Markus Andrews

The vast majority of nurseries have said they do not get enough funding from the government, according to a poll.In a survey of providers, 95 per cent said government funding for three- and four-year-olds did not cover costs. More than 79 per cent also said the rate of funding for two-year-olds was not enough. Most respondents in the poll by the National Day Nurseries Association (NDNA) – 85 per cent – said they expected to either break even or make a loss this year.The NDNA said their survey showed “underfunding is a growing issue” in the sector, which is facing uncertainty around reduced income, increasing operating costs and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. “This is pushing more early years providers into the unsustainable position of operating at a loss,” the charity said in their new report. Purnima Tanuku OBE from the NDNA said the results were the “most shocking” the charity has seen over a decade of member surveys. “Throughout the pandemic, we have highlighted challenges facing nurseries with increased costs and reduced incomes,” the charity’s chief executive said. “But underfunding is a long running issue that must be tackled.”All three- to four-year-olds in England are eligible for 570 free hours of childcare a year, which is often taken as 15 hours a week across 38 weeks. Working families are able to get up to 30 hours a week. For disadvantaged families with a two-year-old child, the government offers 15 hours of funded childcare a week.The government funds 55 per cent of early education and childcare hours across England, according to the NDNA poll. In areas of deprivation, government funding rose to 72 per cent of hours.“The government is the largest purchaser of early education and childcare from providers, and this share is growing according to this survey,” the NDNA said in the report called Stop Underfunding – Start Building Futures. “Any underfunding of these places will have a greater impact on the sustainability of nurseries and the viability of children’s places.”A Department for Education spokesperson said: “We recognise that the pandemic has created challenges for early years providers, which is why we provided significant financial and business support throughout to protect them.”They added: “We have invested more than £3.5bn in childcare in each of the last three years, and we’re making millions more available through our early years recovery work to level up children’s outcomes.” More

The leaders of Canada’s opposition parties criticized Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for calling parliamentary elections during a pandemic, speaking Wednesday night during their second debate of the campaign. Trudeau called the vote last month hoping to win a majority of seats in Parliament but polls indicate his Liberal party could lose power to the Conservatives in the Sept, 20 election. “Why did you call an election, Mr. Trudeau, in the middle of the pandemic,” Conservative leader Erin O’Toole said during the French-language debate. “Canadians need to have a say how we get out of this,” Trudeau responded. Trudeau had wanted to capitalize on the fact that Canada is now one of the most fully vaccinated countries in the world, with more than 77% of Canadians 12 years and older having gotten the coronavirus shots. “We invested enough money to put us at the top of the list in the world,” Trudeau said in French Canada, however, is in a fourth wave of infections driven by the delta variant and by those who remain unvaccinated.“The only reason you called an election was a selfish reason, to obtain more power,” Jagmeet Singh leader of the leftist New Democrat party, said to Trudeau.Singh’s party propped up Trudeau’s Liberal party on most issues during the last sessions of Parliament. The Liberals didn’t have a majority of seats in the House of Commons and had to rely on Singh’s party to pass legislation. Trudeau, the son of the late Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, became the second youngest prime minister in Canadian history when he was first elected with a majority of seats in Parliament in 2015 after almost a decade of Conservative Party government.But there is some fatigue with Trudeau after six years, and scandals combined with high expectations have damaged his image for some Canadians. He won re-election in 2019 but with less than a majority of the seats. More

Priti Patel is set to anger France by sanctioning plans to forcibly redirect migrant boats back across the Channel despite warnings the controversial tactic would deepen a rift in relations.The home secretary has reportedly ordered officials to rewrite maritime laws to allow Border Force to turn boats around, forcing them to be dealt with by French authorities.It comes following a G7 interior minister’s meeting on Wednesday, during which Ms Patel told her French counterpart that the British public “expect to see results” from French efforts to prevent ongoing migrant crossings.Several newspapers reported that members of Border Force are being given special training to handle migrant boats, but would only deploy the “pushback” tactics when deemed practical and safe to do so.Campaigners have previously described the plans, first outlined in July, as both illegal and “morally wrong”.Reports suggested such operations were likely to be restricted to sturdier, bigger migrant boats and only used in “very limited circumstances”.Ms Patel and the French interior minister, Gerald Darmanin, held discussions on crossings at Lancaster House in London, in the wake of hundreds of migrants being brought ashore in Kent over the past few days.UK government sources told the PA news agency the pair had a “constructive” meeting in which Ms Patel made clear tackling the number of people making their way from France to the UK on small boats was her “number one priority”.But the French government warned ahead of the meeting that the newly reported turnaround tactics would have “a negative impact on our co-operation”.In a letter seen by The Independent, Mr Darmanin told Ms Patel: “The French position on intervention at sea remains unchanged. Safeguarding human lives at sea takes priority over considerations of nationality, status and migratory policy, out of strict respect for the international maritime law governing search and rescue at sea. “With regard to traffic and conditions for crossing the Channel, France has no other solution than to intervene most often on the basis of the provisions in international law governing search and rescue at sea. “The use of maritime refoulement [pushbacks] to French territorial waters would risk having a negative impact on our cooperation.”The French interior minister also rejected a UK request to set up a joint command centre in northern France, with police and border force officers from both countries patrolling the coastline and the Channel.It comes just days after Ms Patel is said to have told MPs she is prepared to withhold millions of pounds of cash promised to France to help step up patrols unless an improvement in the number of migrants intercepted by French authorities is seen.A UK government source said: “The home secretary was clear with the French interior minister that the British public expect to see results.”Earlier on Wednesday, prime minister Boris Johnson said efforts to stop the crossings depended “to a large extent” on the ability of the French authorities.According to the Home Office, 785 migrants arrived in the UK on Monday after making the journey from France in small boats, with several young children and a baby among them.This is the second highest daily total of the year, following the single-day record of 828 people set last month.The crossings continued on Tuesday and Wednesday during the better weather conditions, with boats arriving at Dover and others being towed on to beaches along the south coast.Earlier this year, the UK and France announced an agreement to more than double the number of police patrolling French beaches.It was the second pledge of its kind in a year, in a bid to stop small boats from leaving France.As part of the deal, the government pledged to give France £54 million to support its efforts to stop small boat crossings.Charities urged the Home Office to take a “more humane and responsible approach” towards asylum seekers and said humanitarian visas were needed to help “prevent the chaos of the Channel crossings”.Pierre-Henri Dumont, who represents Calais in the French National Assembly, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “Nothing can stop them.”The fact is, we’ve got 300 to 400 kilometres of shore to monitor every day and every night and it’s quite impossible to have police officers every 100 metres because of the length of the shore.”At least 13,000 people have now made the crossing to the UK in 2021, according to data compiled by the PA news agency.According to the UK government’s clandestine channel threat commander Dan O’Mahoney, efforts so far have prevented more than 10,000 migrant attempts, led to almost 300 arrests and secured 65 convictions.Illegal migration is anticipated to be the subject of focus for the final day of the G7 meeting on Thursday. More

The government is expected to announce changes to the testing process for lorry drivers in a bid to tackle the labour shortage, according to reports.Ministers are looking to shorten the current process to bring in new hauliers after the “penny finally dropped” that the industry shortage was getting worse not better, the BBC said.The announcement of the changes was said to be expected as soon as Thursday.The government said it was continuing to meet with affected groups and that any policy change would be announced in due course.Industry sources told the BBC: “The government seem to finally understand the scale of the problem. For the first time they looked rattled.”The proposal could include combining two tests, one for rigid lorries and another for articulated lorries, the BBC said. Prospective drivers usually have to wait between two and three weeks between the tests under current rules. The Department for Transport has been contacted for comfirmation.Industry figures welcomed the move but said it would not be enough to fix the problem.Paul Jackson of Chiltern Distribution joined calls for lorry drivers to be added to the Shortage Occupation List, to allow firms to bring back some of the estimated 20,000 EU drivers who have left.“We don’t put newly qualified drivers straight behind the wheel on their own. We buddy them up with experienced drivers for the first 8-10 weeks and the insurance costs for new drivers are also much higher,” he said.“We desperately need to put HGV drivers on the list of skilled workers we can bring in from abroad.”There is an estimated shortage of 70,000-100,000 hauliers in the UK, a huge percentage of the 600,000 estimated by the Road Haulage Association to have been working in the UK before the pandemic. A combination of Brexit, Covid and industry working conditions are said to be behind the huge gap, which is causing significant supply chain issues. Food, drink and medicine supplies are among those affected. The government this week loosened rules around the dumping of chemicals by water treatment plants, due to supply chain issues.The Chemical Business Association, which represents chemical firms within the supply chain, said 96 per cent of member companies were experiencing issues with UK haulage, up from 63 per cent in June.The CBI recently said the labour shortages, which are affecting hospitality and other fields as well as transport, could last up to two years. More

Northern Tories have criticised Boris Johnson’s plans to introduce a health and social care levy as “un-Conservative”, as they urged ministers to consider regional disparities in regard to the proposals.The criticism comes as MPs voted by 319-248 – a majority of 71 – to back the prime minister’s manifesto-busting hike in national insurance from April 2022 in order to tackle the NHS backlog and attempt to fix the crisis in social care.Attempting to shore up support for the proposals among members of the 1922 Committee of backbench Conservative MPs ahead of the vote on Wednesday evening, Mr Johnson insisted that the Conservatives remained the party of “low taxation” – just 24 hours after unveiling considerable tax rises.Despite anger within the party over the tax-raising measures – which flout the 2019 general election pledge – a number of Conservatives opted to abstain rather than vote against the government’s proposals.Just five Tory MPs voted against the proposals in total, including former minister Esther McVey, Christopher Chope, Neil Hudson, John Redwood and Philip Davies.There was also dismay that a scheme to place a lifetime cap of £86,000 on social care costs in England would primarily benefit elderly households in the more affluent parts of the south at the expense of working families elsewhere.Conservative MP Jake Berry, who chairs the Northern Research Group of backbench Tories, described the increase during the debate on Wednesday as a “job tax”, as he urged the government to “think again”.“I welcome the new money for the NHS, but throwing other people’s money down a bottomless pit doesn’t become a good idea if you put an NHS logo next to it,” he added, as he labelled the measure “un-Conservative”.Mr Berry, alongside Dehenna Davison – a member of the 2019 intake of northern Conservative MPs – also urged ministers to “consider looking at regional disparities in house prices” in relation to the plans.Ms Davison, the MP for Bishop Auckland in County Durham, who abstained on the motion, suggested the income floor should be linked to the percentage of property ownership, asking whether the wealthiest should qualify for the £86,000 cap on costs and whether there were “better alternatives” to a levy on national insurance.“I don’t feel there has been enough time to engage with my constituents to gauge their concerns, and to engage with ministers to raise them,” she posted on social media. “I believe we need to see a bit more detail too.”Elsewhere, the former Conservative minister Steve Baker said the policy was “socialist”, as he told MPs: “We’re going to have to rediscover our confidence as free-market Conservatives.“We’re going to have to rediscover the radical reforming zeal of the 2010 parliament, and the ‘big society’, and show people that we can secure a bright and prosperous and free future which provides for their needs in old age, but do it without – every time there’s a squeeze on the public finances – coming back for higher taxes, because down that road there is ruin,” he said.Unveiling the proposals on Tuesday, Mr Johnson told MPs a new “health and social care levy” would be created from April 2022 – effectively a national insurance hike of 1.25 percentage points.But speaking at Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer made clear that his party’s MPs would be directed to vote against the motion, as he described the measure as imposing “unfair taxes on working people”.“This is a government that underfunded the NHS for a decade before the pandemic, then wasted billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on dodgy contracts, vanity projects and giveaways to mates,” he said.Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s former chief aide at No 10, posted on social media that young people, who had already been “screwed over by a decade of hapless Tory government”, would have to “work harder to subsidise older, richer people” because of the newly announced policy.However, Mr Johnson insisted: “This is the first time that the state has actually come in to deal with the threat of these catastrophic costs, thereby enabling the private sector, the financial services industry, to supply the insurance products that people need to guarantee themselves against the costs of care.”On Tuesday night, social care leaders warned that the £12bn-a-year funds would fail to end the crisis in social care, while think tank the Institute for Fiscal Studies said the health and social care levy risked being permanently swallowed up by the NHS – “leaving little available for social care”. More

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson won Parliament s support on Wednesday for a big tax hike to pay for short-term health requirements arising from the coronavirus pandemic, as well as for long-term care needed by Britain’s growing older population.Lawmakers voted by 319 to 248 in favor of the 1.25 percentage point increase in national insurance payments made by working-age people.The vote outcome points to only a modest rebellion among Johnson’s Conservatives — the majority of 71 was only shy of their 80-seat majority in parliament.Still, several Conservative lawmakers voiced concerns during Wednesday’s debate that the move will dent the party’s reputation for low taxes. Others said the increase would primarily benefit elderly households in the more affluent parts of southern England at the expense of working families elsewhere.The increase in taxes, which also applies to dividend payments and breaks a key Conservative manifesto pledge, aims to raise 36 billion pounds ($50 billion) over three years for social care and the overstretched National Health Service. It takes effect in April and will cost someone paid 21,000 pounds ($27,500) a year about 180 pounds ($248) more on their annual tax bill. Someone making 67,000 pounds a year ($92,000) will pay more than triple that.While the strains of the pandemic have left the NHS facing a backlog of millions of delayed appointments and procedures, Britain has struggled to get to grips with soaring costs for those in need of long-term care.That burden of funding care for older, sick and disabled adults in Britain currently falls largely on individuals, who often have to deplete their savings or sell their homes to pay for it. One in seven people ends up paying more than 100,000 pounds ($138,000), according to the government, which calls the cost of care “catastrophic and often unpredictable.”Under the government’s plan, the amount people have to pay in their lifetime for social care will be capped at 86,000 pounds starting in 2023, and everyone with assets of less than 100,000 pounds will get some state support. More

The UK secretly dropped pledges to bind Australia to climate targets in its efforts to strike a trade deal, according to a leaked email obtained by Greenpeace. The revelation has engulfed Boris Johnson in a major row ahead of the Cop26 summit.Campaigners and politicians reacted with fury to the move – which included removing a reference to “Paris Agreement temperature goals” – arguing it made a mockery of the government’s claims to be fighting the climate emergency.Greenpeace said the concession “rips the heart out of” the landmark Paris aims, while Labour called it “a massive betrayal of our country and our planet”.The revelation is a major embarrassment, coming just seven weeks before the crucial Glasgow summit and coinciding with cabinet minister Alok Sharma visiting countries around the world in an effort to persuade their leaders to agree to tougher carbon-cutting targets.It also raises questions about Mr Johnson’s claim to have agreed the trade deal “in principle” five months ago, showing that the two countries are still haggling over the terms.The leaked email, sent by a senior official, suggested that three cabinet ministers had agreed to “drop both of the climate asks” to get the trade deal “over the line”.One of the “asks” related to the Paris temperature goals – to limit global heating to well below 2C, and preferably to 1.5C – while the second would have prioritised environmental agreements over trade rules.Yet, at the start of August, Mr Johnson wrote that the Australia trade deal would “reaffirm commitments to multilateral environmental agreements, including the Paris Agreement”.In a letter that was sent to environmental groups last month, the prime minister said: “We are clear more trade will not come at the expense of the environment.”It is believed that the Australia deal will still contain a reference to the Paris Agreement, but – unlike the Brexit trade deal with the EU – it will include no explicit commitment to limiting temperature levels.The three ministers involved in the internal government discussions were Liz Truss, the trade secretary, business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, and David Frost, the Brexit minister.The Independent understands that Mr Sharma, the Cop26 president, has argued for specific climate goals to be included in any post-Brexit trade deals the UK strikes.John Sauven, Greenpeace’s executive director, accused the government of being “absolutely duplicitous” in the light of Mr Johnson’s letter.“The UK government pledged to embed the environment at the very heart of trade, including supporting the Paris Agreement on climate and zero deforestation in supply chains,” Mr Sauven said.“Signing an Australian trade deal with action on climate temperature commitments secretly removed is the polar opposite of everything Boris Johnson publicly pledged, and rips the heart out of what the agreement stands for.”Ed Miliband, Labour’s shadow business secretary, said: “With Cop26 round the corner, the government should be flexing every political muscle to ensure the summit is a success.“Australia is one of the world’s biggest polluters, and key to the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees. But rather than piling pressure on them, the government has simply rolled over.”Jean Blaylock, of Global Justice Now, said: “This is typical of the government’s approach to trade deals. Climate commitments will always come second to a free trade arrangement, regardless of the consequences for the planet.”One trade expert, Sam Lowe, of the Centre for European Reform, said the UK could still insist on the climate goals, but added: “However, this means negotiations would take longer and the UK might need to give up more in return.”In fact, the government – which is desperate to sign the trade deals it promised as a Brexit dividend – has already been accused of giving away too much to Canberra.Tariffs will be scrapped immediately on imported beef and lamb from Australia, triggering accusations that UK farmers will be sent “to the wall”.Experts have warned the overall economic boost from the deal will be “close to zero” – and the government admitted the average household would be just £1.20 a year better off.A government spokesperson has denied that climate concessions were made in the trade deal, calling the claims “completely untrue”.They said the deal would “include a substantive article on climate change, which reaffirms both parties’ commitments to the Paris Agreement and achieving its goals, including limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees”.However, the leaked email, sent by a deputy director in the trade secretariat of the Cabinet Office, reads: “As flagged in my note to Lord Frost, the business and trade secretaries were due to speak yesterday.“We haven’t yet seen the formal read-out, but we understand the conversation took place and the business secretary has agreed that, in order to get the Australia FTA over the line, DIT can drop both of the climate asks (ie on precedence of multilateral environmental agreements over FTA provisions and a reference to Paris Agreement temperature goals).” More

The government has been accused of “utterly neglecting” Islamophobia after failing for over two years to produce a definition that can be used to combat anti-Muslim hatred.A group of MPs and peers called for a working definition to be adopted following a six-month inquiry in 2018, saying the lack of one was allowing Islamophobia to “increase in society to devastating effect”.The Conservative government rejected the proposals in May 2019 and announced it would commission independent experts to draw up a different definition.But only one adviser is known to have been appointed and no proposals have ever been published.Members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims, which drew up the 2018 definition, are to raise the issue in parliament on Thursday.Vice chair Naz Shah told The Independent: “It is astonishing that 845 days on, we are still calling on the government to adopt the APPG definition of Islamophobia.“The government’s complete and utter neglect on working to accept a definition of Islamophobia highlights how much consideration it gives to tackling the very real form of racism.”The Labour MP said Islamophobia affected people’s everyday lives and highlighted terror attacks targeting Muslims, including the 2019 mosque shootings in New Zealand.“We just can not afford an incident like Christchurch to happen in the UK, but while everyday Islamophobia is becoming normalised, the government does not seem to care,” Ms Shah added.After taking evidence from Muslim organisations, legal experts, academics, MPs and other groups in 2018, the APPG called on the government to use the definition: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”It was adopted by the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the London mayor’s office, but rejected by the Conservative government.In May 2019, the then communities secretary James Brokenshire said ministers would instead appoint two expert advisers to work on a different definition of Islamophobia.Boris Johnson apologises for ‘hurt and offence’ caused by Islamophobia in Tory Party“To get a firmer grip on the nature of this bigotry and division, we agree there needs to be a formal definition of Islamophobia to help strengthen our efforts,” he said at the time, pledging that the government would “develop an effective definition of Islamophobia which commands widespread support”.Senior police officers had written to the prime minister with concerns that the definition was too broad and could “undermine many elements of counterterrorism powers and policies”, and critics voiced concern over freedom of speech.Members of the APPG disagreed and added: “The aim of establishing a working definition of Islamophobia has neither been motivated by, nor is intended to curtail, free speech or criticism of Islam as a religion.”The group’s report said: “From hate crimes motivated by anti-Muslim feeling, buttressed by stereotypes and racist caricatures prevalent in social and media discourse, to policies which perpetuate discriminatory outcomes for Muslims, a definition of Islamophobia is vital.”One independent adviser, imam Qari Asim MBE, was appointed in July 2019, but a second adviser was not announced and no proposals have been published.The row over the definition was noted in a report on Islamophobia in the Conservative Party, which was published in May.It found that two-thirds of discriminatory incidents reported to the party’s headquarters over six years related to anti-Muslim hatred and warned that “concerns about Islamism should not prevent the party from significantly improving its community outreach efforts into Muslim communities”.A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “We have always been clear that this government does not, and will not, tolerate anti-Muslim hatred in any form and will continue to combat such discrimination and intolerance.“We’re working to agree a robust definition of Islamophobia and it’s important to take the time to get this right – the one proposed by the APPG is not acceptable as it would have severe consequences for freedom of speech.” More