Markus Andrews

An emergency summit of G7 states chaired by Boris Johnson is expected to agree a unified approach on the future use of sanctions on Afghanistan, but hold back from immediate measures against the new Taliban regime which has seized control in Kabul.Foreign secretary Dominic Raab today insisted that the UK is ready to use “all the levers at our disposal” – including sanctions – to protect the people of Afghanistan and prevent the country again becoming a base for terrorism.His warning came just a day after Downing Street denied reports that the UK was pressing world leaders to consider imposing sanctions at this afternoon’s virtual summit.Instead, the G7 countries – the UK, US, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan – are expected to agree to take a unified front on the questions of when and if to recognise the Taliban regime and any future measures in retaliation to breaches of obligations on human rights and terrorism.One Whitehall source told The Independent that the Taliban had indicated that, unlike during its previous period of power before 2001, it wants Afghanistan to maintain ties with the outside world in areas such as trade. London wants the G7 to send the message to the new rulers in Kabul that the quid pro quo for international links of this kind will be the disavowal of terrorism and respect for human rights.It is understood that no planning is currently under way on specific sanctions, but that Mr Raab’s comments were intended to signal to Kabul that they are a tool which the UK will not hesitate to wield in future.Foreign affairs committee chairs from the parliaments of the G7 states issued a joint statement calling for the leaders at today’s summit to back a UN resolution setting out binding commitments on the Taliban as a condition of co-ordinated international recognition of the Kabul regime, with “robust sanctions” in response to violations.These should include repudiation of all cross-border terrorism, equality of rights for girls and women, protection of minority groups, commitment to democratic elections and ending all narcotics activity, said the committee chairs, including Tory MP and Afghanistan veteran Tom Tugendhat.“There is little indication from its past or present behaviour that the Taliban is committed to any of these principles, so the G7 countries should be prepared to isolate the Taliban and impose robust sanctions should violations reach an agreed threshold,” said the joint statement.Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Mr Raab said that the UK was focused on ensuring that gains made over the past 20 years in Afghanistan are not lost.“Our priorities are clear,” he said. “Afghanistan must never again be used as a base for terrorist attacks. We will have to address the looming humanitarian crisis in the country, which would also threaten regional stability, and we must strive to secure a more inclusive Afghan government that can maintain stability and avoid the kind of rights abuses that the Taliban have committed before, particularly against women.“We will use all the levers at our disposal, including sanctions, aid and access to international finance systems, and we are rallying our international partners around these shared priorities.”US president Joe Biden told reporters on Friday that he and secretary of state Antony Blinken would work with other countries to set “harsh conditions” for any co-operation with or recognition of the Taliban, based on their treatment of women and girls and overall human rights record.The UK ambassador to Washington, Dame Karen Pierce, said that Mr Johnson will stress a unified approach during the 90-minute video-conference.“We want to start the process of developing a clear plan, so that we can all deal with the new Afghan regime in a unified and concerted way,” said Pierce. “We will judge the new regime by actions, not words.“We want to work together to convey the very important point that we don’t want Afghanistan to be a breeding ground for terrorism. We don’t want it to lapse into its pre 9/11 state.”Biden told reporters on Sunday that the US was already working with the Taliban to facilitate the evacuations, but that the Islamist group was “seeking legitimacy” in the longer term.That meant it would need “additional help in terms of economic assistance, trade, and a whole range of things,” but the international response – including potential sanctions – would depend on their actions going forward. More

Gender critical feminist campaigners in Scotland have attacked the SNP’s plans to make it easier for people to legally change gender.As part of the party’s new power-sharing deal with the Scottish Greens, the SNP have agreed to introduce a bill within the next year to reform and simplify the Gender Recognition Act, which governs how trans people can legally change gender.Currently, the Act requires people to prove to a Gender Recognition Panel they have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, they have lived in their new gender for at least two years already and then make legally-binding declaration they intend to live as this gender for the rest of their life.The Scottish government has already held several consultations in recent years on amending the law to allow people to simply self-identify their new gender with a form which would automatically be recognised by the panel.Their agreement with the Greens, who are supporting an SNP minority government in a formal confidence and supply deal, commits them to reforming the Act in the next 12 months.The text of the agreement stats: “We will reform the Gender Recognition Act in a Bill introduced in the first year of this parliamentary session.“This will ensure the process by which a trans person can obtain legal recognition is simplified, reducing the trauma associated with that process.”But For Women Scotland, a lobbying group which formed in opposition to self-identification in 2018, has accused Nicola Sturgeon’s government of ignoring the views of women and trying to push through changes out of step with the public’s views.“As usual with the SNP, it is not listening to the wider general public,” Marion Calder, the director of For Women Scotland, told The Daily Telegraph. “This is the SNP forging ahead with its Bill without any consultation – it’s a farce – and it will try to rush this through as fast as it can.”The general public have an understanding there’s only two sexes and they will be confused and astonished.“Of all the things we could be looking at – economic recovery, drug deaths, falling education standards – the Scottish Government has decided it’s so important it’s got to be done in the first year.”For Women and other campaigners argue simplifying and speeding up the process of gender transition could open the door to men pretending to be trans women to gain access to female changing rooms or other spaces in society reserved for women.Trans activists dismiss this as fear-mongering, and have said the current gender recognition process is overly bureaucratic and interfering with trans people’s private lives.Under Theresa May, the government in Westminster held its own consultation on reforming the Act and introducing self-identification, but concluded last year the current process was fair and scrapped plans to change the law. However, a spokesperson for the Scottish government insisted reforms to the Gender Recognition Act in Scotland posed no threat to women or their rights.”This reform will be undertaken in a way that ensures women’s rights are preserved and protected,” they said. More

Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, has admitted an extension to the August 31 evacuation deadline in Afghanistan is “unlikely”.His comments come as Boris Johnson — alongside G7 allies — prepares to lobby the US president Joe Biden to grant an additional few days to evacuate desperate citizens and Afghans granted visas from the clutches of the Taliban insurgency.However, Mr Wallace played down the prospect of an extension on Tuesday, pointing to statements from both the US administration and the warning from a Taliban spokesperson of the “consequences” if foreign powers attempted to retain a military presence in the region beyond the “red line” deadline of 31 August.“I think it is unlikely,” the defence secretary told Sky News ahead of the G7 meeting. “Not only because of what the Taliban has said but if you look at the public statements of president Biden, I think it is unlikely. But it’s definitely worth us trying, and we will.”In a separate interview on ITV, the cabinet minister suggested there was a “slim chance” of the deadline being extended, adding: “That’s why we’ve been planning for the worst, of course we hope for the best”.The defence secretary also issued a frank warning that the security risk around the airport could increase and “gets more and more dangerous” as the deadline approaches, with terrorist groups potentially attempting to exploit the fragile situation.He said: “Terrorist groups such as Isis would like to be seen to take greater credit, or like to be seen to chase the West out of the airport — that is inevitably going to feed their narrative and ambitions.“The Taliban are actually controlling the outer ring of the airport and indeed checkpoints throughout Kabul and that makes it harder for Isis terrorists. The Taliban and Isis have no friendly relationship at all, but we are very mindful that we are very, very vulnerable should these terrorists choose to do something.”Mr Wallace, who reiterated that “not everyone” will be able to get out of the country, added that in the last 24-hour period, revealed that over 2,000 people had been evacuated from Hamid Karzai International Airport, with the total now exceeding 8,000.In social media posts ahead of the G7 leaders’ meeting, the prime minister said he will ask “our friends and allies to stand by the Afghan people and step up support for refugees and humanitarian aid”.“We will continue to use every humanitarian and diplomatic lever to safeguard human rights and the gains made in Afghanistan over the last two decades,” he said. “The Taliban will be judged by their deeds and not their words”. More

British manufacturing businesses are to get another year to comply with Brexit red tape following concerns that an impending deadline could have sent them into chaos.The Independent previously reported that vital parts for UK goods, such as cars and fridges, could fall into legal limbo if the government took too long to replace the ubiquitous European “CE” mark.The new “UKCA” mark was due to be a requirement from 1 January 2022, but that deadline will now slip back to 1 January 2023 under new government plans.The decision, confirmed by the government’s business department on Tuesday, is another sign that the government was poorly prepared for the consequences of Brexit.Industry bodies, factories and conformity assessors had previously told The Independent that there was not enough capacity, or no capacity at all, for testing certain goods ahead of the previous 2022 UKCA compliance deadline. They said it risked a falling out between business and government if, as feared, it derailed British supply chains. It could also have held up businesses’ recovery efforts in the wake of the pandemic.But businesses will now have another year to get approved under the new system.Ahead of the U-turn, the British Chambers of Commerce had told The Independent that they had “serious concerns about the effect on business of the looming deadline”.A business department spokesperson previously said of the new kite mark: “Businesses have a responsibility to ensure their products meet the requirements of regulations. We continue to work with industry on this issue and to ensure they understand their obligations.” More

Boris Johnson faces a make-or-break test of his international clout on Tuesday, as he attempts to persuade Joe Biden at a summit called by the prime minister to grant a few additional days to evacuate desperate Afghans and foreigners away from the clutches of the Taliban.The UK accepts that its troops cannot remain in Kabul beyond the US pull-out, currently scheduled for 31 August, and Downing Street effectively acknowledged that Taliban cooperation will be needed to continue its airlift even if President Biden agrees an extension. But defence secretary Ben Wallace said there were thousands of people who the UK still hopes to help in the “hours not weeks” that remain, and that Britain would “make sure we exploit every minute to get people out”.A Taliban spokesman warned of “consequences” if foreign powers attempt to retain a military presence in the country beyond the “red line” deadline of Tuesday next week.But UK government sources indicated that no direct communication had been received to this effect from the militant group, which captured the Afghan capital last week after 20 years, and it was unclear how willing the new regime in Kabul will be to take a more moderate line.In comments released ahead of Tuesday’s video conference, Mr Johnson made no mention of his plans to join with other international leaders, including Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel, to seek more time from Mr Biden, instead focusing on the need for aid and resettlement schemes to give Afghanistan a chance of a more stable future.The prime minister said he would urge G7 nations – joined on the call by UN secretary general Antonio Guterres and Nato chief Jens Stoltenberg – to match UK commitments to double humanitarian aid to the region to £286m and take in 20,000 Afghan refugees. But with the UK’s aid boost failing to make up for Mr Johnson’s previous cuts and only 5,000 resettlements envisaged in the coming year, the G7 response will be an important marker of how much influence the PM retains internationally.“Our first priority is to complete the evacuation of our citizens and those Afghans who have assisted our efforts over the last 20 years – but as we look ahead to the next phase, it’s vital we come together as an international community and agree a joint approach for the longer term,” said Mr Johnson.“That’s why I’ve called an emergency meeting of the G7 – to coordinate our response to the immediate crisis, to reaffirm our commitment to the Afghan people, and to ask our international partners to match the UK’s commitments to support those in need.“Together with our partners and allies, we will continue to use every humanitarian and diplomatic lever to safeguard human rights and protect the gains made over the last two decades. The Taliban will be judged by their deeds and not their words.”A meeting of the government’s Cobra emergency committee chaired by Mr Johnson on Monday heard that the UK had secured the evacuation of almost 6,000 people from Kabul since Operation Pitting began last week, including British nationals and their dependants, embassy staff, and Afghan nationals under the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP) programme.But thousands more are entitled to help, believed to include figures involved in Afghan civil society, women’s rights and democratic politics who may not have worked directly with UK organisations.With several days needed to arrange the final withdrawal of British troops ahead of US departure, the defence secretary accepted that not all of those eligible will be evacuated, whatever the final deadline is. But he stressed that the UK will continue efforts to get them to Britain, whether from Afghanistan or neighbouring countries in which they seek refuge.“I don’t think there is any likelihood of staying on after the United States,” said Mr Wallace. “If their timetable extends even by a day or two, that will give us a day or two more to evacuate people.“We are really down to hours now, not weeks, and we have to make sure we exploit every minute to get people out.”But he added: “Of course, the United States and the G7 are not the only stakeholders in this, the Taliban now have a vote and the security situation is precarious, and I think that’s why we have to see what we can do.”France’s foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said Paris was “concerned” about the US deadline, while German counterpart Heiko Maas said the G7 meeting needed to agree on an extension as well as improved access to the airport, where chaotic scenes have prevented the delivery of tonnes of medical supplies.Mr Johnson’s official spokesperson confirmed that Taliban acquiescence was likely to be needed for any extension of the evacuation period to be “feasible”. Cooperation with the group’s commanders on the ground had enabled processing of evacuees to be stepped up in recent days, he said.But Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen described the end of this month as “a red line” which could not be breached.Speaking to Sky News in Qatar, Dr Shaheen said: “President Biden announced that on 31 August they would withdraw all their military forces. So if they extend it that means they are extending occupation while there is no need for that.“If the US or UK were to seek additional time to continue evacuations – the answer is no. Or there would be consequences.“It will create mistrust between us. If they are intent on continuing the occupation it will provoke a reaction.”Mr Wallace said it was “in the Taliban’s interest to keep the country open” and allow people to cross its borders following the removal of international forces.“I would think the Taliban want the airport to function and that means in the not-too-distant future, people that are eligible will be able to leave the country and make their way either overland, or indeed on flights to the Emirates and other parts of the world, which has been the norm up to date,” he said.Shadow foreign secretary Lisa Nandy said Tuesday’s summit was “a make-or-break test of the prime minister’s ability to bring together international partners, rise to the occasion and show leadership”.Ms Nandy said he should demand the extension of the air bridge out of Kabul, global agreement on keeping borders open for refugees, and a strategy to help those left behind, adding: “The prime minister has had 18 months to plan for this – the world’s eyes are on tomorrow’s meeting to make the next seven days count.”Former Labour PM Gordon Brown, now UN envoy for global education, said the G7 meeting should agree $8bn (£5.9bn) in aid for Afghan education over 20 years, on condition of the protection of girls’ access to schools.Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey said Mr Johnson must use the meeting to help secure safe passage for refugees out of Afghanistan.“If we cannot evacuate Afghans, the least we can do is work with the international community – especially neighbouring countries such as Pakistan – and use every diplomatic lever possible to try and secure a safe route out of the country for those who wish to flee the Taliban,” said Sir Ed. More

Boris Johnson is facing a corruption legal battle over whether his party has been funnelling taxpayer cash into Tory areas to give it a political advantage.The High Court will decide whether the PM’s £4.8bn “Levelling Up Fund” unlawfully and systematically sent cash to areas considered to be “of political benefit to the Conservative party”.Judges agreed to hear a legal challenge brought by the Good Law Project, stating: “The grounds are arguable.”The lawsuit, formally filed against Rishi Sunak, Robert Jenrick and Grant Shapps in their government roles, could find that the centrepiece of the government’s so-called “levelling-up” agenda is unlawful.The leafy market town constituencies of Mr Sunak and Mr Jenrick are among the areas to benefit from an unusual funding formula that critics accused of amounting to “pork barrel politics”.Campaigners cited an investigation by the National Audit Office, which found that the government’s list of targets for the cash had been published without supporting information to explain why they had been chosen.The House of Commons’ cross-party Public Accounts Committee had also said the lack of transparency had left to concerns of “political bias” in the allocation of funds.Forty out of the first 45 schemes to be approved under the fund in March had at least one Conservative MP.Jolyon Maugham, the barrister who founded the campaign group bringing the suit, said at the time: “If you think that it’s coincidence that Tory marginals are huge beneficiaries I have a fine bridge to sell you. To ensure the Tories don’t use public money for party purposes, the Good Law Project is suing.”The campaigners cited Chris Hanretty, Professor of politics at Royal Holloway, University of London, who looked at the funding formula and evidence presented by the National Audit Office and government.“On the basis of the data collated by the ministry and published by the NAO, there is robust evidence that ministers chose towns so as to benefit the Conservatives in marginal Westminster seats,” he wrote.“This evidence is robust in the sense that the effects persist even when controlling for other town characteristics that might justifiably affect selection.“Choosing towns to benefit a particular party goes against the seven principles of public life (the ‘Nolan principles’), and in particular the obligation to ‘take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias’.”The Good Law Project has previously challenged the government in court over alleged cronyism in PPE contacts, clean air, and access to remote education during the pandemic.A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said in response to the suit at the time: “The £4.8bn Levelling Up Fund is open to all places in Great Britain and will play a vital role in helping to support and regenerate communities.“The published methodology makes clear the metrics used to identify places judged to be most in need. It would not be appropriate to comment on potential legal action.” More

Labour is demanding a sleaze inquiry into claims that Boris Johnson used taxpayers’ money to fund a private jet to fly to Hartlepool to campaign for a Conservative by-election candidate.The ministerial code states that ministers “must not use government resources for Party political purposes”.But an official party spending return obtained by the Business Insider website recorded that the cost to the Conservatives of the prime minister’s travel was “nil”, suggesting that the cost of the flight was met from government funds.In a letter to Mr Johnson’s ethics adviser Christopher Geidt and cabinet secretary Simon Case, shadow deputy prime minister Angela Rayner said that this would amount to a “clear” breach of the code.She demanded an investigation from Lord Geidt into who paid for the trip, pointing to clauses in the ministerial code which state that “official transport should not normally be used for travel arrangements arising from party business” and that in cases where a visit involves a “mix of political and official engagements”, the party would be expected to cover “a proper proportion of the actual cost”.Mr Johnson visited Hartlepool on 1 April, five days after the start of the by-election regulated period, during which spending in support of a candidate must be declared.It is understood he flew by private jet from London Stansted to Teesside International Airport, travelling in a motorcade to nearby Middlesbrough to take part in an official government event to promote a rise in the minimum wage before moving on to Hartlepool.In her letter, Ms Rayner warned that the prime minister could not claim to be unaware of the expenditure involved, as he did during an investigation into the refurbishment of his Downing Street flat, as he “clearly walked himself up the steps onto his taxpayer-funded plane, and walked himself around Hartlepool talking to voters during a party political visit during a by-election campaign”.Mr Johnson’s visit – along with later trips to Hartlepool ahead of the 6 May poll – was credited with assisting Tory candidate Jill Mortimer with seizing the north-east coastal constituency from Labour for the first time since its creation, achieving a stunning 23-per-cent swing which led to questions about the future of Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer.Ms Rayner said: “Yet again, the prime minister behaves like the rules don’t apply to him. Taxpayers’ money should not be abused to fund the Conservative Party’s election campaigns.“The prime minister has clearly broken the ministerial code, and this time he can’t play ignorant and pretend that he didn’t know what was going on.“The contempt with which the prime minister treats the laws governing election expenses and the rules that are supposed to uphold standards in our public life shows that he is only ever interested in helping himself, not acting in the interests of the British people.”Downing Street denied allegations of a breach, pointing out that the ministerial code states that for security reasons the prime minister may use an official car for all journeys by road “including those for private or party purposes”, as he did when travelling between Middlesbrough and Hartlepool.A No 10 spokesperson said: “The prime minister visited Teesside on official Government business, meeting workers to coincide with an increase in the national living wage. This was followed by a short political visit, as permitted by the ministerial code.“All relevant costs have been correctly accounted for and appropriately proportioned. At all times government rules and electoral requirements have been followed in relation to ministerial visits.”A Conservative spokesperson said: “CCHQ (Conservative Campaign Headquarters) covered all relevant costs associated with the political visit on 1 April in accordance with the ministerial code and reported relevant candidate spending in accordance with the Representation of the People’s Act 1983.” More

Education secretary Gavin Williamson has been accused of “chaotic” decision-making after it emerged that the full return of England’s secondary schools would be delayed by a week.Schools will be allowed to stagger the starting date of the new academic year to allow for on-site Covid testing to take place, the Department for Education (DfE) has said.Labour said the plan showed a “staggering disregard” for families, claiming that delays in the restarting of lessons would mean more disruption for pupils and parents in September.The shadow education secretary, Kate Green, has written to Mr Williamson urging him to immediately clarify his “last-minute” decision-making – just 10 days before the start of term.In her letter to Mr Williamson, the shadow education secretary wrote: “Once again, your delayed planning and chaotic decision-making risks creating havoc for families and will put additional pressure on school staff planning for the start of the new year.“The Conservatives’ chaotic, last-minute approach is damaging children’s education. Parents would rightly expect ministers to have learnt from their mistakes over the last year, but once again families are being treated as an afterthought,” said Ms Green.The Labour frontbencher added: “After two years of disrupted education, each day in school matters. The Conservatives’ systematic refusal to plan ahead is just not good enough. Labour is demanding better for our children’s futures.”Lessons in many secondary schools are not expected to start until the second week of the new academic year.A DfE spokesperson said: “[School] settings may commence testing three working days before the start of term, and can stagger the return of pupils across the first week.”Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) union, said there was a need to test pupils on site after the summer break – but said families would be “frustrated” at further disruption in September. “Logistically it will be challenging. We thought we could focus on the norm of education, and already we have the spectre of disruption. Parents may rightly feel frustrated,” said Mr Barton.Steve Chalke, chief executive of Oasis, one of England’s biggest academy trusts, complained about the “last-minute” decisions. “Headteachers have called for months for a way of opening schools and keeping them open to avoid a third year of academic disruption to children,” he said.Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, said expanding the vaccine programme to 12- to 17-year-olds would help reduce the number of pupils off school in self-isolation.No 10 said it was hoping for a decision from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) “as soon as possible” on whether 12- to 15-year-olds should receive the vaccine.“We want a decision to be reached as soon as possible, recognising they’re an independent body, so it wouldn’t be right for us to set a specific timeline for them,” said Boris Johnson’s official spokesperson on Monday. “We want it to be done as soon as possible so that parents and young people have certainty.”Downing Street also indicated that talks were under way with education leaders on the use of school facilities – like assembly halls and gyms – for mass vaccination of pupils, if the JCVI decide the jab can be rolled out to the over-12s.“We will obviously discuss with schools, as we have been, about what that might necessitate in order to get it done as quickly as possible,” said the prime minister’s spokesperson.Labour has also urged Mr Williamson to provide more certainty around ventilation in schools, and to explain why the government has only just announced the provision of carbon dioxide monitors for classrooms.Around 300,000 carbon dioxide monitors will be made available to schools in England during the next term in a bid to improve ventilation and reduce Covid outbreaks, the DfE announced on Saturday. More