Markus Andrews

An exodus of workers in the wake of Brexit and the Covid pandemic is causing “absolute crisis” in the UK’s pig farms, raising the threat of mass destruction of healthy animals, industry representatives have warned.Major pork processors are cutting throughput by as much as 25 per cent, meaning a reduction in products reaching shops and pigs being kept on farms for longer than would usually be the case, said the National Pig Association.More than 100,000 pigs were backed up on farm in the early months of this year due to a combination of Brexit restrictions on exports, pork plant closures due to Covid-19 and the suspension of exports to China from some plants. Pork processing plants have been reporting staffing gaps of 10-16 per cent, even before taking into account absences due to coronavirus.And producers face higher feed prices and overweight penalties, on top of the logistical and welfare problems caused by the backlog of animals.NPA chief executive Zoe Davies told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “The issue is that because, for whatever reason, a lot of workers have left processing plants and gone home because a lot of them are eastern European.“The abbatoirs themselves cannot process the number of pigs that we supply them with on a weekly basis.“So for the last six to eight weeks, all of the major processers have been cutting their kills by up to 25 per cent, which is leading to pigs being kept on farms for far longer than they should be.“And that is leading to an absolute crisis for us on the pig side.”Dr Davies explained: “You can’t stop pig production. Pig production is a continuous process. These animals just keep coming.“Even if we stopped serving sows now – and that means mating them – it will take 10 to 11 months before the pigs stop coming.“So you’re getting people in increasingly desperate situations. They are getting into debt. They’re getting very stressed out. And we’re now starting to head towards a situation where healthy animals may well need to be destroyed.“And the problem with that is that it’s really going to put people’s future at risk.”Dr Davies said that UK farmers were concerned that the result of the crisis will be retailers turning to the EU for a greater proportion of their pork products like bacon, ham and sausages.“We have the pigs, we have the product and the British public wants to buy British pork,” she said.“However, if the processers are unable to supply the volumes that are required, the likelihood is that they will start to look elsewhere.”EU pork is currently trading at about 30 pence a kilo less than UK pork because of reduced exports from Germany to the US, making imports more attractive for retailers, said dR Davies.“It’s the perfect excuse for UK retailers to ship in much cheaper European pork as opposed to British, which in our view is is not what the British people voted for when they voted for Brexit,” she said. More

England’s care homes are facing a staffing crisis which threatens to overwhelm the sector, as thousands of unvaccinated workers have just days left to get their first coronavirus jab or face the sack, a union has warned.A “no jab no job” rule requires all of those working in care homes to be fully vaccinated by 11 November, but with an eight-week delay between the two doses staff must get their first vaccination by 16 September – less than a fortnight away – in order to comply.Unison called on ministers to scrap the rule before this month’s deadline, warning that there could otherwise be widespread closure of care homes, which are already short of 110,000 workers.The government’s own risk analysis, published when the policy was announced in July, found that up to 70,000 of England’s 570,000 care home workers could leave, at a cost of £100 million to the sector.Unison general secretary Christina McAnea warned that an exodus is already beginning of care home staff who want to remain in the job, but are hesitant about receiving the vaccine or feel they are being bullied.She said ministers were “sleepwalking into disaster” by failing to lift the jab requirement.The union has already received reports of care homes struggling to meet minimum staffing requirements. But Ms McAnea said there was no sign that the government has a realistic plan to deal with the fall-out of mass staff losses.“Vaccination remains the way out of the pandemic,” said Ms McAnea. “But coercing and bullying people can never be the right approach.“Ministers have been told repeatedly that using force instead of persuasion will fail. But they’ve not listened and now their ill-considered policy is backfiring.“The government is sleepwalking into this disaster by not acting. Care is already a broken and underfunded sector that cannot afford to lose any more staff.“The government must scrap the ‘no jab, no job’ rule now. Widespread care home closures could be the consequence if they ignore the warnings. This would be disastrous for elderly people and those who cannot live without care support.” More

Human Rights Watch (HRW) is appealing to MPs to block the government’s proposed cut to Universal Credit, saying the “retrogressive” step would violate the UK’s “international human rights obligations”.The £20-a-week increase, which was introduced temporarily to help claimants during the coronavirus pandemic, is set to be phased out from the end of the month.But HRW has joined charities and campaign groups in warning that the move would cause “deep harm” with an “increase in poverty and queues for aid at food banks”.A letter, signed by Yasmine Ahmed, HRW’s UK director, appeals to more than 350 parliamentarians returning to the Commons on Monday to “use your influence” to stop the proposed cut.“If the government were to proceed with the proposed cut, it would be in violation of its international human rights obligations, in particular the binding International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, signed by the UK in 1968 and ratified in 1976, which sets out the rights to an adequate standard of living and to social security,” she said.“Cutting the basic rate of support to people living on low incomes, many of whom are already in work, by more than £1000 per year would leave many in a position where the government’s social security system cannot guarantee their human right to an adequate standard of living.”The letter continued: “Cutting up to £1040 per year from social security support would be retrogressive.”Ms Ahmed said “evidence of the harm that will be done is copious” and the “decision by the government to proceed with the planned cut will cause deep harm”.It follows after the Joseph Rowntree Foundation warned that scrapping the £20 uplift would impose the biggest overnight cut to the basic rate of social security since the foundation of the modern welfare state.Citizens Advice also estimated that three-quarters of people receiving the increased Universal Credit would not have enough money to cover daily costs if the cut went ahead, pushing vulnerable people into debt.Earlier this week, more than 100 organisations implored the government to abandon the cut, warning it would “fundamentally undermine” the Tories’ supposed mission to level up. More

Boris Johnson’s government is preparing for a battle over the renewal of emergency Covid legislation giving No 10 the power to impose another lockdown if cases surge this winter.The prime minister is set for a clash with anti-lockdown Conservative MPs, who claim the country must “learn to live” with the virus without handing the government “draconian” powers indefinitely.But in a sign No 10 is considering the possibility of fresh restrictions in the months ahead, the government said it wanted to “retain these powers in case they are needed through the winter”.MPs will vote next week on whether to keep the Coronavirus Act, the sweeping emergency powers brought in back in March 2020 which must be renewed every six months.Former Brexit minister David Davis said the legislation “contains some of the most draconian powers ever introduced in the UK”.The Tory MP added: “Thankfully, the crisis point of the pandemic has passed. It is now time to roll back the extensive powers unwisely handed over to the state.”Fellow Tory MP Mark Harper, who leads the Covid Recovery Group (CRG) of backbench sceptics, is firmly opposed to another extension – arguing that the time for strict regulations had passed.“Our vaccine rollout has been a huge success. We have seen a dramatic and welcome fall in people suffering from serious disease and death from Covid as a result,” Mr Harper told the Financial Times.The CRG chairman added: “We are going to have to learn to live with this virus. What justification can there be for extending these measures?”Former health secretary Matt Hancock said in March this year that he hoped it would not be necessary to renew the emergency regulations again in the autumn.But the government said it was necessary to extend the legislation – which allows the closure of venues and lets the police force those suspected of having Covid into isolation – until March 2022 in case more restrictions were needed this winter. Ministers also fear that allowing the powers to expire would hamper the government’s ability to protect renters from eviction during the pandemic.MPs voted by 484 to 76 to extend the law for six months earlier this year. Despite protests about “draconian detention powers”, only 36 Tory MPs and 21 Labour MPs voted against it.The CRG of anti-lockdown sceptics expects a greater number of rebels from the Tory backbenchers to next week, but Labour is expected to back its renewal.A government spokesperson said: “We will allow temporary powers in the Coronavirus Act to expire wherever possible, as we have at previous review points.“However, it would be irresponsible to allow all temporary provisions to expire. Doing so would remove the government’s ability to protect renters from eviction, give sick pay to those self-isolating from day one, and direct schools to reopen where needed, for example.“The British public would expect us to retain these powers in case they are needed through the winter.” More

The government has ordered a review of teenage Covid vaccinations, after its immunisation advisers rejected calls for all 12-15 year-olds to get the jab.The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation added another 200,000 children with underlying health conditions to the list of under-16s who can receive the Pfizer vaccine.But its experts determined that while there was a marginal benefit to healthy 12-15 year-olds in receiving the vaccine, it was not sufficient for them to recommend universal inoculation of this age-group.Ministers in the UK government and devolved administrations have now asked the UK’s four chief medical officers to conduct a review to determine whether non-health factors not assessed by the JCVI – such as the impact of lost educational time – might justify jabs for all teens.The review is expected to report within a few days, and comes amid mounting political pressure for teenagers to be protected from coronavirus as schools return for the autumn term in England.The government is understood not to be challenging the JCVI’s medical advice. But ministers believe that there are wider issues potentially affecting children’s well-being which lie outside the experts’ strict health remit.It is understood, however, that the CMOs – including Prof Chris Whitty – will not be asked to consider whether vaccinating teenagers would have a health benefit for other parts of society, by protecting older people from the risk of infection. The review will focus solely on the interests of the 12-15 year-olds themselves.Underlying health conditions which will now qualify 12-15 year-olds for the Pfizer jab include chronic heart, lung, kidney, liver and neurological problems. This will include children with those with sickle cell disease or type 1 diabetes.Previously only children in this age group with severe neurodisabilities, Down’s syndrome, immunosuppression and multiple or severe learning disabilities were able to receive the vaccine.The MHRA healthcare regulator has already approved the Pfizer and Moderna jabs on safety grounds for all those aged 12 and over.As revealed in The Independent on Tuesday, the JCVI has resisted intense political pressure to clear the way for teenage jabs before schoolchildren returned to classrooms.Downing Street said last week it hoped that the decision would come “as soon as possible”, and health secretary Sajid Javid wrote a newspaper article on Saturday to say it wasclear that “offering all teenagers the jab would solidify our wall of protection”.Both the NHS and schools have prepared plans to vaccinate an estimated 3.9 million 12-15 year-olds and education secretary Gavin Williamson said they were “ready and eager” to get going on a programme likely to see school gyms and assembly halls turned into mass vaccine centres.Mr Javid today said he was “grateful for the expert advice that I have received from the independent JCVI”.But he added: “Along with health ministers across the four nations, I have today written to the chief medical officers to ask that they consider the vaccination of 12-15 year-olds from a broader perspective, as suggested by the JCVI.“We will then consider the advice from the chief medical officers, building on the advice from the JCVI, before making a decision shortly.” More

Geronimo the alpaca’s distraught owner has accused government officials of hiding from her how he was killed and how they “tortured” him on his final journey, calling for them to resign.Helen Macdonald said giving her the truth about how her animal died was the very least officials should do after four years of “mentally abusing” her, during her prolonged legal battle to save him from being put down.She said the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) was still ignoring her, leaving her not even knowing how Geronimo died, after government vets “bungled” his transportation.Ms Macdonald, herself a veterinary nurse, said she felt let down by her own profession over “the worst case of cruelty” she had ever seen in her entire career.In scenes that horrified animal lovers worldwide, police officers and vets went onto the Gloucestershire farm without notice on Tuesday, capturing the frightened animal and forcing him into the back of a trailer as he made loud distress calls.Experts said Geronimo was gasping for air because the government vets failed to use a headcollar so his breathing was obstructed, and he was incorrectly tied up. Where, when and how he died remains a mystery. The Independent has asked Defra for the details.Defra had refused to allow a third test on the animal after two highly disputed tests suggested he had tuberculosis, insisting he be killed as part of the government’s TB eradication plan.Ms Macdonald, who has also called for environment secretary George Eustice to quit, said: “We’ve expressly asked for all the circumstances of his removal and what happened to him afterwards, and they’re ignoring us.“Somebody knows what they did to him. I don’t know whether he died in the trailer, whether he was shot or what. They won’t tell me. It’s the least they could do after what they did to him.“They had no idea what they were doing and tortured him. They didn’t ask for help – they were cruel beyond words and incompetent. They should be struck off. I’m going to find out who they are.“I want to know every single detail. Unless these people are dragged out by their hair, I don’t know how we’re going to find out, and that’s just unforgivable.”In an official complaint to the government on Wednesday, the British Alpaca Society also called for those who led the operation to be suspended immediately for “gross misconduct and animal abuse”.“If Geronimo arrived at his final destination still alive and not strangled or suffocated, how can we be sure he was humanely euthanised?” the society wrote.“The lack of knowledge as to the correct way to handle alpacas was startling and totally inexcusable…“It is also well documented that alpacas sit down when being transported, yet Geronimo was tied up like a horse.“There is no excuse for these actions. The correct information is in the public domain, yet whoever led this repulsive exercise yesterday simply hadn’t bothered to find out the proper techniques.”A planned protest outside Defra’s offices on Wednesday is expected to draw hundreds of demonstrators.Ms Macdonald added: “They’ve been abusing me for four years, forcing me through court cases, and now they won’t even do me the courtesy of telling me how he suffered in his last moments. It’s outrageous.”She said “someone needs to hold them to account because I can’t rest until I know”.“And it was a vet who did it – my own profession, for Christ’s sake.”She said it was too early to know what action she would take, adding: “This is beyond anything that anyone should have to endure.”A crowdfunding appeal set up during her four-year court battle to fund the legal costs has raised more than £36,000.The Independent has asked Defra to respond to the claims, in particular why it has not responded to Ms Macdonald, and why her own vet was barred from attending the post-mortem examination as an observer. More

Boris Johnson’s government has been urged to “get on” with a Covid vaccine booster programme rather than waiting any longer for advice for his scientific advisers.The prime minister appeared to confirm that a rollout of third jabs will begin this month – but the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) is yet to give its formal recommendation.Former health secretary Jeremy Hunt warned that just a few days could make “a big difference” to infection levels – urging ministers to plunge ahead with the programme rather than wait for the JCVI decision.“I understand why scientists are taking their time, but I think in a pandemic politicians can also read the rooms and see the direction of travel,” said the Tory MP, chair of the health select committee. “We should just get on, not wait for that advice – get on with a booster programme.”The JCVI’s deputy chairman Prof Anthony Harnden said earlier this week that it is “highly likely” there will be a booster programme, but a final decision has not been made.He said his panel of experts is awaiting the results of a Cov-Boost study looking at different vaccines to see what immune responses they give and whether jabs can be mixed and matched in a booster programme.Prof Harnden said there had been was “very complicated modelling and data analysis”, adding experts do not want to jab people too soon and then be unable to do so again if a new variant emerges.Experts criticised Mr Hunt’s call for a political decision on a booster programme, warning the prime minister to wait for the JCVI’s recommendation.Dr Doug Brown, head of the British Society for Immunology, said: “As with all decisions around vaccine use, it’s critical that the evidence around Covid vaccines, including whether additional doses are needed or not, is robustly scrutinised by the experienced experts from the JCVI.”Prof Sir Andrew Pollard, who chairs JCVI but does not sit on the Covid vaccine committee, said scientists’ decisions should not be “bound by short term political expediency”.He added: “Advice can be modified at any time when new scientific advice emerges – such a change is not bound by political ideology or opinion, but an appropriate response to the science.”Prof Saul Faust, chief investigator of the Cov-Boost study, said he found it “hard to understand” the pressure coming from politicians.“The UK is the only country in the world who commissioned urgent research to inform booster decisions, and the trial timelines have always been set to report next week for the decision making.”Ministers have also heaped pressure on government scientists for a decision on jabbing 12 to 15-year-old children, as pupils return to secondary schools in England.The JCVI is understood to have held a debate on the issue on Thursday. Reports suggest the JCVI had “pretty good news” from data in the US showing the vaccines pose an even smaller risk to children than previously thought.Education secretary Gavin Williamson said he hoped the JCVI would approve an expansion in the rollout to under 16s “very soon” – insisting there was capacity to carry out a booster programme and jabs for 12 to 15-year-olds at the same time.A group of leading international scientists said allowing mass infection of children is “reckless” and all over-12s should be offered the vaccine as soon as possible.In an open letter published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), they warned: “England’s policies mean that we will soon have a large susceptible population with high prevalence of infection mixing in crowded environments with hardly any mitigations.” More

Boris Johnson faced a furious backlash today over plans to target younger workers with a manifesto-busting £10bn-plus tax hike to pay for older people’s social care.The controversial decision to increase National Insurance contributions (NICs) for around 25 million workers is believed to have been agreed, with ministers now wrangling over the exact level of the rise before an announcement next week.Reports suggest the prime minister’s preferred 1p hike is being challenged by chancellor Rishi Sunak, who wants a rise of 1.25 percentage points to ease pressure on battered Treasury coffers, and health secretary Sajid Javid, who believes more is needed to fill gaping holes in care budgets. A source close to the health secretary rejected claims Mr Javid had been pushing for a 2 percentage point rise.But the proposal – floated more than two years after Mr Johnson said on the steps of Downing Street that he had a plan ready to implement – came under fire from former health secretary Jeremy Hunt, who said a NIC hike “disproportionately targets the young” and called instead for a new “health and care premium”.And Liberal Democrats said the floated rise would be “unfair and unjust”, because it will “hit the youngest and the lowest paid whilst protecting the wealthiest”.Any hike would also breach a Conservative Party promise in its 2019 manifesto not to increase the rates of income tax, NICs or VAT.Lib Dem health spokesperson Munira Wilson asked: “Has it really taken all this time to make a decision to rip off the people who can least afford to shoulder the burden of social care?“Some people affected are about to get their £20 per week Universal Credit cut. Now thanks to this government they are getting a cut and a tax hike.”National Insurance is currently paid at 12.5 per cent of income, but higher earners pay only 2 per cent on salaries above £50,000 and pensioners do not pay the levy.Campaigners argue that the PM’s plan will mean younger, lower-earning workers – many of whom cannot afford to buy their own homes – paying more in order to fulfil Mr Johnson’s promise that the elderly will not have to sell their homes to pay for care.Alicia Kennedy, director of the Generation Rent campaign for private tenants, said: “National Insurance disproportionately affects young people and lower paid workers who are already struggling to pay rent, let alone save for their retirement. “The wealthy minority who get their income from renting out property, owning a business, have inherited wealth or investments won’t pay a penny more.“Coming out of the pandemic, 353,000 private renters are in rent debt. They can’t save, and are further than ever from being able to buy their own home. An increase to National Insurance will not help the government meet its pledge to turn generation rent into generation buy.”Labour warned the PM against “hitting low earners, young people and business” with a tax rise.Shadow chief secretary to the Treasury Bridget Phillipson said: “Boris Johnson still hasn’t come forward with the plan for social care he promised over two years ago, and instead they’re proposing a manifesto-breaking tax rise that would hit working people and businesses hard.”But the party’s shadow work and pensions secretary Jonathan Reynolds stopped short of committing Labour to opposing an NIC rise to pay for social care, saying it would not be “reasonable” to rule anything out before seeing the details of the plan.“There are real issues about how fair National Insurance would be as a way to raise more money,” said Mr Reynolds. “I don’t want to vote against more money for social care, but I want that to be a fair tax rise.”Meanwhile, the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) warned a rise in employers’ NICs would be “devastating” for firms struggling to recover from the Covid pandemic.FSB national chair Mike Cherry said: “NICs act as a jobs tax, making it harder for small firms to provide opportunities and invest to improve productivity. If this hike happens, fewer jobs will be created by the UK’s small business community over the crucial months ahead.”Professor Len Shackleton, of the Institute of Economic Affairs thinktank, said that an insurance scheme would be fairer.“Many younger workers have been knocked sideways by the pandemic,” said Prof Shackleton. “Now government is proposing a hike in national insurance contributions that will hit this group hardest.“It is absurd that those over state pension age with substantial incomes and assets should not pay part of this burden because they are not currently liable for NICs.”Mr Hunt, now chair of the Commons Health Committee, said that a German-style social insurance system would not be acceptable to voters because it would deny the highest standards of care to poorer citizens.“In this country, uncomfortable though it is for Conservatives, we can only solve the problem through the tax system,” said the former health secretary. “However, a rise in income tax feels very un-Conservative after the progress in reducing it during the ‘80s, while National Insurance disproportionately targets the young. I therefore favour a new health and care premium.”Cabinet minister Robert Jenrick said details of the social care plan would be announced “very, very soon” but insisted no decision had yet been made on particular tax rises.“We will work as quickly as possible to get that certainty that people have been looking at for so long,” the justice secretary told Sky News. “Any reforms will be resilient for the long term. This isn’t just a change for a parliament – this has got be a generational change.”A government spokesperson said: “We are committed to bringing forward a long-term plan to reform the social care system and we will set out proposals this year.” More