing programme, offering all local authorities in tier 3 areas in England a six week surge of testing.
The system is untried and there are of course many unknowns, but if it works, we should be able to offer those who test negative the prospect of fewer restrictions, for example, meeting up in certain places with others who have also tested negative.
And those towns and regions which engage in community testing will have a much greater chance of easing the rules, the tiering, that they currently endure.
Mr Speaker, we will also use daily testing to ease another restriction that has impinged on many lives.
We will seek to end automatic isolation for close contacts of those found positive.
Beginning in Liverpool later this week, contacts who are tested every day for a week will only need to isolate if they themselves test positive.
If successful, this approach will be extended across the health system next month, and to the whole of England from January.
And, of course, we are working with the Devolved Administrations to ensure that Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland also benefit as they should and will from these advances in rapid testing.
But clearly the most hopeful advance of all is how vaccines are now edging ever closer to liberating us from the virus, demonstrating emphatically that this is not a pandemic without end.
We can take heart from today’s news, which has the makings of a wonderful British scientific achievement.
The vaccine developed with astonishing speed by Oxford University and AstraZeneca is now one of three capable of delivering a period of immunity.
We don’t yet know when any will be ready and licensed, but we have ordered 100 million doses of the Oxford vaccine, and over 350 million in total, more than enough for everyone in the UK, the Crown Dependencies and the Overseas Territories.
And the NHS is preparing a nationwide immunisation programme, ready next month, the like of which we have never witnessed.
Mr Speaker, 2020 has been in many ways a tragic year when so many have lost loved ones and faced financial ruin.
This will be still a hard Winter, Christmas cannot be normal, and there is a long road to Spring.
But we have turned a corner: and the escape route is in sight.
We must hold out against the virus until testing and vaccines come to our rescue and reduce the need for restrictions.
Everyone can help speed up the arrival of that moment by continuing to follow the rules, getting tested and self-isolating when instructed, remembering hands, face and space, and pulling together for one final push to the Spring, when we have every reason to hope and believe that the achievements of our scientists will finally lift the shadow of the virus.
Mr Speaker, I commend this Statement to the House.


conservativehome--2020-11-24--James Frayne: So how should the Conservatives talk with working class voters about the environment?

James Frayne is Director of Public First and author of Meet the People , a guide to moving public opinion .
Given the Conservatives seem to have decided to make the environment one of their key campaigning themes for at least the near-term , how should they be talking to working class voters about the environment ?
After all , while working class voters share similar concerns about the environment to professional voters , they care about it much less in relative terms .
In the last two years , I ’ ve probably done more work on the environment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many dozens of focus groups and a number of very detailed landscape polls .
Here are some thoughts on how best to engage working class voters .
Those of us working in public policy must remember we ’ re having an entirely different conversation about the environment to most people .
We think people know what “ net zero ” is because we use it all the time ; on the contrary , focus groups will tell you most people haven ’ t heard of it ; we say “ Greta ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in focus groups you get blank looks .
If the Government truly is interested in speaking to working class voters , it ’ s going to have to accept knowledge of environmental issues is extremely low – and on the public policy debate almost non-existent .
Politicians should view every announcement on the environment as being almost entirely new to most people .
This demands simple policies , simply explained , from first principles .
2 ) Consider the environment as a capitalist issue Perhaps the most important communications lesson is essentially psychological @ @ @ @ @ @ @ creating a capitalist case for the environment – one with radically different policies and language from what we ’ ve seen before .
At present , there is considerable fear amongst working class people that going green is expensive and inconvenient .
This is because the hard left has been the loudest voice in the debate ; while left-wing campaigns have undoubtedly raised the salience of the issue , they have ultimately made working class people worried about change .
The best remedy is to show show environment policies are compatible with economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everything else here follows from this fundamental point .
( To be fair , the Government has started to do this with a focus on jobs . )
3 ) Remember what people ’ s lives are really like This isn ’ t meant to be a cheap point : London-based , upper-middle class officials and advisers lead work on environmental policy .
Over time , regardless of where they came from , they end up with a warped view of what most people ’ s lives are like .
In doing so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recommendations which ordinary people can ’ t adapt to .
Officials and advisers must think hard about red lines for ordinary working class families : outside the big cities , almost everyone needs to drive to get to work or see family ; most people spend what they earn in trying to live comfortable lives , save nothing , and therefore can ’ t just invest in home improvements .
Most go on holiday once a year and look forward to it all year ( flying is no luxury ) .
It doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your push on the environment with by telling working class voters they ’ re going to have to replace their car in nine years with a likely much more expensive model ; nor to say they might need to spend vast sums on a new heating system .
Better , instead , to have announced new investment in green public transport outside the cities .
The Government has to accommodate the reality of people ’ s lives .
The Government ’ s recent announcements on new investment in green technologies in the regions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it made a “ capitalist case ” for the environment , but because they played into working class hopes new industries might replace old ones .
In focus groups , there are great hopes new technologies and new industries might bring about jobs , growth and , ultimately , regeneration .
As far as possible , the Government should keep encouraging this so-called “ green jobs revolution ” in parts of the country which are struggling .
Such are people ’ s fears about the prospect of environmental policies hurting people ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on thick the point that green policies should not , and will not , affect the poorest .
They should constantly reassure that new boilers , new heating systems , and so on would never have to be paid for by people that can not afford it .
There is a reason , after all , why the Blair Government made such a big deal of protecting pensioners from higher fuel payments ; there are large numbers of people that can not pay a penny more each week .
And , to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone who is seriously cash strapped – a decent percentage of society .
One of the biggest mistakes of the green movement has been to link environmental policies in the public mind with higher taxes .
People associate so-called “ green taxes ” with being shaken down by politicians for more money .
The Government should only introduce green taxes as alternative taxes , rather than additional taxes .
Their mantra should be : “ let ’ s tax things that are bad ” ; not “ let ’ s find a way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ green policies should be fiscally neutral ( I accept , harder during the Covid recovery ) .
7 ) As far as possible , good behaviour should be rewarded In research I ’ ve done , people respond well to the suggestion that good behaviour should be rewarded , more than bad behaviour should be punished ( within reason ) .
This means , people are keen to hear about things like council tax reductions for recycling more ( a simple example , but you get the point ) ; or businesses paying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cuts in emissions .
They prefer this to solely punitive , punishing taxes .
By the way , they don ’ t like the idea that businesses that work in energy-intense industries should be whacked just for doing their job ; they want them to be rewarded for taking steps to become cleaner .
8 ) Tread carefully with the “ patriotic case ” for change The public like the idea of Britain being a “ world leader ” in pretty much anything .
Superficially , the idea that Britain can be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But working class voters quickly start to ask a question : why should we damage our own industry , or raise taxes , when other more polluting countries aren ’ t doing the same ?
To make progress , the Government has to reassure the public that everyone , across the world , is working together to reduce emissions and to help the environment .
In recent times , in the public policy world , the environment has come to mean climate change .
But this isn ’ t where the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly working class voters , they ’ re more interested in excessive use of plastics , in the destruction of areas of natural beauty and animal welfare .
As such , while the Government might conclude that cutting emissions is the most important governing priority , they should not assume necessarily that this is the best way of actually appealing to working class people .
10 ) Stop making it impossible to drive anywhere At the risk of repetition , the Government has got to stop basically trying to prevent people using roads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country .
It isn ’ t just about removing lanes from roads for cycle paths , it ’ s closing junctions , re-routing traffic , and all the rest .
This doesn ’ t just make life hard for people in private cars , it makes it hard for taxis and buses to move through crawling traffic .
Throughout London and other big cities it isn ’ t physically possible to take a bus to work because the traffic is so bad – and in London , trains and tubes are hellishly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Government ( and councils ) risk losing public support by what looks like basic incompetence .

James Frayne is Director of Public First and author of Meet the People, a guide to moving public opinion.
Given the Conservatives seem to have decided to make the environment one of their key campaigning themes for at least the near-term, how should they be talking to working class voters about the environment?
After all, while working class voters share similar concerns about the environment to professional voters, they care about it much less in relative terms.
In the last two years, I’ve probably done more work on the environment than any other single issue, overseeing many dozens of focus groups and a number of very detailed landscape polls. Here are some thoughts on how best to engage working class voters.
1) Remember knowledge is extremely low
Those of us working in public policy must remember we’re having an entirely different conversation about the environment to most people. We think people know what “net zero” is because we use it all the time; on the contrary, focus groups will tell you most people haven’t heard of it; we say “Greta” and assume everyone knows who we mean; in focus groups you get blank looks.
If the Government truly is interested in speaking to working class voters, it’s going to have to accept knowledge of environmental issues is extremely low – and on the public policy debate almost non-existent. Politicians should view every announcement on the environment as being almost entirely new to most people. This demands simple policies, simply explained, from first principles.
2) Consider the environment as a capitalist issue
Perhaps the most important communications lesson is essentially psychological: keeping working class voters onside means creating a capitalist case for the environment – one with radically different policies and language from what we’ve seen before.
At present, there is considerable fear amongst working class people that going green is expensive and inconvenient. This is because the hard left has been the loudest voice in the debate; while left-wing campaigns have undoubtedly raised the salience of the issue, they have ultimately made working class people worried about change.
The best remedy is to show show environment policies are compatible with economic growth and rising living standards. Almost everything else here follows from this fundamental point. (To be fair, the Government has started to do this with a focus on jobs.)
3) Remember what people’s lives are really like
This isn’t meant to be a cheap point: London-based, upper-middle class officials and advisers lead work on environmental policy. Over time, regardless of where they came from, they end up with a warped view of what most people’s lives are like. In doing so they can make woefully unrealistic and unpopular recommendations which ordinary people can’t adapt to.
Officials and advisers must think hard about red lines for ordinary working class families: outside the big cities, almost everyone needs to drive to get to work or see family; most people spend what they earn in trying to live comfortable lives, save nothing, and therefore can’t just invest in home improvements. Most go on holiday once a year and look forward to it all year (flying is no luxury).
It doesn’t therefore make sense to begin your push on the environment with by telling working class voters they’re going to have to replace their car in nine years with a likely much more expensive model; nor to say they might need to spend vast sums on a new heating system. Better, instead, to have announced new investment in green public transport outside the cities. The Government has to accommodate the reality of people’s lives.
4) Focus on “jobs, growth, regeneration”
The Government’s recent announcements on new investment in green technologies in the regions were nicely done. Not only because it made a “capitalist case” for the environment, but because they played into working class hopes new industries might replace old ones. In focus groups, there are great hopes new technologies and new industries might bring about jobs, growth and, ultimately, regeneration. As far as possible, the Government should keep encouraging this so-called “green jobs revolution” in parts of the country which are struggling.
5) Protect the poorest
Such are people’s fears about the prospect of environmental policies hurting people’s wallets, the Government must continually lay on thick the point that green policies should not, and will not, affect the poorest. They should constantly reassure that new boilers, new heating systems, and so on would never have to be paid for by people that cannot afford it.
There is a reason, after all, why the Blair Government made such a big deal of protecting pensioners from higher fuel payments; there are large numbers of people that cannot pay a penny more each week. And, to be clear, the “poorest” means everyone who is seriously cash strapped – a decent percentage of society.
6) Green taxes should be “alternative taxes”
One of the biggest mistakes of the green movement has been to link environmental policies in the public mind with higher taxes. People associate so-called “green taxes” with being shaken down by politicians for more money. The Government should only introduce green taxes as alternative taxes, rather than additional taxes. Their mantra should be: “let’s tax things that are bad”; not “let’s find a way to make more money”. Ideally green policies should be fiscally neutral (I accept, harder during the Covid recovery).
7) As far as possible, good behaviour should be rewarded
In research I’ve done, people respond well to the suggestion that good behaviour should be rewarded, more than bad behaviour should be punished (within reason). This means, people are keen to hear about things like council tax reductions for recycling more (a simple example, but you get the point); or businesses paying less in corporation tax if they make cuts in emissions. They prefer this to solely punitive, punishing taxes.
By the way, they don’t like the idea that businesses that work in energy-intense industries should be whacked just for doing their job; they want them to be rewarded for taking steps to become cleaner.
8) Tread carefully with the “patriotic case” for change
The public like the idea of Britain being a “world leader” in pretty much anything. Superficially, the idea that Britain can be a world leader in green policy plays well. But working class voters quickly start to ask a question: why should we damage our own industry, or raise taxes, when other more polluting countries aren’t doing the same?
To make progress, the Government has to reassure the public that everyone, across the world, is working together to reduce emissions and to help the environment.
9) Climate change isn’t the only green issue
In recent times, in the public policy world, the environment has come to mean climate change. But this isn’t where the public is. For many voters, and particularly working class voters, they’re more interested in excessive use of plastics, in the destruction of areas of natural beauty and animal welfare.
As such, while the Government might conclude that cutting emissions is the most important governing priority, they should not assume necessarily that this is the best way of actually appealing to working class people.
10) Stop making it impossible to drive anywhere
At the risk of repetition, the Government has got to stop basically trying to prevent people using roads; it is driving people crazy across the country. It isn’t just about removing lanes from roads for cycle paths, it’s closing junctions, re-routing traffic, and all the rest.
This doesn’t just make life hard for people in private cars, it makes it hard for taxis and buses to move through crawling traffic. Throughout London and other big cities it isn’t physically possible to take a bus to work because the traffic is so bad – and in London, trains and tubes are hellishly busy (in normal times). The Government (and councils) risk losing public support by what looks like basic incompetence.


conservativehome--2020-11-24--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Commissioner for Public Appointments – and


conservativehome--2020-11-24--Nothing to see here – move along? Covid, procurement, appointments and cronyism claims

During the last few years , ConservativeHome published a series of pieces by an author about a subject .
They were perfectly good articles in their own right .
It became clear to us after a while that the author had a double agenda .
The person in question had something interesting to say on the matter , and also hoped to advise the Government about it .
Nothing wrong with that .
When the Coronavirus pandemic first broke , last spring , our former author complained to the site .
He or she had offered help free to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phone calls made .
There had been no response .
This was disgraceful , we were told : Ministers and civil servants were asleep on the job .
Incompetence , unresponsiveness , idleness – etc .
This tale may be a serviceable introduction to the mass of stories swirling around the media about alleged Ministerial and governmental cronyism ( claimed openly ) and corruption ( suggested covertly ) .
The most prominent are the appointments of Dido Harding as head of the NHS Test and Trace programme and Kate Bingham as Chair of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cluster of others about appointments and contracts – the most striking of the latter being the £250 million PPE one awarded to a jewellry designer who is based in Florida .
A sign of the times is that our old friend the bloke in the kimono with the baseball bat and the dead fox is in court again or thereabouts , arguing that Harding ’ s appointment is in breach of ( you guessed it ) the Equality Act .
The best way of thinking one ’ s way into the issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our former contributor .
Come a crisis , a mass of such people come knocking on Westminster and Whitehall ’ s doors .
Some are public-spirited citizens who want to help .
Others are off on an ego trip .
Others still are both .
Some want nothing in return ; others rather fancy an honour .
Some want to make a profit : nothing inherently wrong with that , either .
Some have something to offer , others not much , others nothing at all .
And in modern times , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and on the scale as the Coronavirus .
It has skewered Ministers and departments on a Morton ’ s Fork .
The first prong is that of moving too slowly .
If government doesn ’ t get its finger out , and speed up the purchasing of vital equipment ( for example ) , Ministers are accused of letting people die unnecessarily .
The second prong is that of moving too fast .
If government gets that move on instead , and rushes to buy that equipment , the peacetime equivalent of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are consequently accused of ripping off the taxpayer .
Almost inevitably , Coronavirus has seen them charged with both .
The scramble for ventilators is a classic instance of government being pricked by both prongs ; for these were first clamoured for as urgently required , and later denounced as over-hyped .
There is a parallel with Treasury support for the self-employed – since there are fewer means of assessing how much self-employed people are being paid Policy Exchange has wrung an entire report out of public sector fraud during Covid-19 , estimating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Government ’ s problems will not have been helped by some of its usual suppliers complaining that bidders for contracts have not been restrained by normal procedures , which have been waived .
Meanwhile , Ministers and civil servants had to pick their way through the claims of those queueing up to offer help – with normal processes suspended and less scope for the undertaking of due diligence .
And inevitably , human nature comes into play .
One of its most primal impulses is that which ceaselessly urges : cover your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for people they can trust : who won ’ t brief , leak , or resign in a fit of pique and sell their story .
Which brings us to Bingham and Harding .
On the one hand , we ’ re not impressed by the argument that neither have public sector experience , let alone in the fields to which they were appointed .
For the fact is that the institutional public sector , in the form of Public Health England , performed poorly during this crisis .
Meanwhile , it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vaccines – and which must share the responsibility of ensuring that they work properly .
On the other , a selection process conducted in normal circumstances might well not have settled on the spouses of two Conservative MPs .
The question is whether it was reasonable for the appointments to have been made in those which are abnormal .
The same consideration applies to the purchase of PPE , the appointment of advisers – and so on .
All in all , we have a lot of sympathy for Ministers and civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the no-win game of heads you lose ; tails you lose .
At the same time , Downing Street has not exactly been a model of seamless efficiency since the general election – as Boris Johnson ’ s quest for a Chief of Staff effectively concedes .
These claims , counter-claims , disputation and controversy are a mass of waters that are surging downstream towards an outlet , in much the same way that a river winds its eventual way to the sea .
Eventually , the pandemic will recede – and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The whole caboodle will be probed so that , as classic mandarin-speak would have it , “ lessons can be learned ” .

During the last few years, ConservativeHome published a series of pieces by an author about a subject. They were perfectly good articles in their own right.
It became clear to us after a while that the author had a double agenda. The person in question had something interesting to say on the matter, and also hoped to advise the Government about it. Nothing wrong with that.
When the Coronavirus pandemic first broke, last spring, our former author complained to the site. He or she had offered help free to the Government. E-mails had been sent and phone calls made. There had been no response.
This was disgraceful, we were told: Ministers and civil servants were asleep on the job. Incompetence, unresponsiveness, idleness – etc.
This tale may be a serviceable introduction to the mass of stories swirling around the media about alleged Ministerial and governmental cronyism (claimed openly) and corruption (suggested covertly).
The most prominent are the appointments of Dido Harding as head of the NHS Test and Trace programme and Kate Bingham as Chair of the UK Vaccines Taskforce.
There is a cluster of others about appointments and contracts – the most striking of the latter being the £250 million PPE one awarded to a jewellry designer who is based in Florida.
A sign of the times is that our old friend the bloke in the kimono with the baseball bat and the dead fox is in court again or thereabouts, arguing that Harding’s appointment is in breach of (you guessed it) the Equality Act.
The best way of thinking one’s way into the issues is to start with the tale of our former contributor. Come a crisis, a mass of such people come knocking on Westminster and Whitehall’s doors.
Some are public-spirited citizens who want to help. Others are off on an ego trip. Others still are both. Some want nothing in return; others rather fancy an honour.
Some want to make a profit: nothing inherently wrong with that, either. Some have something to offer, others not much, others nothing at all.
And in modern times, there has been no crisis of the nature and on the scale as the Coronavirus. It has skewered Ministers and departments on a Morton’s Fork.
The first prong is that of moving too slowly. If government doesn’t get its finger out, and speed up the purchasing of vital equipment (for example), Ministers are accused of letting people die unnecessarily.
The second prong is that of moving too fast. If government gets that move on instead, and rushes to buy that equipment, the peacetime equivalent of the fog of war engulfs Whitehall.
Ministers are consequently accused of ripping off the taxpayer. Almost inevitably, Coronavirus has seen them charged with both.
The scramble for ventilators is a classic instance of government being pricked by both prongs; for these were first clamoured for as urgently required, and later denounced as over-hyped.
There is a parallel with Treasury support for the self-employed – since there are fewer means of assessing how much self-employed people are being paid
Policy Exchange has wrung an entire report out of public sector fraud during Covid-19, estimating some £4.6 million worth of it.
The Government’s problems will not have been helped by some of its usual suppliers complaining that bidders for contracts have not been restrained by normal procedures, which have been waived.
Meanwhile, Ministers and civil servants had to pick their way through the claims of those queueing up to offer help – with normal processes suspended and less scope for the undertaking of due diligence.
And inevitably, human nature comes into play. One of its most primal impulses is that which ceaselessly urges: cover your back.
So Ministers find themselves searching for people they can trust: who won’t brief, leak, or resign in a fit of pique and sell their story.
Which brings us to Bingham and Harding. On the one hand, we’re not impressed by the argument that neither have public sector experience, let alone in the fields to which they were appointed.
For the fact is that the institutional public sector, in the form of Public Health England, performed poorly during this crisis.
(The public sector’s structures are not to be confused with its people: in other words, with the doctors, nurses and other staff who have worked tirelessly, helped to reduce death rates, and saved lives.)
Meanwhile, it is the private sector that is rolling out the vaccines – and which must share the responsibility of ensuring that they work properly.
On the other, a selection process conducted in normal circumstances might well not have settled on the spouses of two Conservative MPs.
The question is whether it was reasonable for the appointments to have been made in those which are abnormal. The same consideration applies to the purchase of PPE, the appointment of advisers – and so on.
All in all, we have a lot of sympathy for Ministers and civil servants who find themselves caught up in the no-win game of heads you lose; tails you lose.
At the same time, Downing Street has not exactly been a model of seamless efficiency since the general election – as Boris Johnson’s quest for a Chief of Staff effectively concedes.
These claims, counter-claims, disputation and controversy are a mass of waters that are surging downstream towards an outlet, in much the same way that a river winds its eventual way to the sea.
Eventually, the pandemic will recede – and it will be time for the inevitable inquiry. The whole caboodle will be probed so that, as classic mandarin-speak would have it, “lessons can be learned”.


conservativehome--2020-11-24--Mak is co-Chair of the new Conservative Party Policy Board

ConservativeHome wrote recently about the appointment of Neil O ’ Brien as a new Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party , and Chair of the Conservative Party ’ s Policy Board – a promotion with wider implications .
We weren ’ t alone in doing so .
The news about our columnist got a lot of publicity , including an interview with him in the Times .
But what has not been evident so far is that there was already a Vice-Chairman of the Party responsible for policy .
Step forward , Alan Mak .
That most missed his own earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these Vice-Chairmen have a way of rapidly coming and going .
At any rate , Mak is still there – and this site is told that he will co-chair the Board with O ’ Brien .
The third MP who will sit on it is John Penrose , who chairs the Conservative Policy Forum .
Another member will arguably carry more weight than any of them : Munira Mirza , the head of the Downing Street Policy Unit .
Her presence on it , and that of Joel Winton , her deputy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be taken seriously .
Iain Carter , who heads up the Conservative Research Department , will also be a member .
And there are to be Parliamentary Party representatives – which raises the question of who these are to be .
ConHome is told that the intention is that they be selected .
( By whom , exactly ? )
We suspect that Graham Brady and the 1922 Committee Executive will have something to say about that .
The ’ 22 had its own elected policy committees during the run-up to the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mak has neither run a think-tank nor served as a SpAd – let alone as a senior one in George Osborne ’ s Treasury .
Nonetheless , he is no policy slouch : see his pieces on the Fourth Industrial Revolution for this site .
And he was agitating about about ending child hunger almost 18 months ago – well before the Marcus Rashford push .
The twin-hatting arrangement seems awkard to us , and we doubt it will last long .
“ Two stars keep not their motion in one sphere , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ double reign , / Of Harry Percy and the Prince of Wales.
” One or other of these gentlemen will presumably be wafted heavenwards in a blaze of glory during the New Year reshuffle that must surely come… …Unless Boris Johnson has second or third or seventy-seventh thoughts , and puts the whole thing off until after the spring ’ s local elections .

ConservativeHome wrote recently about the appointment of Neil O’Brien as a new Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party, and Chair of the Conservative Party’s Policy Board – a promotion with wider implications.
We weren’t alone in doing so. The news about our columnist got a lot of publicity, including an interview with him in the Times.
But what has not been evident so far is that there was already a Vice-Chairman of the Party responsible for policy. Step forward, Alan Mak.
That most missed his own earlier appointment isn’t surprising, since these Vice-Chairmen have a way of rapidly coming and going.
At any rate, Mak is still there – and this site is told that he will co-chair the Board with O’Brien. The third MP who will sit on it is John Penrose, who chairs the Conservative Policy Forum.
Another member will arguably carry more weight than any of them: Munira Mirza, the head of the Downing Street Policy Unit.
Her presence on it, and that of Joel Winton, her deputy, is a sign that the Board should be taken seriously. Iain Carter, who heads up the Conservative Research Department, will also be a member.
And there are to be Parliamentary Party representatives – which raises the question of who these are to be. ConHome is told that the intention is that they be selected. (By whom, exactly?)
We suspect that Graham Brady and the 1922 Committee Executive will have something to say about that. The ’22 had its own elected policy committees during the run-up to the last election.
Unlike O’Brien, Mak has neither run a think-tank nor served as a SpAd – let alone as a senior one in George Osborne’s Treasury.
Nonetheless, he is no policy slouch: see his pieces on the Fourth Industrial Revolution for this site. And he was agitating about about ending child hunger almost 18 months ago – well before the Marcus Rashford push.
The twin-hatting arrangement seems awkard to us, and we doubt it will last long. “Two stars keep not their motion in one sphere, / Nor can one England brook a double reign, / Of Harry Percy and the Prince of Wales.”
One or other of these gentlemen will presumably be wafted heavenwards in a blaze of glory during the New Year reshuffle that must surely come…
…Unless Boris Johnson has second or third or seventy-seventh thoughts, and puts the whole thing off until after the spring’s local elections.


conservativehome--2020-11-24--Radical: This new inquiry into the Gender Recognition Act reform affects us all – and there are just

Radical: This new inquiry into the Gender Recognition Act reform affects us all – and there are just days left to have your say

Rebecca Lowe is the former director of FREER , and a former assistant editor of ConservativeHome .
She is co-founder of Radical .
She and Victoria Hewson , her co-founder , alternate authorship of this fortnightly column on trans , sex and gender issues , and are co-authors of the article below .
Our aim for this coming week is to finalise the Radical submission to the Women and Equalities Committee ’ s new inquiry into Gender Recognition Act reform .
You may have read our last column , in which we called for the urgent replacement of this committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the grounds that it has clearly been captured by a single-issue political campaign , and as such is incapable of properly holding the state to account on the important matters within its remit .
We proposed that it should be replaced by a Civil Rights and Freedoms Committee , which would focus on fundamental questions of equality before the law — tackling everything from citizenship to levelling up — instead of the grouping of people by particular identities .
We stand by this proposal , and will be writing more in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nevertheless , like many who are frustrated by the WESC — in general , and regarding its revisiting of GRA reform , in particular — we feel it ’ s important to make a submission to this inquiry .
This is in large part because these inquiries often risk suffering from a form of self-selection bias , in which many of those submitting evidence hold extremely similar views to those of the people who ’ ve set up the inquiry .
This is especially so when a committee has been captured by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad state of affairs for many reasons , mostly relating to the crucial role that proper democratic deliberation should play within a free society .
Being a member of a democracy shouldn ’ t just mean having the opportunity to vote every few years : being able to inform decision-making isn ’ t just for ( every fourth ) Christmas .
So we hope our submission will , at least , help to provide some much-needed balance .
So , here we are thinking about GRA reform once again .
Regular readers of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this topic many times , culminating in our relief at the momentous news , back in September , that Liz Truss had confirmed that the “ self-ID ” proposals originally put forward by the May government in 2018 would not be taken forward .
We were pleased by this news because , while we strongly believe that people should be free to present themselves in line with whatever “ gender ” stereotypes they wish — as long as doing so causes no harm to others — this should not entail making the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a matter of personal preference .
As we have explained over the past year in these columns , bringing in self-ID would undermine the important concept of scientific truth , do away with single-sex services and spaces , and put women at serious risk of harm .
We have also been keen to emphasise , however , the way in which the battle over self-ID shone a light on the generally dismal state of law and policy concerning sex and gender .
We have long been calling for the Government Equalities Office and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reassignment and sex under the Equality Act .
A fortnight ago , we explained our frustration at the WESC ’ s ongoing existence in its current form , and its revisiting of the topic of GRA reform .
The WESC addressed this topic in detail back in 2016 , and doing so again seems , at best , a poor use of taxpayer resources .
But , let ’ s turn to the inquiry .
Its terms of reference are available here , and include such questions as : • Should there be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have lived in their acquired gender for at least two years ?
• Should the requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria be removed ?
• What impact will these proposed changes have on those people applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate , and on trans people more generally ?
• Why is the number of people applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate so low compared to the number who identify as transgender ?
• Are the Equality Act provisions for single/separate sex spaces and facilities clear and useable ?
If not , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Now , evidently some of these questions simply represent a re-run of the WESC ’ s 2015-16 inquiry , which ended up calling for reform of the GRA .
The questions about the clarity and usefulness of guidance on the Equality Act ( EA ) are welcome , however .
It is clear that misconceptions and misunderstandings of the EA are widespread , and are often encouraged by gender-identity-activist organisations and public-sector bodies that have been captured by that lobby .
Even Caroline Nokes , the chair of the WESC , shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Last week , in response to a question posed during a webinar hosted by the Tory Reform Group , she exclaimed that the EA has no relevance to men .
Can it really be the case that the chair of the WESC doesn ’ t understand that the EA protects people from discrimination on the grounds of sex , whether their sex is male or female ?
Nokes also showed a shocking disregard for the risks arising from housing male prisoners who identify as female in women ’ s prisons — flippantly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerns for the safety of women prisoners stem from only one , isolated , case ( presumably , referring to this one ) .
And judging all trans women prisoners by reference to a single case of a male rapist sent to a women ’ s prison was , Nokes claimed , like judging all doctors by reference to Harold Shipman .
That a self-declared equalities champion , and chair of the Women and Equalities Committee ( note the foregrounding of the term “ women ” , here ) is seemingly unaware that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ male prisoners housed in women ’ s prisons — many of whom are dangerous sex offenders — is troubling .
Moreover , the Prison Service ’ s policy on trans prisoners is currently subject to judicial review , on the basis that it is unfair to the vulnerable women who are incarcerated alongside male-born criminals .
If someone in Nokes ’ position has such a poor understanding of law and policy in the field — and spreads incorrect and incomplete information , so casually — then what chance do public servants and private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the WESC consultation of new legal protections for gender-fluid and non-binary people , which would extend the committee ’ s own remit in that respect , is concerning , therefore , not least given that its members clearly already struggle with their brief as it stands .
Other moments in the Nokes webinar were similarly disturbing .
From her general question-evading , to the moralising intimation that submissions focusing on single-sex risk were ‘ ignorant ’ and ‘ offensive ’ , to the callous way in which she spoke of foreign-born homeless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it was often quite hard to watch .
We fear this underlines the way in which the WESC has been captured .
If Nokes is simply not up to the job , then that ’ s one thing .
If she is seeking to misrepresent law , then that is quite another .
Either way , the inquiry ’ s questions need answers .
And these answers should come from a wide range of interested parties : these are matters that affect us all .
You ’ ve got until Friday to @ @ @ @

Rebecca Lowe is the former director of FREER, and a former assistant editor of ConservativeHome. She is co-founder of Radical. She and Victoria Hewson, her co-founder, alternate authorship of this fortnightly column on trans, sex and gender issues, and are co-authors of the article below.
Our aim for this coming week is to finalise the Radical submission to the Women and Equalities Committee’s new inquiry into Gender Recognition Act reform. You may have read our last column, in which we called for the urgent replacement of this committee (the “WESC”), on the grounds that it has clearly been captured by a single-issue political campaign, and as such is incapable of properly holding the state to account on the important matters within its remit.
We proposed that it should be replaced by a Civil Rights and Freedoms Committee, which would focus on fundamental questions of equality before the law — tackling everything from citizenship to levelling up — instead of the grouping of people by particular identities. We stand by this proposal, and will be writing more in the coming weeks to strengthen our case.
Nevertheless, like many who are frustrated by the WESC — in general, and regarding its revisiting of GRA reform, in particular — we feel it’s important to make a submission to this inquiry. This is in large part because these inquiries often risk suffering from a form of self-selection bias, in which many of those submitting evidence hold extremely similar views to those of the people who’ve set up the inquiry.
This is especially so when a committee has been captured by a political movement; it is a clearly bad state of affairs for many reasons, mostly relating to the crucial role that proper democratic deliberation should play within a free society. Being a member of a democracy shouldn’t just mean having the opportunity to vote every few years: being able to inform decision-making isn’t just for (every fourth) Christmas. So we hope our submission will, at least, help to provide some much-needed balance.
So, here we are thinking about GRA reform once again. Regular readers of this column will have read our thoughts on this topic many times, culminating in our relief at the momentous news, back in September, that Liz Truss had confirmed that the “self-ID” proposals originally put forward by the May government in 2018 would not be taken forward.
We were pleased by this news because, while we strongly believe that people should be free to present themselves in line with whatever “gender” stereotypes they wish — as long as doing so causes no harm to others — this should not entail making the determination of one’s legal sex a matter of personal preference.
As we have explained over the past year in these columns, bringing in self-ID would undermine the important concept of scientific truth, do away with single-sex services and spaces, and put women at serious risk of harm.
We have also been keen to emphasise, however, the way in which the battle over self-ID shone a light on the generally dismal state of law and policy concerning sex and gender. We have long been calling for the Government Equalities Office and the EHRC to clarify guidance on gender reassignment and sex under the Equality Act.
A fortnight ago, we explained our frustration at the WESC’s ongoing existence in its current form, and its revisiting of the topic of GRA reform. The WESC addressed this topic in detail back in 2016, and doing so again seems, at best, a poor use of taxpayer resources. But, let’s turn to the inquiry. Its terms of reference are available here, and include such questions as:
Should there be changes to the requirement for individuals to have lived in their acquired gender for at least two years?
Should the requirement for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria be removed?
What impact will these proposed changes have on those people applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate, and on trans people more generally?
Why is the number of people applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate so low compared to the number who identify as transgender?
Are the Equality Act provisions for single/separate sex spaces and facilities clear and useable? If not, do we need reform or further guidance?
Now, evidently some of these questions simply represent a re-run of the WESC’s 2015-16 inquiry, which ended up calling for reform of the GRA. The questions about the clarity and usefulness of guidance on the Equality Act (EA) are welcome, however. It is clear that misconceptions and misunderstandings of the EA are widespread, and are often encouraged by gender-identity-activist organisations and public-sector bodies that have been captured by that lobby.
Even Caroline Nokes, the chair of the WESC, shows a lamentably bad understanding of the EA. Last week, in response to a question posed during a webinar hosted by the Tory Reform Group, she exclaimed that the EA has no relevance to men. Can it really be the case that the chair of the WESC doesn’t understand that the EA protects people from discrimination on the grounds of sex, whether their sex is male or female?
Nokes also showed a shocking disregard for the risks arising from housing male prisoners who identify as female in women’s prisons — flippantly (and wrongly) asserting that such concerns for the safety of women prisoners stem from only one, isolated, case (presumably, referring to this one). And judging all trans women prisoners by reference to a single case of a male rapist sent to a women’s prison was, Nokes claimed, like judging all doctors by reference to Harold Shipman.
That a self-declared equalities champion, and chair of the Women and Equalities Committee (note the foregrounding of the term “women”, here) is seemingly unaware that there are currently at least 139 trans-identifying male prisoners housed in women’s prisons — many of whom are dangerous sex offenders — is troubling.
Moreover, the Prison Service’s policy on trans prisoners is currently subject to judicial review, on the basis that it is unfair to the vulnerable women who are incarcerated alongside male-born criminals. If someone in Nokes’ position has such a poor understanding of law and policy in the field — and spreads incorrect and incomplete information, so casually — then what chance do public servants and private business people have?
The prospect raised in the WESC consultation of new legal protections for gender-fluid and non-binary people, which would extend the committee’s own remit in that respect, is concerning, therefore, not least given that its members clearly already struggle with their brief as it stands.
Other moments in the Nokes webinar were similarly disturbing. From her general question-evading, to the moralising intimation that submissions focusing on single-sex risk were ‘ignorant’ and ‘offensive’, to the callous way in which she spoke of foreign-born homeless people as a ‘complex cohort’, it was often quite hard to watch. We fear this underlines the way in which the WESC has been captured. If Nokes is simply not up to the job, then that’s one thing. If she is seeking to misrepresent law, then that is quite another.
Either way, the inquiry’s questions need answers. And these answers should come from a wide range of interested parties: these are matters that affect us all. You’ve got until Friday to have your say.