Markus Andrews

China’s state-owned nuclear energy company could be blocked from all future power projects in the UK, with ministers understood to be considering ways to prevent its involvement.The move could block China General Nuclear (CGN) from involvement in a consortium planning to build the £20bn Sizewell C nuclear plant on the Suffolk coast, as well as one in Bradwell-on-Sea in Essex.A Whitehall source has confirmed a report by the Financial Times that first revealed that the government is exploring ways of removing CGN from future nuclear power projects in Britain.The move would likely stoke further tensions between the UK and China, and would also mark a toughening of Britain’s stance toward’s Beijing.China’s involvement in nuclear power in the UK dates back to an agreement endorsed by then prime minister David Cameron and Chinese president Xi Jinping in 2015.But relations have sourced since then amid major concerns about Beijing’s clampdown in Hong Kong and the treatment of the Uighurs in Xinjiang.One unnamed official told the FT said talks had also been held on halting CGN involvement in Sizewell C and there was little chance of involvement in the Bradwell-on-Sea project. “There isn’t a chance in hell CGN builds Bradwell.”The Sizewell C project has been proposed by a consortium of French firm EDF and CGN, with planned ownership being 80 per cent and 20 per cent respectively.A spokesman for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said: “Nuclear power has an important role to play in the UK’s low-carbon energy future, as we work towards our world-leading target to eliminate our contribution to climate change by 2050.“All nuclear projects in the UK are conducted under robust and independent regulation to meet the UK’s rigorous legal, regulatory and national security requirements, ensuring our interests are protected.”Campaign group Stop Sizewell C has said building the power station will damage the landscape and wildlife habitats, and any subsides for the costly project would be better invested in renewables.A environmentalist campaign group has described the potential impact of the Sizewell as “wholesale carnage”. Together Against Sizewell C (Tasc) claimed millions of fish off the coast of Suffolk could be sucked into the plant’s cooling mechanism over a 20-year period.The project suffered a significant setback earlier this year after major investors ruled out providing funding for the £20bn project.Additional report by PA More

The government is planning to push ahead with its cut to universal credit without any idea of the impact it will have on claimants, ministers have admitted.In response to a series of parliamentary questions submitted by Labour, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) claimed it was “not possible to produce a robust estimate of [the effect of] removing the £20 uplift on levels of in-work poverty or on child poverty”.And asked repeatedly about the cut’s effect on regional inequality, material deprivation, women, ethnic minorities, and the levels of debt claimants would have to take on to survive, DWP minister Will Quince admitted: “No assessment has been made.”Labour’s shadow work and pensions secretary Jonathan Reynolds said it was “staggering” that the government should push ahead “without considering how this cut will drive up in-work poverty or regional inequality”.Under government plans, universal credit will be cut by £20 a week in the autumn, when an uplift introduced at the start of the pandemic is taken away.Universal credit is claimed by more than 5.5 million households across the UK, and millions of those will face a cut equivalent to £1,040 a year. The benefit is claimed by people both in and out of work. The initial annual cost of the £20 rise, announced in April 2020, was £6.6bn, although this may increase if unemployment rises significantly due to the after-effects of the pandemic. Mr Reynolds said: “This is the most significant cut to social security in modern times, affecting millions of people, yet staggeringly the government haven’t even bothered to assess the impact their actions will have on our economy.“To press ahead without considering how this cut will drive up in-work poverty or regional inequality shows, yet again, with this government it’s all talk. When push comes to shove, they aren’t on the side of working people.“The government must see sense, back struggling families, and cancel this devastating cut. Labour would maintain the uplift and replace universal credit with a fairer social security system.”The revelations came as the opposition party unveiled plans for a “new deal for working people”. Labour said its programme would give workers full rights from day one, outlaw fire-and-rehire practices, create a new right to work flexibly, and strengthen the power of trade unions. The party said a strong industrial strategy focused on the domestic market would deliver more high-quality jobs, while tax changes would level the playing field between multinational corporations and high streets. A living wage would be set at £10 an hour, and more workers would be covered by collective bargaining agreements that would boost pay and conditions.Party leader Sir Keir Starmer said the pandemic had “exposed the fact that millions of workers don’t have the dignity and security they deserve from their job”, while deputy leader Angela Rayner said the country was at “a fork in the road” and that Britain was under “a broken economic model defined by insecure work, low wages and in-work poverty, and a lack of opportunity for people who want to get on and find good work to support themselves and their families”.Asked about the lack of research into the effects of its planned benefit cut, a government spokesperson said: “Universal credit has provided a vital safety net for 6 million people during the pandemic, and we announced the temporary uplift as part of a £400bn package of measures put in place that will last well beyond the end of the roadmap. “Our focus now is on our multi-billion-pound Plan for Jobs, which will support people in the long term by helping them learn new skills and increase their hours or find new work.” More

Those administering coronavirus vaccines are allegedly being told to throw away stock due to a drop in younger people opting to get their first jab, reports suggest.Attempts to use surplus vaccines on people awaiting their second jab are also being thwarted due to strict guidance set out by the government, which states jabs must be given at last eight weeks apart, an anonymous source told the Daily Telegraph.“For the last two weeks we have literally been throwing the vaccine into the bin,” the vaccinator, from the northeast of England, said. They added that most people who want their first dose have already come forward but “hesitancy” is stopping more people from coming forward. More than 87 per cent of the population have received their first vaccination, but that falls significantly to just below 60 per cent for 18- to 25-year-olds. “Some aren’t turning up because they’ve had a vaccine elsewhere,” the source claimed, while criticising the wasteful attitude of throwing the medicine away.“It is a shame because poorer countries are desperate for vaccines,” they said.The Joint Committee for Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) currently recommends an interval of eight to 12 weeks between Covid-19 vaccine doses, on the back of studies suggesting it offers greater immunity.Scientists this week described the eight-week interval as a “sweet spot” for those getting the Pfizer jab, after research showed the wait time generates more neutralising antibodies and “helper” T cells against Delta and other variants of concern than a three-week schedule.Vaccinators have been told to follow the guidance strictly, which sometimes means throwing vaccine away instead of giving it to people earlier, the unnamed source said.It is not the first time such claims have been made. Back in February, GP magazine Pulse revealed that in an email, the British Medical Association (BMA) said it was continuing to hear reports of Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) “demanding that vaccines are thrown away” rather than being given as second doses or to “other cohorts”.Despite there being the same ban then on shortening the gap between first and second doses as it is now, the BMA reminded GPs they could carry out measures such as offering initial jabs outside the first four priority cohorts if there is a “risk” of vaccine wastage.In the email, sent to GP practices across the country, the BMA said: “We would like to reiterate that NHSE/I has made it clear that the top priority is that all vaccines be used and therefore must not be deliberately wasted.“All sites should have reserve lists that they can use to make every effort to invite patients or healthcare professionals to ensure that they can make full use of any unused vaccines rather than have any go to waste.”Some medical professionals are now calling for the gap between doses to be reduced to as low as four weeks to avoid vaccine waste. Paul Hunter, professor of medicine at the University of East Anglia, said cutting the interval for Pfizer and Moderna for younger people could even be beneficial. “If we are giving younger people that extra immunity earlier on, that might actually help slow the rate [of infection] or even reverse it in cases,” he told the Telegraph. Nadhim Zahawi, the vaccines minister, this week stood by the government’s decision to stick to the eight-week gap as advised by the JCVI. “As we raced to offer a vaccine to all adults, we took the JCVI’s advice to shorten the dosing interval from 12 to eight weeks to help protect more people against the Delta variant,” he said. “I urge every adult to get both doses of the vaccine to protect yourself and those around you and we are looking to offer millions of the most vulnerable a booster jab from September to ensure this protection is maintained.”The Independent has been in touch with the Department of Health and Social Care for comment. More

Boris Johnson’s new health secretary has apologised for saying people had been “cowering” from Covid-19 by following earlier restrictions.Sajid Javid admitted to a “poor choice of words” and said he did not mean to minimise the impact of the pandemic.Labour and the Liberal Democrats accused the Cabinet minister of “offensive and ill-informed comments” and noted that 1 in 60 peple in the UK were still estimated to be shielding for medical reasons.“I’ve deleted a tweet which used the word ‘cower’,” Mr Javid said in a statement on Sunday.“I was expressing gratitude that the vaccines help us fight back as a society, but it was a poor choice of word and I sincerely apologise. “Like many, I have lost loved ones to this awful virus and would never minimise its impact.”Mr Javid’s apology bookends a torrid week for the government, which kicked off with a U-turn by the prime minister over whether he needed to follow self-isolation rules.Polls released over the weekend saw the Tory lead over opposition parties cut, with Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and Greens all up.The minister, a former banker, was appointed to replace Matt Hancock to oversee the NHS and public health measures during the pandemic. Mr Hancock had resigned after revelations that he broke social distancing rules in the course of conducting an extramarital affair.Mr Javid had claimed on Saturday that the government’s policy of removing regulations was a case of learning to “live with, rather than cower from, this virus”. More

Sadiq Khan’s party has urged him to halt construction of a new road tunnel in London that campaigners say will make it impossible to meet climate targets.In an overwhelming vote at the London Labour regional conference on Saturday delegates called for the Silvertown Tunnel to be scrapped by 74 per cent to 26 per cent.The twin-bore road tunnel under the Thames is planned to link Silvertown to the Greenwich peninsula, with an expected opening date of 2025.Transport for London says it will reduce congestion in the nearby Blackwall Tunnel but environmentalists say it will simply induce more demand and lead to worsening air quality and car dependency. Experts have warned that that project is incompatible with Mr Khan’s strong rhetoric on climate change. It is opposed by the Green Party, Liberal Democrats, some Conservatives, and many of Labour’s own MPs and mayors.Delegates at the conference, where Mr Khan spoke, approved a motion calling on the mayor to “cancel this project” on the basis that “evidence shows the tunnel would worsen air pollution, traffic congestion, carbon emissions and is also financially unviable”.The agreed decision adds: “One impact would be to enable HGVs to cross the river into London’s most polluted borough, passing dozens of schools and nurseries where tens of thousands of children play and learn.”Furthermore, research from the Tyndall Centre shows that London’s transport policy is currently incompatible with the rapid decarbonisation require to reach targets aligned with the Paris agreement and the tunnel will only make matters worse.”The motion, put forward by the Labour local constituency parties in Greenwich and Woolwich, Camberwell and Peckham, Lewisham Deptford, Leyton & Wanstead and Erith and Thamesmead, said TfL would become “reliant on high traffic revenue” to repay the private finance initiative (PFI) loan used to build it.The conference resolved that there was “no justification for the tunnel” and that the project does not make “economic sense” and that “revenue should be prioritise for accessible, affordable, green energy [-powered] and efficient public transport”. More

A former Tory councillor was given a £120m government contract for Covid equipment which is now largely lying unused because of concerns about its quality, it has been revealed.Steve Dechan, who owns medical device manufacturer Platform-14 had his offer to supply protective equipment from China fast-tracked through the government’s controversial “VIP” lane.The Sunday Times newspaper reports that fewer than 1 in 400 of the face shields procured by the company for the government has been used because the regulator does not believe they meet the right standards.The original order for 120 million shields has delivered just 274,200 into the NHS supply chain, representing 0.23 per cent of the overall stock.It means the shields used have so far cost the equivalent of £423 each despite similar ones being available to buy online for less than £1.The Health and Safety Executive has to authorise all PPE that is not CE marked, an EU designation that means it complies with European standards.But the regulator said: “None of the documentation provided to HSE indicated the product to be CE marked.” The regulator wrote to officials in September last year saying the shields “cannot enter the NHS supply chain” and repeatedly refused to approve them.But in February the DHSC stepping and and directly approve the face shields, with 274,000 used in the NSH so far. During the height of the pandemic last year none could be used.Mr Dechan told the Sunday Times that the “application and usage [of the shields] is entirely a matter for DHSC”. He said they had met “the required standards” and added: “As an NHS supplier for nearly 10 years, we will continue to provide innovative solutions and support trusts and patients across the UK.”The reports come amid concern about the government’s procurement during the pandemic. The National Audit Office found that firms referred to the VIP lane were ten times more likely to be given government contracts to supply PPE. The NAO, the government’s spending watchdog, said sun a report in November 2020 that there was a “lack of transparency and adequate documentation of some key decisions, such as why particular suppliers were chosen or how government identified and managed potential conflicts of interest, in the awarding of some contracts”.Another report released by the Commons Public Accounts Committee on Sunday said that the government is wasting vast amounts of money PPE that is still “not fit for purpose” a year and a half into the pandemic.Official figures show that overall nearly 7 per cent of all items purchased by the health department have failed quality checks while ministers are spending £6.7m every week to keep it stored.An eye-watering 2.1 billion items have already been found unsuitable for use in medical settings and 10,000 shipping containers are still to be unpacked.The same committee also warned of “significant financial risks for decades to come”, with the estimated lifetime cost of all the government’s Covid measures reaching £372bn in May 2021. More

Sajid Javid has been urged to apologise for suggesting that people have been “cowering” from Covid-19.The health secretary said on Saturday the government’s policy of removing regulations was a case of learning to “live with, rather than cower from, this virus”.Mr Javid is an avid devotee of fringe American philosopher Ayn Rand, who presented man as a “heroic being” who should reject altruism and pursue its own interests at all costs.Opposition parties branded the health secretary’s comments were “outrageous” while a victim’s group said he was being “deeply insensitive”.Some clinically vulnerable people are still shielding from the virus by completely minimising contact. Cowering means to recoil or shrink from something because they are afraid, and has negative connotations. Liberal Democrat spokesperson Munira Wilson said: “His careless words have insulted every man, woman and child who has followed the rules and stayed at home to protect others.”He owes them all, especially the millions who are shielding, an apology.”Meanwhile Labour’s shadow justice secretary David Lammy said: “129,000 Brits have died from Covid under your government’s watch. Don’t denigrate people for trying to keep themselves and their families safe.”Labour MP Yvette Cooper said: “129,000 people who died didn’t cower, they fought for their lives. Frontline workers didn’t cower, they kept calm and carried on. Millions in lockdown didn’t cower, they followed your rules & made sacrifices for others”She added that people should “never treat illness as weakness”.Co-founder of Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice Jo Goodman said Mr Javid’s comments were “deeply insensitive on a number of levels”.She added: “Words matter and the flippancy and carelessness of this comment has caused deep hurt and further muddied the waters of the government’s dangerously mixed messaging.”Mr Javid, who worked as a banking executive in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis, replaced Matt Hancock as health secretary last month after the latter politician stood down amid revelations he broke social distancing while conducting an extramarital affair.The new health secretary made the comments while announcing he had recovered from Covid-19, which he tested positive for a week ago. His “cowering” claim comes as the government this week lifted all remaining legal restrictions on day-to-day life related to Covid-19.Boris Johnson has claimed the move is irreversible. More

Labour is quietly recruiting staff on insecure temporary contracts with worse employment conditions while it moves to make a third of its existing permanent employees redundant, The Independent can reveal.The party is being accused of using underhand “fire and rehire” practices condemned by Keir Starmer himself in a speech just a few months ago.Staff were told of the mass redundancies this week, which the party said was “not an easy decision” but required to get “fighting fit for upcoming campaigns and the next general election”.Labour is believed to have seen an exodus of members under Keir Starmer’s leadership, which has hit the party’s finances hard – as has settling with former staffers who sued the party over its handling of antisemitism.But despite the scale of the lay-offs the party is actually recruiting temporary staff on significantly less secure conditions than those being asked to take redundancy.An advert posted on a recruitment website offers potential workers a six month contact, and says work is to be done from home. All applicants need their own laptop, a “secure Wi-Fi connection” at home, and must bring their own “satisfactory firewall and virus protection”.The advert does not mention that the job is working with Labour, and falsely claims it is in the “public sector”. But The Independent has confirmed with the party that recruits will be put to work in its governance and legal unit, which investigates complaints against members. Successful applicants, who will be paid £19 an hour, are asked to have a “knowledge of data protection and equalities legislation” and the “ability to work effectively in a fast-paced and highly pressurised environment”, among other traits.Party sources say the recruitment push is “necessary and temporary measure” to clear a surfeit of complaints. But one senior Labour MP told The Independent the party was acting like “the worst of the very worst employers” and said Keir Starmer should “get a grip” on his officials.”To learn that our party are now using what can only be described as ‘fire and rehire tactics’ appalls me. It’s everything we as a party should be aggressively opposing,” they said.”Sacking individuals and hiring others with worse wages terms and conditions are the actions of the worst of the very worst employers.”The Independent understands that the issue was discussed at a recent meeting of the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC). General secretary David Evans, a former political consultant recruited by Keir Starmer last year, is said to have rejected the characterisation as “fire and rehire” and said the new employees were not agency workers.Party leader Sir Keir told the Trades Union Congress in September that fire and rehire should be “illegal” and was “not just wrong but against British values”.“After a decade of pay restraint – that’s the last thing working people need, and in the middle of a deep recession – it’s the last thing our economy needs,” he said at the time.Speaking on the record about the job advert, a Labour spokesperson said: “We don’t comment on staffing.”A Labour source said: “This is unrelated to the announcement about the voluntary severance scheme. It was agreed by the NEC several weeks ago as a necessary and temporary measure to help us clear the backlog of complaints as quickly as possible.”Referring to the redundancy scheme, a Labour source said this week: “This is not an easy decision and we recognise it will be a very difficult time for staff and we will fully engage and consult with them and the trade unions throughout. “We are reshaping our party’s operation with a view towards being fighting fit for upcoming campaigns and the next general election.” More