Markus Andrews

Campaigners have criticised the government for scrapping a planned fuel duty rise, saying the freeze on petrol and diesel taxes for the twelfthyear in a row amounted to a subsidy for drivers of polluting vehicles just days before the UK hosts a major climate summit. Rishi Sunak announced in the Budget on Wednesday that the planned rise in fuel duty would be cancelled because of high pump prices.The chancellor said he was “not prepared to add to the squeeze on families and small businesses”.The move, which will cost the taxpayer nearly £8bn over the next five years, drew sharp criticism from clean air and active travel advocates, coming just days before the UK hosts the Cop26 climate summit in Glasgow. Jemima Hartshorn, founder of clean air pressure group Mums for Lungs, told The Independent: “The chancellor clearly hasn’t made the connection between the climate emergency, public health, the pandemic and the need for combining all of these in a responsible Budget that addresses future challenges but also ensures the health of children now.”The UK continues to suffer from illegal levels of pollution linked to emissions from the high numbers of cars, taxis and lorries on the roads. Ms Hartshorn said motor vehicle owners “receive much more generous subsidies compared with sustainable means of travel, such as public transport. This needed to be addressed in the Budget so that investment and subsidies from the government ensure that everyone is encouraged to travel in a way that is not polluting and harming our children.”Simon Munk, campaigns manager at the London Cycling Campaign, also criticised the government for the fuel duty U-turn and said the government should focus on discouraging unnecessary car journeys rather than making it cheaper to drive. “We understand that many people are struggling with the cost of living, but with Cop26 looming, and the planetary climate crisis rightly in starker focus than ever before, this announcement is the polar opposite of what the government needs to do to help save our planet and our country from runaway climate change,” he said.“We urgently need to swap the government’s £27bn roads building programme to building active travel and convenient, affordable public transport schemes, and move towards a system of charges that discourages avoidable trips by car, and helps people switch to good, sustainable alternatives. “In London that means a long-term funding deal on active travel and public transport for TfL and the Mayor, and them having the ability to implement ‘smart road-user pricing’ inside the M25.”Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said the fuel duty freeze was a “big tax loss” for the Treasury and “hardly consistent with climate change objectives”.However, warnings about the climate and health impacts of the policy were brushed aside by motorists. At one forecourt in London, drivers told The Independent they welcomed any move to keep prices down. Liz Durham, a dog walker from Clapham Junction, said petrol had become much more expensive since the pandemic. “Filling up my tank cost £58 today,” she said at the Jet petrol station in Loughborough Junction, south London. “When I bought this car three years ago it would never have cost me this much. Prices have gone up a lot recently and the whole thing is such a mess. “Cutting fuel duty will be beneficial to anyone who has to drive, like me. I have to drive for work, the dogs don’t collect themselves.” Samantha Stewart, who lives in nearby Brixton, also backed the fuel duty freeze. “Driving has been very expensive since the whole petrol-gate thing,” she said, referencing the shortages of drivers last month which led many petrol stations to temporarily close after running out of fuel. “I have noticed prices shooting up. If fuel duty had risen it would have affected us financially. £40 on petrol used to go a long way, but not anymore. Those that are less vulnerable should drive less, and more people should walk, but I have long Covid so it is more difficult for me.”RAC fuel spokesman Simon Williams said: “We welcome the chancellor’s confirmation that duty will continue to remain frozen at 57.95p a litre until next year. With pump prices at record highs, now would have been the worst possible time to change tack and hike up costs still further at the forecourt.” More

Rishi Sunak’s announcement that taxes on alcoholic beverages are being slashed might have given parts of the industry reason to celebrate – not least sparkling wine producers, who will see a massive cut in duty – but for punters the reaction has been much more muted. As the chancellor was revealing an overhaul of the UK’s alcohol duty system, which he said would lead to the price of a pint in a pub falling by 3p, those frequenting the beer gardens of south London were far from enthusiastic about the impact it might have.The conclusion drawn by those The Independent spoke to was that the rising cost of living would likely swallow up any savings in duty from Wednesday’s Budget commitment, which included cutting taxes on draught beer and cider and scrapping a planned increase in duty on spirits such as Scotch whisky, wine, cider and beer.“Everything has gone up in price recently, so knocking 3p off a pint really won’t make much of a difference,” said one drinker at The Crooked Well in Camberwell, who asked not to be named.“If it helps pubs that would be something. The way people are drinking now has changed, more are drinking at home, so it would be good if the changes will help address that,” he added, before joking that perhaps it was for the best that prices held steady. “We’re already a nation of alcoholics and this might just push us over the precipice,” he said. Student Olivia Chapp who was with friends in the nearby Joiners Arms said she was “all for” cuts to alcohol duty. “If drinks will be cheaper then ‘yay’,” she said, though the chancellor’s slashing of the duty level of 28 per cent on sparkling wine, champagne, prosecco and cava would not see her popping corks any time soon.“Prices have really risen recently, so it would have to be a lot cheaper before I change what I am drinking,” she said. “Cutting a bit off the price of a bottle of champagne or prosecco won’t make me suddenly go out and buy one.”Away from the pubs, campaigners warned that the Treasury had “missed yet another important opportunity to significantly reduce the harm caused by alcohol” with the commitment to lower duty on many beverages.Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance UK, welcomed the move to tax alcohol primarily based on its strength, but said: “The decision to once again freeze alcohol duty is totally misguided. We are already at crisis point when it comes to alcohol harm. “Deaths caused by alcohol reached record highs in 2020 and making alcohol even cheaper will only deepen the health inequalities that this government had promised to address.”Malcolm Clark, senior cancer prevention policy manager at Cancer Research UK, said the cuts and freezes in alcohol duty risked “sending out the wrong message to the public. There’s no ‘safe’ level of drinking, and whatever your drinking habits, cutting down can reduce your risk of cancer”.Jyotsna Vohra, director of policy at the Royal Society for Public Health, said the decision was “incompatible with the government’s many ambitions to levelling up health, tackling the NHS backlog and reducing crime”, coming after a pandemic which had “only worsened alcohol misuse, with alcohol-specific deaths increasing by 20 per cent”. Dr Richard Piper, CEO of Alcohol Change UK, added: “The chancellor has missed yet another important opportunity to significantly reduce the harm caused by alcohol and to cover the costs of that harm. Instead, he has given a tax break to massive alcohol producers who have continued to see huge profits throughout the pandemic.”This cut will hurt the public purse by further decreasing revenue receipts by £500 million next year alone, and could make cheap booze even more affordable, causing even greater harm”.Elsewhere, reaction from industry was largely, though not entirely, positive.The Society of Independent Brewers said the lower rate of duty for beer sold in pubs was a “huge win for the industry” but warned that most craft keg beer in the UK was sold in 30 litre kegs, meaning they cannot benefit from a new lower rate for draught beer and cider which will only apply to 40 litre containers.But it was good news for Andrew Carter, CEO of English wine producer, Chapel Down, which has vineyards across Kent, Sussex, Surrey and Essex.He said demand for his products had “never been higher” and the chancellor’s pledge to reduce sparkling wine duty to the same level as still wines would make the business “more competitive against our worldwide competitors”. “This change will enable us to reinvest in our business and to continue growing at pace,” he said. “Chapel Down, along with the wider English wine industry, will be raising a toast to the chancellor for his support this week.” More

Freeports will fail to boost the UK economy, the Treasury watchdog says, in a damning verdict on Rishi Sunak’s flagship policy.Eight English ports are being granted controversial tax breaks – to “generate trade and jobs”, the chancellor has claimed – at a cost of £200m, in what has been hailed as a benefit from Brexit.But the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has dismissed the claim in its assessment of the budget and spending review, in an embarrassment to ministers.“We have assumed that the main effect of the freeports will be to alter the location rather than the volume of economic activity,” its report says.“So the costs have been estimated on the basis of activity being displaced from elsewhere.”The verdict adds to criticism that the freeports open the door to corruption, the reason why the the EU is cracking down on the policy.Freeports allow goods to be imported temporarily without tariffs, excise duties and other taxes being paid – before those goods are shipped on again.The eight “freeports” will be created at East Midlands Airport, Felixstowe and Harwich, the Humber region, the Liverpool City Region, Plymouth, Solent, Thames and Teesside.“The government also remains committed to establishing at least one Freeport in each of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland,” the Budget book reads.In March, in his last Budget, Mr Sunak said the policy was a route to “unlocking billions of pounds of private sector investment – generating trade and jobs up and down the country”.He also claimed they were a boost from Brexit, because the UK was constrained as an EU member – even though 7 freeports existed in the UK between the mid-1980s and 2012.Freeports would “encourage free trade and reinforce our position as an outward looking trading nation, open to the world”, he told MPs.But other economic experts have warned the main impact will be to relocate activity and jobs rather than create them.The main beneficiaries would be businesses and the super-rich who took advantage of the tax breaks – while the public was left to pick up the bill for the infrastructure required, one think-tank said. More

Rishi Sunak vowed to help families to meet the rising cost of living and promised a “stronger economy of the future” as he revealed a host of changes in the 2021 Budget. The chancellor announced a planned fuel duty hike would be scrapped and duty on UK domestic flights would be slashed in his statement to parliament on Wednesday.Another key announcement was about changes to alcohol duties, which included a planned rise in duty on spirits, wine, cider and beer would be cancelled. The Budget also contained a rise in the minimum wage from the current £8.91 to £9.50 an hour next year.Extra funding was also announced for schools, childcare and “A Start for Life” parenting programmes. Clearly, there is a lot to consider. But the online calculator below, created by accountants Blick Rothenberg, offers a quick reckoner as to how the latest raft of changes will affect you, broadly speaking.Input a few details and it will offer an indication as to how much better or worse you will be following the chancellor’s announcements. More

France has warned of possible sanctions against Britain including a ban on seafood imports and disrupting trade amid an escalating row over “missing” post-Brexit fishing licences.The retaliatory measures come after ten European countries joined France in condemning the UK government’s approach, expressing frustration over the high barriers set for fisherman to get licences – which they say goes beyond the Brexit agreement.Earlier this month, Emmanuel Macron’s government also threatened to use energy as a way to “put pressure” on the British government, which “depends on our energy supplies”.Unless London grants more licences, Paris suggested it could escalate customs checks and disrupt trade, including “systematic customs and sanitary checks on products brought into France and a ban on landing seafood”.According to Reuters news agency, government spokesperson Gabriel Attal said France was drawing up a list of possible sanctions that could be made public on Thursday and come into effect next week – unless progress is made on licences.“Our patience is reaching its limits,” he said, adding they won’t let Britain “wipe its shoes on the Brexit deal”.Speaking earlier this month, French Europe minister Clement Beaune said the county was exasperated by restrictions on fishing fleets, warning that if diplomatic channels failed to find a solution “we take measures”.The stark comments from the French minister was triggered by a row over access for French fishing fleets to territorial waters around Jersey – a British Crown dependency.Under the deal agreed last year, EU fishermen can continue to access UK waters if they can prove they were previously working in the area.According to The Times, Mr Attal added that around “50 per cent” of licences France has the right to were “missing”, warning: “This is a situation that is not acceptable and I say clear that our patience has run out”.The UK government, however, stressed that “98 per cent of fishing licences have been granted”, adding: “We continue to work with the French government on granting more based on the evidence they provide”. More

Universal Credit claimants will be able to keep more of the benefit as they earn more in a major change announced by the chancellor Rishi Sunak aiming at making sure the government “rewards work”.The government had been heavily criticised for axing the £20-a-week Universal Credit uplift brought in during the pandemic – removing £6bn from the pockets of people on low incomes.But the chancellor used his latest Budget to reveal that the “taper rate” – the amount of Universal Credit taken away for every £1 earned through work – will be changed so less is removed from those in work.So what is the change to the ‘taper rate’?Universal Credit starts to be phased out when you start earning again. If you are getting back into work but are still on Universal Credit, you could be in with a significant windfall because of the taper rate change.For every £1 you earn, your Universal Credit was cut by 63p. This taper rate will now be reduced to 55p – leaving you with an extra 8p per pound to spend.The move, promised no later than December 1, should in theory ease the burden on claimants who are in work and provide them with more of an incentive to increase their hours.Mr Sunak said the previous, higher taper rate amounted to a “hidden tax on work”, claiming his changes were effectively a “tax cut” for low-income families.The chancellor also said the amount that people with limited capability for work can earn before their Universal Credit payments are reduced – known as the work allowance – will be increased by £500 a year.How many people will benefit?Around two million of the 5.8 million households in receipt of Universal Credit are in work, so could benefit from the changes.Mr Sunak claimed the change to the taper rate and work allowance would mean an extra £1,000 a year, on average, for just under two million households.How much is the government spending on the changes?Mr Sunak said the taper rate changes amounted to a “£2bn tax cut” for low-income households. But others have estimated it could cost more.Karl Handscomb, senior economist at the Resolution Foundation, said every 1p reduction in the taper rate would cost the government between £300 and 400m. So an 8p drop could cost the government between £2.4bn and £3.2bn.The changes do not do anything to help people who are not in work. And it does not compensate for the end of the £20-a-week uplift which came into force earlier this month.Labour’s shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves said: “After taking £6bn out of the pockets of some of the poorest people in this country, he is expecting them to cheer today at being given £2bn to compensate.”Morgan Wild, head of policy at Citizens Advice, welcomed the change to the taper. But she said it “doesn’t cushion the blow of the £20-a-week cut for those still looking for work or the 1.7 million unable to work because of disability, health issues or caring responsibilities”. More

A man has been arrested over threats towards the deputy Labour leader Angela Rayner.Greater Manchester Police said they had been investigating a “number of reports after a woman in Ashton-under-Lyne had been receiving multiple threatening and abusive phone calls, emails and letters over recent weeks”.A 52-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of malicious communications in Halifax on Wednesday.Greater Manchester Police said the arrest related to abusive phone calls received on 15 October, the day Sir David Amess was murdered.The suspect has been released on bail and enquiries are ongoing into other perpetrators.Police did not name the victim but Ms Rayner’s office confirmed that she was the target.A spokesperson said: “Angela and her staff have received a number of threatening, malicious and abusive communications in recent weeks. We are working with the police to ensure that the perpetrators of these crimes are brought to justice and Angela would like to thank the police for their work during these investigations.”Abuse and threats of this nature don’t just have an impact on Angela but also on her family, her children and her staff who are on the receiving end of these communications. “Angela is currently on bereavement leave after losing a close loved one and she looks forward to being back at work as soon as possible.”The arrest came amid calls for action over threats and abuse towards MPs following the murder of Sir David. The home secretary commissioned a security review that saw police contact all MPs to check sufficient arrangements were in place.Detective Sergeant Christopher Dean said: “Abusive, threatening or bullying behaviour towards anyone is completely unacceptable and we will always do what we can to ensure those responsible are identified and held accountable for their behaviour.”Although we have arrested one man our investigation very much remains ongoing and we will continue to pursue all available lines of enquiry to identify all those responsible.“Anyone with information is asked to call police via 101, visit the Greater Manchester Police website or contact Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111. More

Universities should not opt for online learning instead of face-to-face teaching to cut costs, a minister has said. In-person teaching has been allowed at universities for all courses since May, after Covid lockdown measures meant some degrees had been online-only for months. But even though there are no longer restrictions on face-to-face learning, a number of universities have decided to keep some virtual elements. Michelle Donelan, the universities minister, said on Wednesday online learning can be useful – but should not be done to keep costs down. “Students are consumers, they do have rights. They should be getting what they’ve been informed they were going to get,” she told the education select committee.“But it’s not as simple as saying online is bad, face-to-face is good, because in some scenarios it can add, but it should never be used as a cost-cutting exercise.”She said some online provision can “enhance learning” and some students have requested it. But she told MPs: “Online should never be used as a cost-cutting exercise or to devalue education or take away from it, and that we’re very clear on.“I’m writing to vice-chancellors this week once again on this matter to reinforce our message on it.”The government has said it expects universities to return to delivering face-to-face teaching, including lectures, now that restrictions have been removed.Professor Tansy Jessop, pro vice-chancellor of the University of Bristol, said around a third of learning was online.She told MPs: “I think if we switched off all our online media they’d be quite anxious.”Other universities which have decided to continue providing some online teaching include the University of Liverpool, the University of Kent and University College London. The University of Portsmouth said students wanted to “keep some of the positive changes” that blended learning offered last year and so were keeping some online components this term. Universities UK, which represents over 100 institutions, said universities are “maximising face-to-face opportunities” this term given the restrictions of the past year, but that some elements, such as large lectures, may still be online “where there are clear benefits for students or for public health reasons”.Additional reporting by Press Association More