Markus Andrews

A House of Lords committee has been criticised for inviting a “fringe” group which campaigns against climate action to give evidence on carbon policy.The Global Warming Policy Foundation was invited by peers to give evidence to an inquiry on reaching net zero and appeared before them on Tuesday.But environmental groups questioned why the committee would “waste their valuable time” hearing from the organisation, which they said had been “so widely and repeatedly found to be wrong”.The GWPF has previously been admonished by the Charity Committee for breaking rules on impartiality and has been described as the country’s most prominent source of climate-change denial. The organisation falsely claims that there is no scientific consensus on climate change, describing the facts as “contested”. It campaigns against renewable energy and says it is “deeply concerned about the costs” of climate action.It says it does not officially take a view on climate climate science and that its members “cover a broad range of different views, from the IPCC position through agnosticism to outright scepticism”.The House of Lords industry and regulators committee invited John Constable, the organisation’s energy editor, to give evidence on net zero and the energy market at a session on Tuesday afternoon.Mr Constable, who has claimed environmentalism is “in a state of physical and moral collapse”, argues against wind power because he says it is not “affordable and proportional to the risk” from climate change.The GWPF does not disclose its funders but says it is “overwhelmingly by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts”. It says it rejects donations from the energy industry, though it is not possible to verify this. Mr Constable told the peers on Tuesday: “In our view the climate policies don’t pass any of these tests… the abatement cost is extremely high in relation to the threat as far as we understand it, and they are unaffordable in themselves and therefore unlikely to be sustainable in the long term.”Rebecca Newsom, head of politics at Greenpeace UK said: “From the plummeting cost of renewables to the science behind the climate crises, the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s views have been so widely and repeatedly found to be wrong that you really have to question why the Lords would waste their valuable time on them. “It’s an organisation on the far fringes, who have nothing constructive to say to today’s young people worried about the climate crisis and do very little but attempt to derail much needed action. “Parliament voted unanimously for our net zero target two years ago, and there are a huge array of voices who might provide the Lords with more worthwhile guidance on how we meet the challenge.”A spokesperson for the committee said: “The Committee are looking at a number of policy and regulatory impacts of the move to net zero. To do that effectively it will take evidence from witnesses with a broad range of views. The Committee will weigh up all the evidence it receives before making any recommendations.”The UN climate watchdog the IPCC last month issued a “code red” warning demanding immediate climate action. Global surface temperatures are over 1 C higher between 2011-2020 the between 1850 and 1900, while the past five years have been the hottest on record since 1850. The recent rate of sea level rise has nearly tripled compared to 1901 – 1971 and is is “virtually certain” that hot extremes including heatwaves have been more intensive since the 1950s. More

Ministers have been warned that without new measures to damp down Covid-19 infections, hospital admissions could soon soar beyond the peak seen at the start of 2021 to as many as 7,000 a day.And chief medical officer Prof Chris Whitty said that the NHS could get into trouble in its first winter with the Delta variant, even without the emergence of a new coronavirus strain with resistance to vaccines.The warnings came as Boris Johnson said he was “confident” that the UK could get through the autumn and winter without the return of lockdown restrictions – though he set out a “plan B” which could see mandatory face masks, Covid passports and guidance to work from home reintroduced in the case of an upsurge in cases, admissions and deaths.One expert warned that, with positive cases currently running at around eight times higher than at this time last year, any delay in imposing new measures could make it “impossible to close the stable door before the horse bolts”.And a poll by Savanta ComRes suggested that the public is ready for tough action to clamp down on the current resurgence in the disease, with 51 per cent saying they would back a two-week “firebreak” lockdown in October to stop cases rising from their current level.Mr Johnson unveiled the government’s winter plan for coronavirus shortly after scientific advisers gave the green light to the blanket vaccination of teenagers aged 12 to 15 along with booster jabs for over-50s, whose protection may be waning after as long as nine months since their second dose.In a Downing Street press conference, the prime minister left no doubt that the vaccine was now at the heart of his plan to keep the virus under control, urging those who have been “apathetic” about coming forward for their shot to do so now.He made clear he hopes to avoid the limited restrictions contained in his plan B. If necessary, they would be introduced in a “graduated” way and not necessarily at the same time, he said, arguing: “We’re now in a situation when, because so many of the population have some degree of immunity, smaller changes in the way we’re asking people to behave can have a bigger impact.”The objective of the winter plan was to “prevent the overwhelming of the NHS” while preserving the freedoms needed to boost economic growth and jobs, he said.But Prof Whitty stressed that the NHS was already under pressure, which was likely to worsen as students go back to schools and universities, more people return to the office, and winter brings the usual seasonal wave of infectious diseases such as flu.“We have not faced a winter with the Delta variant,” said the chief medical officer.“So it is possible that the combination of winter events, plus the Delta variant, which is highly transmissible, could lead to a situation where, on the basis of the data, ministers decide that they want to trigger all or some of the plan B.”And chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance said that any tightening of restrictions would have to be done quickly to be effective.Warning that the pandemic is currently at a “pivot point”, Sir Patrick said that if the situation worsens, ministers must “go early” with restrictions.“You have to go earlier than you want to, you have to go harder than you think you want to,” he told the press conference.They were speaking shortly after the release of minutes from a meeting on 8 September of modellers from the government’s Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (Sage), who warned that hospitalisations could rise within weeks from the current 1,000 to between 2,000 and 7,000 a day – potentially outstripping the 4,500 daily admissions that placed intense pressure on NHS capacity during the period of harsh lockdown restrictions in January.The modelling sub-group warned of “the potential for another large wave of hospitalisations” driven by the winding down of work-from-home practices, which have played “a very important role in preventing sustained epidemic growth in recent months”.The current levels of high prevalence, combined with seasonal pressures and behaviour changes as society reopens, could mean “a very difficult winter ahead” for the NHS, the group said.The latest official figures showed 185 deaths, 1,009 hospital admissions and 26,628 positive tests reported on 14 September.While the rate of reproduction of the disease – the R rate – is now around 0.9 to 1.1 in England, the return to schools and offices could mean the rate being increased to as much as 1.5, translating to 7,000 or more hospital admissions a day by mid-October, said the group.A “basket of measures” such as mandatory face masks, Covid passes and encouraging homeworking would be sufficient to keep the epidemic flat if enacted while hospitalisations remain at a “manageable” level, said the group.But it warned that if their introduction was delayed until admission numbers were rising fast, “much more stringent – and therefore more disruptive – measures would be needed to bring prevalence down quickly”.Microbiologist Simon Clarke, associate professor at the University of Reading, said that the government was once again relying on the public to limit its own interactions before enforcing regulations, a strategy which had failed to prevent earlier spikes in the disease.“These measures have been a poor way of controlling the coronavirus because by the time they’ve been imposed, it’s always been too late and the virus is so common in society that it takes a long time to get back under control,” said Dr Clarke. “With such very high numbers of community infections, things could get out of hand very quickly and it may prove impossible to close the stable door before the horse bolts.”Prof Whitty took a swipe at anti-vaxxers, such as singer Nicki Minaj, who spread false rumours about the supposed dangers of the vaccine.He said it was “depressing” to see unvaccinated people ending up seriously ill when the protection offered by the jab was so clear.“If you just do a very crude look at the numbers, someone who is in their 30s and unvaccinated is running about the same risk as someone in their 70s who is vaccinated,” said Prof Whitty. “It’s that level of difference.“One of the most depressing things for doctors, including myself, is talking to people who have just chosen not to get vaccinated because it wasn’t convenient at that particular moment, and you see them being wheeled down to intensive care, and you know this was a very serious problem as a result of them not being vaccinated.” More

The £12bn-a-year tax hike to rescue the NHS and social care has been backed by MPs, but ministers were warned they would have to “relax all immigration requirements” to make the plan a reality.In a highly unusual move, the health and social care levy is expected to clear all its Commons stages in a single day, even though the national insurance rise will not kick in until next April.Just six Conservative MPs opposed the legislation at its second reading, only one more than in the first vote on the motion last week – despite several voicing strong opposition.One Tory MP, John Baron, said he could not support a bill that would “cost jobs” while also lowering pay and resulting in higher prices.John Redwood, a former cabinet minister, said of the tax increase: “This is too soon … to start breaking the economy. The growth rate almost disappeared in the last month.”And another Conservative backbencher, Craig Mackinlay, said: “My sadness is we are just reaching for the tax lever. That’s not what Conservatives do. We are going to end up with a tax take at the highest level of GDP for 70 years.”Jeremy Hunt, the Conservative former health secretary, criticised Labour and the Liberal Democrats for refusing to back the tax rise – but warned that a “workforce plan” was also needed.“If you put an extra £8bn into the NHS but you don’t have £8bn worth of additional doctors and nurses to do the extra treatments, the risk is that that money will hit the ground without touching the sides,” he told ministers.Mr Hunt pointed to experts warning that 4,000 more doctors and 18,000 more nurses will be needed, adding: “But we have not had any workforce plan.“I suspect, in the short term, we will have to relax all the immigration requirements for doctors and nurses, which is not great for developing countries but may well be our only choice.”Although the plan is billed as a measure aimed at ending the social care crisis, only £5.4bn of the £36bn to be raised over three years is for care, with the NHS grabbing around £25bn, and £6bn going to the devolved governments.Furthermore, the Treasury acknowledged that the £5.4bn is largely for “implementing” the new caps and floors, and for ensuring that local councils pay more to those providing residential care.Lifetime care payments will be capped at £86,000 from October 2023, to allow homeowners facing “catastrophic” care costs for conditions such as dementia to pass on their properties to their children.No one with assets below £20,000 will pay any social care costs – but, although there is a “floor” of £100,000, people with assets between £20,000 and that amount will contribute on a sliding scale.The Liberal Democrats warned that the October 2023 date for the care cap would cause a “massive cliff edge” as people “avoid coming forward for care” before that date in order to avoid bills.But Steve Barclay, the Treasury chief secretary, said the levy would “provide the additional funding to the NHS so that it can recover from the pandemic”.He added: “In addition, our social care plan will create a dramatically expanded safety net for people in their later life.” More

China’s ambassador to the UK has been barred from parliament in retaliation for sanctions imposed against MPs who have spoken out about his government.Beijing sparked outrage in March when punished critics, including former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith, who have attacked its cruel treatment of Uyghurs Muslims.Zheng Zeguang, the ambassador, was due at parliament on Wednesday – but Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle and his counterpart in the Lords, John McFall, have blocked him from attending a meeting.Sir Lindsay said it was not “appropriate for the ambassador for China to meet on the Commons estate and in our place of work when his country has imposed sanctions against some of our members”.“If those sanctions were lifted, then of course this would not be an issue,” the Speaker told MPs.“I am not saying the meeting cannot go ahead – I am just saying it cannot take place here while those sanctions remain in place.”Lord McFall’s spokeswoman confirmed that he agreed the meeting “should take place elsewhere considering the current sanctions against members”.Britain, the US, Canada and the European Union slapped sanctions on Chinese officials deemed responsible for human rights abuses in Xinjiang, in a coordinated action in March.The action followed reports of one million people detained without trial and widespread claims of torture and rape in camps in the province.In retaliation, the Chinese announced it would “sanction nine individuals and four entities on the UK side that maliciously spread lies and disinformation”.Also on the list were fellow Tory MPs Tom Tugendhat, Neil O’Brien, Tim Loughton and Nusrat Ghani, Labour peer Helena Kennedy, Liberal Democrat peer David Alton, the China Research Group, Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, Uyghur Tribunal, and Essex Court Chambers.“As of today, the individuals concerned and their immediate family members are prohibited from entering the mainland, Hong Kong and Macao of China, their property in China will be frozen, and Chinese citizens and institutions will be prohibited from doing business with them. China reserves the right to take further measures,” the statement said.Sir Iain and a group of his sanctioned colleagues welcomed the ban on the ambassador, saying allowing him to enter would have been “an insult to parliament”.“We the sanctioned welcome the strong principled stand made by the Speaker and Lord Speaker in standing up for freedom of speech in the mother of parliaments by supporting those parliamentarians who have been sanctioned by China,” they said.But Richard Graham, the Tory MP who chairs the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on China – which organised the talk – criticised the move, saying it was “very important” for the group to engage. More

Britain is facing the twin spectres of atrocities carried out by jihadis, who have been emboldened by the triumph of the Taliban, and hostile states seeking to suppress freedom on a scale not seen since the 1930s, a senior military officer has warned. The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan has given Islamist groups around the world greater confidence, resulting in terrorist attacks being more likely, while giving a boost to political Islam, said General Sir Patrick Sanders. At the same time, he continued, authoritarian regimes in countries like Russia and China are seeking to subvert and challenge the international rules-based order using strategies that have the same effect as a modern day “blitzkrieg”. Gen Sanders, the chief of Strategic Command, said that the “outcome in Afghanistan may not be the one we were seeking” but “we made a difference while we were there”. The need now, he said, was to adjust to what had happened and act accordingly.Speaking at the DSEI ( Defence and Security Equipment International) conference in London, Gen Sanders said it was imperative to focus on the threats Britain faces in an increasingly dangerous and uncertain time.“The threat isn’t diminishing. In fact, the security outlook is more perilous than it was 2 years ago,” he said.“We are now facing the twin spectre of emboldened jihadi terrorists and something not seen since the 1930s – a growing authoritarian zeitgeist that celebrates the suppression of political and individual freedom as a better way to govern. “This ideology is intersecting with geopolitics, and driving great power competition, as these autocratic regimes subvert and challenge the international order and adopt bold risk-taking strategies.”Gen Sanders continued: “What links these authoritarian regimes – let’s name them: Russia and China – are two things.” First, he said, was a drive to achieve victory without fighting by using political warfare, and the second was a desire to expand warfare into the domains of space and the cyber world.The adversaries, said Gen Sanders, are following “an approach to modernisation that pursues the exploitation of disruptive information-age technologies, and allying that with winning operational concepts that seek to have the same impact as blitzkrieg. It is nothing less than a race for advantage in the defining technologies of the future.”“Under its ‘Made in China 2025’ strategy, China has openly and explicitly declared the ambition to dominate these technology frontiers,” said Gen Sanders. More

The government has advised people against making family reunion applications for their loved ones in Afghanistan to join them in the UK.The move has been described as “devastating” by charity Safe Passage, which campaigns for safe routes to the UK for refugees.The charity has said that is has received more than 200 enquiries from people in Afghanistan or their families, and that more than half the enquiries are specifically about for family reunion.The scheme, which has been closed for the time being, is one of the few safe routes available to people fleeing Afghanistan after the Taliban returned to power last month after 20 years.Furthermore, making applications has been made almost impossible by the closure of the British embassy in Kabul and diplomatic staff having been evacuated after the Taliban’s takeover.To complete an application for family reunion, family members must attend a Visa Application Centre (VAC) to have biometrics taken, submit a passport or identity document, and collect the decision. With the embassy in Kabul closed, the closest VACs are hundreds of miles away in other countries. Safe Passage is urging the government to “keep this vital safe route open, and support families to reunite.”It advises the government to do this by accepting applications, and being flexible in when and how biometric data is received. The charity suggests that the government makes decisions on any applications first and, if an application is provisionally approved, then requiring biometric data to be sent via mobile biometric units or through a third country.Beth Gardiner-Smith, CEO of Safe Passage International, said: “Stopping family reunion now is a betrayal of Afghan refugees in their time of need. “Every day, we’re hearing from families in Britain desperate to help their loved ones trapped in Afghanistan. “Without family reunion, we will see many more children forced to risk their lives attempting dangerous journeys to reach safety and family in the UK in the coming months. “The government must urgently re-think this position and provide the flexibility in the application process needed to allow families safe passage to reunite with their relatives here.”Currently, the government is asking Afghan people to not make applications or pay application fees, because it says they “will not be considered until biometrics are provided” – according to a Home Office policy statement published on Monday.However, it acknowledges the difficulty of making applications by saying that “there is currently no option to give biometrics in Afghanistan.”In the House of Commons on Monday, Labour MP Diane Abbott pressed Victoria Atkins on the issue, saying that many British passport holders would be “very shocked” to learn that the government cannot offer them help for their “relatives trapped in Afghanistan”.Ms Abbott said: “Perhaps she should write to us and say she has no information. At least that would help shed some light for constituents.”Ms Atkins, minister for Afghan resettlement, said: “For those people in Afghanistan at the moment, it is a very fast-moving situation. “At this point in time, I am not able to signpost constituents and parliamentarians in the way that I would normally be able to do, and that is one of the tough messages I have had to deliver today from the Dispatch Box. “That does not mean that that will remain the case forever, and that is why the work of the FCDO, the Ministry of Defence and others in trying to secure safe passage out of Afghanistan is so critical.”It comes after Ms Atkins told MPs to stop asking for help on behalf of people stranded in Afghanistan as the government will not be able to respond to their requests.In a letter to MPs, seen by The Independent, the Home Office minister told her parliamentary colleagues to tell people to instead visit the government website.The move was described as “utterly disgraceful” by the Liberal Democrats, who warned that Afghans trapped in their homes in fear of the Taliban had “lost one of their last lifelines”.But Ms Atkins said that Britain’s lack of troops or an embassy in Afghanistan represent a “new reality”, and that the government “cannot provide to MPs assessments or updates on those individuals who remain in Afghanistan and whose cases they have raised”.Just a fortnight ago, Ms Atkins had urged Afghan people to come to the UK via “legal” routes if they want to access support in Britain.“Our message has been, please, please do not travel here illegally,” she said as she set out the resettlement plans – named Operation Warm Welcome by the Home Office. More

Police leaders have said they are “disappointed” after the home secretary dropped out of a major conference amid a row over a pay freeze.Priti Patel was expected to address the Police Superintendents’ Association (PSA) conference in person on Tuesday but sent a pre-recorded video that said she could not travel to the event because of “crucial votes” in parliament.“This has been a privilege to join your conference today, I value my interactions with policing,” the home secretary added.The hundreds-strong crowd of officers and delegates did not applaud after her address, which defended the decision not to increase police officers’ pay because of “tough choices” in the pandemic.Relations had previously soured over the government’s decision not to prioritise police officers for vaccination, rapidly changing and unclear coronavirus legislation and the political response to the policing of different protests. Chief Superintendent Paul Griffiths, president of the PSA, said it was “disappointing” that Ms Patel did not attend the conference and accused the government of “failing officers and staff”.It comes as the association takes legal action against the government over police pension changes it alleges are disciminatory.The PSA said it was informed that Ms Patel, who previously confirmed her attendance, could not make her booked slot on Friday after it sent the Home Office excerpts of Ch Supt Griffiths’ comments.It offered the home secretary alternative times to speak over the three-day conference, running from Monday to Wednesday, or the opportunity to speak via a live video call but was told that only the pre-recorded message was possible.John Apter, the chair of the Police Federation, wrote on Twitter: “Very disappointing that the home secretary has not attended.”He said that he had been due to meet Ms Patel on Thursday, but the meeting had been cancelled by the Home Office.Labour’s shadow home secretary, Nick Thomas-Symonds, was invited to speak in the home secretary’s former slot.Asked by an audience member why he was not prevented from attending the conference by the same parliamentary business as Ms Patel, he said a vote pairing system could have been used. More

A first winter with the “highly transmissible” Delta variant could trigger a Covid surge severe enough to require fresh restrictions, Chris Whitty is warning.The chief medical officer said it might not require the arrival of an even more dangerous variant – one that evades vaccine immunity – to force Boris Johnson into his ‘Plan B’.That package of reserve measures includes barring non-vaccinated people from crowded venues, the return of compulsory mask-wearing and work from home guidance.“We have not faced a winter with the Delta variant,” Professor Whitty told a Downing Street press conference.‘So it is possible that the combination of winter events plus the Delta variant, which is highly transmissible, could lead to a situation where, on basis of the data, ministers decide that they wanted to trigger all or some of the Plan B.”Alongside him, the prime minister played down the prospects of fresh restrictions, insisting the current situation is encouraging and saying: “We are sticking with our strategy.”Even if curbs were needed, they were unlikely to be introduced altogether, but would happen “in a graduated way”. Plan B had “a number of different shots in the locker,” Mr Johnson said.Professor Whitty also went further than the prime minister who said people should “consider wearing a face covering in crowded places with people that you don’t know”.The medical chief said it remained his firm view that masks should be worn to “protect people’ and as a “common courtesy” to others who expected them to be worn.Mr Johnson twice said he was “confident” the Covid could be controlled without fresh restrictions, allowing the economy to stay open and turn jabs jabs jabs into jobs jobs jobs.But Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser, warned the government must react quickly if required – after criticism that previous lockdowns were delayed until it was too late.‘You have to go earlier than you want to, you have to go harder than you think you want to,” he told the press conference.On so-called “vaccine passports – after the type of events that the unjabbed will be denied entry to, if necessary, was set out – Mr Johnson said he believed they would not be necessary.However, he acknowledged it might become a choice between imposing vaccine certificates and shutting down events altogether.“Of course I understand the frustrations of people wondering whether or not they’re going to have to put this in. At the moment we’re confident that you will be able to proceed without it,” he said.“The reason for wanting to have this option is because it’s a choice between proceeding with Covid-19 certification or, sadly, once again asking places to close, and I certainly don’t want to do that. That’s why I think it’s a good idea to keep this in reserve.” More