Markus Andrews

Boris Johnson’s manifesto-busting plans to hike national insurance to tackle the NHS backlog and social care reform have passed a crucial Commons vote.After a potential rebellion from Tory backbenchers fizzled out, the prime minister’s plans revealed just 24 hours ago, comfortably passed by 319 to 248 votes – a majority of 71.A handful of Conservatives raised concerns over the tax hike during the debate — some even labelling the plans “un-Conservative” — but rather than voting against the government, abstained on the motion.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 (NI) hike of 1.25 percentage points.Attempting to shore up support for the proposals at the 1922 Committee of backbench Conservative MPs on Wednesday evening, Mr Johnson insisted the party remained one of “low taxation”, despite the huge tax increase.Speaking at prime minister’s questions earlier, Sir Keir Starmer made clear Labour MPs would be ordered 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 blasted.Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s former chief aide at No 10, also posted on social media that young people “already screwed over by a decade of hapless Tory government” would now have to “work harder to subside older, richer people”.In a separate vote, Labour’s amendment calling for chancellor Rishi Sunak to publish an impact assessment of the national insurance increase was rejected by 335 votes to 243 – a majority of 92.Labour had asked for Mr Sunak to detail before April 2022 how the tax hike would affect jobs and businesses, and also the distributional impact of the measures on different income groups and regions. More

Boris Johnson has said Priti Patel is dealing with migrant crossings in the English Channel in the “best possible way” by making sure that they don’t leave French shores. Speaking in the House of Commons on Wednesday, the prime minister hinted he would use tough measures to address the issue, saying: “As times goes on and this problem continues, we are going to have to make sure that we use every possible tactic at our disposal.”In what he described to MPs as a “perennial problem”, Mr Johnson said Ms Patel was dealing migrant crossings “in the best possible way”.The home secretary is holding talks with her French counterpart on Wednesday afternoon about the number of migrants crossing the English Channel.Ms Patel and the French interior minister, Gerald Darmanin, are both attending the meeting of G7 ministers in London. Charities and campaigners have told The Independent that there needs to be an “180 degree turn” in the government’s approach to the migrant crossings. They called for officials to commit to safer routes to the UK for people who have family in Britain. The appeal comes after 785 migrants crossed the Channel to seek refuge in the UK on Monday, and under 500 made the crossing on Tuesday. Bridge Chapman, from Kent Refugee Action, said: “Up until now [politicians] seem to have entrenched themselves into a position where they try to look as tough as possible.“What we hope would come out of the talks is a way of offering people that want to come to the UK better options. Boris’s rhetoric is going in totally the wrong track.”Steve Valdez-Symonds, refugee and migrant rights director at Amnesty UK, was not hopeful that the home secretary’s talks would bring the change they wanted. He said: “I expect the home secretary will concentrate her energy on trying to persuade the French, possible with more money, to build ever greater fences and have even more patrols. “This will be of no use and will leave people in the same sorry situation that they are already in. “Unless the UK is prepared to take some responsibility and accept in those with family connections, and take in a good proportion of people in a safe way, the smugglers will carry on thriving and the human misery will continue.”Pierre-Henri Dumont, who represents Calais in the French National Assembly, warned on Wednesday morning that “nothing can stop” migrants coming. He said: “The fact is, we’ve got 300 to 400 kilometres of short 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.”Speaking on Radio 4’s Today programme, he added: “The causes we need to address are numerous.”Mr Dumont said migrants were more likely to speak English and so were hoping to reach the UK where they could more easily find work. He added: “We have more and more patrols. They money that was promised to be given by the UK government to France is set to maintain this number of patrols that we already doubled a few weeks ago.”Bella Sankey, director of charity Detention Action, said: “If Priti Patel wants to ‘deal effectively’ with channel crossings and salvage her reputation, she would do well to discuss the creation of a humanitarian visa with her counterpart Gerald Darmanin.”“This could stop dangerous boat crossings overnight and truly smash the business model of people smuggling gangs.”More than 12,600 people have made the dangerous journey so far this year. Dan O’Mahoney, clandestine channel threat commander, said: “This unacceptable rise in dangerous crossings is being driven by criminal gangs and a surge in illegal migration across Europe. “We’re determined to target the criminals at every level, so far, we have secured nearly 300 arrests, 65 convictions and prevented more than 10,000 migrant attempts.” More

The British government secretly dropped a series of climate pledges in order to secure a post-Brexit trade deal with Australia, leaked emails appear to show.Liz Truss, the trade secretary, and Kwasi Kwarteng, the business secretary, decided to “drop both of the climate asks” from the text of the UK-Australia agreement in order to get it “over the line”, according to the email from a senior official.A binding section that referenced the “Paris Agreement temperature goals” was scrubbed from the accord after pressure from the southern Hemipshere country’s government – which has a notoriously weak record on climate action. The embarrassing revelation comes just weeks before the government is due to host a landmark UN climate conference, COP26, in Glasgow – where it is supposed to ask countries to make stronger commitments to cutting emissions. Just last month Boris Johnson claimed any trade deal with Australia would, “include a chapter on trade and environment which not only reaffirms commitments to multilateral environmental agreements, including the Paris Agreement but also commits both parties to collaborate on climate and environmental issues”.The prime minister claimed that “more trade will not come at the expense of the environment”. In June the two countries reached an “agreement in principle” to cut tariffs and quotas.John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said the government’s actions would signal the start of a “race to the bottom” and accused Boris Johnson of having lied about the issue. “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.”The Greenpeace chief added: “It will be a race to the bottom, impacting on clean tech sectors and farmers’ livelihoods. There should be a moratorium on trade deals with countries like Australia until they improve on their weak climate targets and end deforestation. At the moment the public and parliament are being duped by the Prime Minister into thinking this deal is great for Britain when in reality nothing could be further from the truth.“What’s also clear is that the government’s promise of public consultation and updates on the progress of the negotiations are completely inadequate. It’s time parliament demanded proper scrutiny for trade deals.”Brexiteers in the government like trade secretary Ms Truss have been desparate to secure trade deals with other countries to try and prove that leaving the EU has benefits. But experts say the drive for agreements at any cost has put the UK in a weak negotiating position.The email, first reported by Sky News, was sent last month and details internal discussions between Ms Truss, Mr Kwarteng and Brexit minister Lord Frost It originates from a deputy director in the government’s the trade secretariat, which is part of the Cabinet Office.The email says: “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.)”The change makes the deal weaker than the Brexit agreement with the EU and other FTAs negotiated by the UK. The Paris deal requires countries to set goals in order to limit global warming to well below 2C, preferably to 1.5C. Australia’s prime minister Scott Morrison has refused to commit to taking his country to net zero by 2050, even after the UN’s most recent “code red” warning. Instead, Australia’s government is holding to an existing pledge of cutting carbon emissions by 26 per cent to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. Australia is the second-largest exporter of coal in the world and has a high per capita carbon footprint, according to European Commission data. Of 176 new coal projects across the world, 79 of them are in Australia, according to Fitch.Caroline Lucas, member of the cross-party UK Trade and Business Commission and a Green Party MP said: “Weeks before the UK is due to host an international summit to secure climate action, this revelation paints a bleak picture of both the government’s priorities and their abysmal negotiating power post-Brexit.”Only yesterday, the government showed they are willing to break any promise they make to the public and their readiness to compromise on the existential challenge of our time raises serious concerns on what else might be on the table in ongoing trade negotiations.”Jean Blaylock, a trade campaigner at the group Global Justice Now, said the episode was “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,” she said. “Even deals that contain specific climate commitments often sign us up to secretive corporate courts that allow big polluters to sue governments for taking climate action.“The kinds of trade deals that we are pursuing are completely incompatible with decarbonisation. Tweaking the text of trade deals is not enough. We need to fundamentally reshape our system of global trade to save us from climate catastrophe.”Ed Miliband, Labour’s shadow business secretary, said: the revelation “underscores yet again that this greenwashing government cannot be trusted on climate”. “With COP26 round the corner, the Government should be flexing every political muscle to ensure the summit is a success,” he said.“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.“This government is pursuing trade deals at the expense of our farmers and now our climate targets. This is simply a massive betrayal of our country and our planet.”A Government spokesperson said: “Our ambitious trade deal with Australia will 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. Any suggestion the deal won’t sign up to these vital commitments is completely untrue.””The UK’s climate change and environment policies are some of the most ambitious in the world, reflecting our commitment as the first major economy to pass new laws for net zero emissions by 2050.” More

MPs are being asked to back the new “health and social care levy” – effectively a national insurance (NI) hike of 1.25 percentage points, from next April – later today (8 September).Social care leaders are warning that Boris Johnson’s £12bn-a-year tax raid will fail to end the crisis that has left 1.6 million elderly and disabled people without help, after most of the cash was diverted to the NHS.And not only that but the plan has also been met so far with an angry backlash from councils and charities.They warned local authorities would continue to be starved of the billions needed to provide adequate care for people in their own homes, a verdict backed by the respected Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).But what about those who the tax increase is designed to help – will it have any positive impact and where is that cash injection from the tax payer likely to be spent? What else should the government be doing to help the social care sector?Steve Scown, Chief Executive of leading adult social care charity Dimensions, will be on hand to answer your questions during a live ask me anything event being held on this page between 4-5pm on Thursday, 9 September.A trained learning disability nurse, Steve worked in a number of NHS management positions before joining the voluntary sector in 1993.Steve has long been an advocate of much needed social care reform, and he believes there are key challenges which the Government’s announcement must address. He is keen to see a restructure of the care system so it is more supportive of those who provide services as well as those who require them.Do you have questions about social care and how it should be funded? Steve will be on hand on Thursday afternoon to answer as many as he can about the implications for all those in the social care sector affected this announcement.To get involved all you have to do is register to submit your question in the comments below.If you’re not already a member, click “sign up” in the comments box to leave your question. Don’t worry if you can’t see your question – they may be hidden until he joins the conversation to answer them. Then join us live on this page at 4pm as Steve tackle as many questions as he can. More

The vaccines minister has defended the government’s plan to bring in Covid passports for nightclubs and other venues this month – but admitted it “pained” him to introduce something which “goes against everything I believe in”.Nadhim Zahawi confirmed nightclubs and large-scale venues in England would be forced to require proof of two Covid jabs as a condition of entry from the end of September, but conceded he had his own reservations.The minister suggested MPs would still get a vote on the policy, which backbenchers described as “authoritarian” and difficult for the hospitality industry to implement at such short notice.“It pains me to have to have to stand at this dispatch box and have to implement something that goes against the DNA of this minister and his prime minister – but we are living through difficult times,” Mr Zahawi told parliament on Wednesday.Insisting the government did not want to “curtail people’s freedoms”, he added: “It’s difficult for me to do – it goes against everything I believe in. But it’s the right thing to do.”Despite his own reservations, Mr Zahawi claimed the policy was needed to prevent large venues from acting as hosts for “super-spreader” spikes in Covid infections.Conservative MP William Wragg accused the minister of talking “rubbish” and starting a “needless fight” with MPs over the certification plan.Accusing him of “defending the indefensible”, Mr Wragg told him: “I don’t believe [Mr Zahawi] believes a word of what he’s just uttered because I remember him very persuasively stating my position … that this measure would be discriminatory.”MPs warned of potential “chaos” ahead, after the minister failed to provide details of what other venues or events may fall under the planned requirement – with sports matches, music concerts and conferences also thought to be under consideration.Labour MP Angela Rayner, the party deputy leader, said: “We are weeks way from implementation but there was no clarity on these plans and businesses are anxious. How and when will they decide which businesses must implement certification?”Ms Rayner warned against the expansion of the plan beyond large-scale venues – urging the minister to assure the public “no-one will be required to have a Covid vaccination pass to access essential services”.But Mr Zahawi caused head-shaking among Tory colleagues when he said there will be “some essential services which will not need” people to show proof of jabs – heightening their fears the proposals could be widened to other venues.The vaccine minister said the government would be “confirming more details in due course,” and claimed the government “does not see this as a long-term power grab to restrict people’s liberties”.Lib Dem MP Alistair Carmichael – who asked an urgent question on vaccine passports on Wednesday – demanded that the government hold a vote on the “authoritarian” plan. “This House must have a chance to make its voice heard.”The minister said there would be “appropriate parliamentary scrutiny” of the plan, after he was reminded that MPs had already been promised a vote.Scotland’s first minister Nicola Sturgeon has pushed ahead with plans to introduce vaccine passports at nightclubs and large events north of the border later this month. Scots can now download or receive a paper QR code that shows their Covid vaccination status.Earlier this week Boris Johnson joked about Michael Gove’s recent visit to a nightclub dancefloor in Aberdeen – telling the 1922 committee that he “sent ministers to enjoy” the newly opened clubs. More

The French government has accused Priti Patel of breaching its trust over a promise to reimburse it for border policing operations in the English Channel.In a strongly-worded statement the country’s interior ministry hit out at the UK Home Secretary’s threat to pull funding for channel patrols, describing the move as illegal and “dangerous”.The Home Secretary had previously promised France £54 million in July to patrol the Channel on behalf of the UK border force – but she has threatened to pull the funding if targets to turn more people back are not met.Ms Patel is due to meet with her French counterpart Gérald Darmanin at a meeting of G7 ministers in London on Wednesday where the issue is likely to come to a head. France says her policy would be “a break in the spirit of mutual trust” while French MPs say they are doing all they can. Around 13,500 people have crossed the Channel in small boats this year, including 1,000 in the past two days. Though people are entitled to claim asylum on arriving the UK under international law, the British government has moved to criminalise people arriving by small boats in a bid to deter them from making the crossing.But the UK’s border force has struggled to stop people making the journey and has been leaning on French authorities to turn back boats before they enter UK territorial waters. France claims it is stopping more than half of crossing but Ms Patel says the figure should be closer to three quarters – effectively putting France under pressure to take harsher action.But now Ms Patel’s threat to withdraw the funding has caused a new rift between the countries on the issue.Pierre-Henri Dumont, a French parliamentarian who represents Calais in the National Assembly, warned that “nothing can stop” migrants coming.”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,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.Mr Dumont said there were “numerous causes” driving people to cross to the UK, including warmer weather making crossings earlier and the likelihood they would speak English.”We have more and more patrols. The money that was promised to be given by the UK Government to France is set to maintain this number of patrols that we already doubled a few weeks ago,” he said. Responding to Ms Patel’s threat, the French interior ministry said in a statement: “The funding granted by the British government within the framework of this co-operation (£54 million) is a fair contribution to this effort, which relies mainly on French forces.“The terms of this funding were negotiated in detail with the British side and there was never any question of making payment conditional on quantified targets. Such an approach would reflect a serious loss of confidence in our co-operation.“We also call on the British Government to be cautious about the announced use of procedures to fight against attempted sea crossings which would not only be dangerous for men, women and children on board these boats, but contrary to international law.“It would also introduce a break in the spirit of mutual trust that has so far underpinned our common action.”The row over the cash comes amid a backdrop of declining trust in the UK government on the continent. A series of threats to breach international agreements on Brexit by Boris Johnson’s administration have damaged the UK’s reputation for fair dealing in Paris, Brussels, and other European capitals. More

Boris Johnson has incorrectly stated his proposals to fix the social care system will mean “nobody has to pay anything” for means-tested care of up to £100,000.It comes after the prime minister announced a manifesto-busting hike in national insurance contributions from April 2022, in an effort to tackle the NHS backlog and social care crisis.During prime minister’s questions, Sir Keir Starmer repeatedly asked whether he had broken his promise made to the British people to guarantee that no-one needing care will have to sell their home.“What we’re actually doing is lifting the floor, lifting the guaranteed floor by up to £100,000 where nobody has to pay anything across the country,” the prime minister insisted.However, while the government document stated those with assets below £20,000 from October 2023 will not have to make any contribution for their care from savings, those with assets between £20,000 and £100,000 will only receive state support on sliding scale.It said anyone in this bracket would be expected to “contribute towards the cost of their care from their income”, but would be eligible for “some” means-tested support.“The new upper capital limit of £100,000 is more than four times the current limit of £23,250, ensuring that many more people are eligible for some means-tested local authority support,” it added.The government also announced that from 2023 a new cap will be introduced, meaning no-one will have to spend in excess of £86,000 over their lifetime.During the exchange at prime minister’s questions on Wednesday, the Labour leader also accused Mr Johnson 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 blasted.The prime minister’s former chief aide in No 10, Dominic Cummings, also posted on social media: “The Tories are making the young — who can’t get a house & working for average/below average income, already screwed by a decade of hapless Tory government — to work harder to subsidise older richer people. They promised to do the opposite.”Defending his proposals in the Commons, Mr Johnson added: “What this plan for health and social care does is deal after decades with the catastrophic costs faced by millions of people, the risks that they face up and down the country that they could face the loss of their home, their possessions, their ability to pass on anything to their children.“This is the government that is not only dealing with that problem but understands that in order to deal with the problems of the NHS backlogs you also have to fix social care.” More

The £12bn a year extra for health and social care as a result of Boris Johnson’s tax hike risks being swallowed up by the NHS, an economic think tank warned.The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has warned that very little might be left available for social care, even once funding from the new levy is expected to shift away from the NHS.Under the plans announced by the prime minister the NHS will get the bulk of the £36bn raised over the first three years, with £5.4bn earmarked for social care in England.But that balance is expected to tip towards social care in subsequent years as the £86,000 cap on costs introduced from October 2023 starts to require funding.The IFS suggested that the experiences of the past 40 years showed that NHS spending plans are almost always topped up – meaning that health would continue to require the bulk of the revenue raised by the new tax.Ben Zaranko, research economist at the IFS, said the extra funding provided for the NHS in the announcement would result in spending growing at 3.9 per cent a year between 2018/19 and 2024/25 – exactly the same rate of growth planned between 2018/19 and 2023/24.“History suggests these plans will be topped up further – they have been in almost every year for the last 40 years,” he said. “That could leave little if any of the tax rises announced yesterday available for social care.”Health secretary Sajid Javid has insisted that “more and more” of the money raised by the levy would go towards social care in future years.But the IFS stated: “If history repeats itself, the ‘temporary’ increases in NHS funding announced this week could end up permanently swallowing up the money raised by the tax rise, leaving little available for social care.”Social care leaders attacked Mr Johnson’s plan, saying the feared local councils would not receive the funding boost they desperately need to rescue the cash-strapped sector.Mike Padgham, chairman of the Independent Care Group, warned: “It’s not clear how the money is going to be ringfenced for adult social care so it gets to local authorities on the frontline.”The Treasury acknowledged the £5.4bn to be spent on social care by 2025 is largely for “implementing” the new caps and floors – which sees care costs covered for those with assets under £20,000, and help available to those with up to £100,000.Conservative MP Stephen McPartland said he could not back a plan that provided “no new funding for social care for at least 3 years”, but there were few other dissenting Tory voices.Ahead of a vote on the plans on Wednesday evening, Mr Johnson is expected to address the influential 1922 Committee of Tory MPs in a final effort to sell the package.The health secretary was challenged on Wednesday to give a clear guarantee that money would shift towards social care.Mr Javid said: “It’s clear that more and more after three years will shift towards social care because, not least, by that time the money over the next three years that will go to the NHS will be able to deal with so much of the challenge they are facing around the waiting list.” More