Markus Andrews

Boris Johnson has rejected recommendations to introduce new taxes on sugar and salt to help tackle junk food-related issues, saying he is “not attracted” to the idea of a levy.The prime minister’s comments came shortly after the publication of the National Food Strategy, which urged the government to take action to reform diets and encourage people to eat less sugar, salt and meat.Authored by food entrepreneur Henry Dimbleby, the review warned that what the country eats, and how it is produced, is doing “terrible damage” to the environment and health, contributing to 64,000 deaths a year in England.Among its proposals, the report called for a Sugar and Salt Reformulation Tax, including a levy of £3 per kilo of sugar and £6 per kilo of salt sold wholesale for use in processed food, restaurants and catering businesses.After a speech on “levelling up” the country on Thursday, Mr Johnson said the government would study the proposals but forward by Mr Dimbleby – a co-founded of the Leon restaurant chain – in the independent report.However, the prime minister added: We believe in tackling obesity, trying to help people lose weight, with promoting exercise and tackling junk food advertising and so on.“I’m not, I must say, attracted to the idea of extra taxes on our working people, let me just signal that, but I will study his report with interest.”In response to Mr Johnson’s remarks, Mr Dimbleby said it was “great” the prime minister had committed to reading the report, adding: “This is a huge problem, requiring bold solutions. Of course government can’t make up its mind on these things on the spot, no matter how much people try to bump them into that.”Earlier the cabinet minister Robert Jenrick also played down the possibility of the government introducing new taxes on sugar and salt, saying ministers would be cautious about imposing “burdens” on the public.“I think you have to be very careful about going down that road, because I don’t want to make life more difficult for people on low incomes,” he told LBC.The report adds that the new levy would raise between £2.9bn and 3.4bn a year, the report says, some of which could be spent expanding free school meals to another 1.1 million children who need them.Speaking earlier on Thursday, Mr Dimbleby suggested plans for salt and sugar levies are “doable”, but admitted he could not guarantee ministers will implement them.“The government clearly needs to make a change and I think the recommendations I’ve made are doable, powerful and in the short term will create change,” he told BBC’s Breakfast.“I will be out there making the case for them as strongly as I can but in the end it’s the government’s decision.“They are elected, I am not elected, and it’s their decisions on what policies they make, but I will certainly be making the case as strongly as I can.” More

Ministers have suggested that the government will reject proposals to introduce new taxes on sugar and salt to help remedy Britain’s addiction to junk food.The newly published National Food Strategy review said the government must take action to encourage people to eat less sugar, salt and meat in an effort to save lives and protect the NHS.However, communities secretary Robert Jenrick said the government would be cautious about imposing any new “burdens” on the public.Asked about the proposed sugar levy adding an estimated 87p to the price of Frosties, Mr Jenrick told LBC Radio: “I think you have to be very cautious before putting burdens on members of the public – particularly those on lower incomes.”The cabinet minister added: “I think you do have to be very careful about going down that road, because I don’t want to make life more difficult for people on low incomes.”Boris Johnson later said he was not “attracted” to the idea of new levies on sugar and salt. “There are doubtless good ideas in it,” the prime minister said on the report.Speaking in the West Midlands, Mr Johnson added: “I’m not attracted to the idea of extra taxes on hard working people – let me just signal that. But I will study his report with interest.”The government will “carefully” consider the findings of the National Food Strategy report – commissioned by Michael Gove when he was environment secretary – before bringing forward its own proposals later this year, Mr Jenrick said.The communities secretary told Sky News: “This is an independent review. It was commissioned by government a couple of years ago but we haven’t had any control over the findings.“They are interesting findings that the environment secretary [George Eustice] is going to consider and then bring forward our own strategy in the coming months.”Reports suggest ministers are not keen on implementing any new levies, with many Tory MPs against a “nanny state” crackdown on junk food. One unnamed government official told Politico that a sugar or salt tax was not being considered.Authored by restaurateur Henry Dimbleby, the independent report warns that what we eat, and how it is produced, is doing “terrible damage” to both the environment and our health – contributing to 65,000 deaths a year in England.The most significant recommendation would be a “world first” levy of £3 a kilo on sugar and £6 a kilo on salt sold wholesale for use in processed food, restaurants and catering.This would raise between £2.9bn and 3.4bn a year, the report says, some of which could be spent expanding free school meals to another 1.1 million children who need them.Mr Dimbleby said plans for salt and sugar levies are “doable”, but admitted he could not guarantee ministers will implement them.“The government clearly needs to make a change and I think the recommendations I’ve made are doable, powerful and in the short term will create change,” he told BBC’s Breakfast.“I will be out there making the case for them as strongly as I can but in the end it’s the government’s decision. They are elected, I am not elected, and it’s their decisions on what policies they make, but I will certainly be making the case as strongly as I can.”Lindsay Boswell, chief executive of food waste charity FareShare, backed the report – saying the proposed changes set out were “the most important … in my lifetime”.He told BBC Breakfast: “We cannot afford to keep feeding bad food to people, we cannot afford to have children that go hungry, we cannot afford to destroy the planet in the way we are doing.”Shadow environment secretary Luke Pollard said the report was a massive wake-up call to fix Britain’s broken food system – warning the government not to ignore it.“But this government have proved incapable of ending the growing foodbank scandal and the obesity crisis, while their trade deals betray our British farmers,” he said.“We need a radical obesity strategy, ensuring families are able to access healthy food, supporting local leisure facilities and tackling rising child poverty.” More

Business groups have criticised the government over its raft of new Covid guidance, saying companies and customers have been left with “mixed messages and patchwork requirements” ahead of the planned easing of curbs on 19 July. Under plans to relax restrictions next week, ministers have said wearing a face mask in indoor settings will switch from a legal requirement to a matter of personal choice. From Monday, all legal limits on the numbers meeting indoors and outdoors will be scrapped and all businesses will reopen, including nightclubs – for the first time since March 2020.However the advice has led to confusion with some members of the government continuing to advise the public to use face coverings in certain settings, such as on public transport and in crowded spaces. Leading businesses and transport bodies have said they will continue to mandate masks despite the change in the rules.Transport for London, Heathrow Airport and several major restaurant and pub chains – including the owner of the Gaucho chain and City Pub Group – have said they will continue to ask customers to cover their nose and mouth.Bookshop chain Waterstones has also said it will request shoppers wear masks.However there is uncertainty over how the rules will be implemented in many of the UK’s supermarkets.Sainsbury’s has confirmed that many of the Covid measures customers will stay in place in their shops after 19 July.From Monday, new signs and tannoy messages in Sainsbury’s stores will encourage customers to continue to wear a face covering, and staff will be encouraged to wear a face covering, unless they are behind a screen.Barriers between self-service checkouts and dividing checkout queues will be gradually removed from its stores in England, but they will remain in place between colleagues and customers when they are being served at checkouts.Other supermarkets have said they are awaiting further guidance or are still conducting a review of their mask policy with days to go before the rules change.Roger Barker, policy director at the Institute of Directors, accused the government of announcing a “series of mixed messages and patchwork requirements” which he said had dampened enthusiasm among businesses for the unlocking.The Association of Convenience Stores warned that the “tensions in government messaging will play out not in the corridors of government departments but on trains and buses and in the aisles of shops”.Hannah Essex, co-executive director of the British Chambers of Commerce, complained companies had “just five days to make this judgment call and effectively communicate it to staff and customers”.Asked on Sky News if the government had created confusion for businesses, minister Robert Jenrick said: “I disagree with that. We’ve published guidance and the guidance reflects the huge diversity of businesses.“There might be situations where businesses might choose to pursue these policies based on their best judgement … this is the sort of discretion they want.”“You can already see TfL, that manages the Tube in London, have come to, in my opinion, a perfectly sensible judgement that in the confines of the Tube you should be using a mask.“And there are also some supermarkets coming to that conclusion as well. Waterstones, who I understand will be asking their customers to wear masks … that seems a logical decision.“We trust businesses just as we trust the public to come to sensible, reasonable positions.” More

The government has denied creating confusion over the wearing of masks in shops and public transport, with the communities secretary saying it was right to let people use “personal judgement”.New guidance says the government still “expects” shoppers to wear masks when curbs in England end on July 19, despite no longer being required by law – a policy criticised as a “real mess” by businesses and unions.It comes as regional mayors urged ministers to keep masks compulsory across all public transport services in England to avoid a “ridiculous mismatch” of rules from Monday.Communities secretary Robert Jenrick praised Sadiq Khan for the insisting on mandatory mask-wearing on the Transport for London (TfL) services – despite previously saying he personally would no longer wear a mask when the legal requirement ended.“You can already see TFL, that manages the Tube in London, have come to, in my opinion, a perfectly sensible judgement that in the confines of the Tube you should be using a mask,” he told Sky News on Thursday.He later told GB News: “If I’m asked to wear a mask … for example if I was catching the tram in Wolverhampton, and that was the rules, I would certainly wear a mask.”Asked earlier this month if he would stop wearing a mask from 19 July, Mr Jenrick said: “I will. I don’t particularly want to wear a mask. I don’t think a lot of people enjoy doing it.”The latest guidance document for businesses says the government “expects and recommends” masks to be worn by workers and customers in enclosed spaces. Table service is recommended to continue in bars, while hospitality industry is encouraged to check vaccine and testing status.Paddy Lillis, the general secretary of the shop union Usdaw, said the policy was a “real mess” while Dr Roger Barker, policy director at the Institute of Directors, said businesses bosses are “understandably confused” over “a series of mixed messages and patchwork requirements”.But Mr Jenrick denied the policy amounted to a “total shambles” when he appeared on ITV’s Good Morning Britain, arguing businesses would get to choose what was right “for their setting”. Asked on Sky News if the government had created uncertainty for businesses, Mr Jenrick said: “There might be situations where businesses might choose to pursue these policies based on their best judgement … this is the sort of discretion they want.”After Sainsbury’s said it would ask customers to keep wearing masks, Mr Jenrick said “some supermarkets” were coming to the decision that it was sensible to keep face coverings rules in place.“Waterstones, who I understand will be asking their customers to wear masks … that seems a logical decision,” he said, adding: “We trust businesses just as we trust the public to come to sensible, reasonable positions.”Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, said masks would be mandatory on the region’s tram services. It follows Mr Khan’s move to require masks on the Tube and buses in the capital.Labour metro mayors for West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, North of Tyne, West of England and South Yorkshire warned that without a continued national mandate there would be a “ridiculous mismatch” of rules across the country. More

Economists are warning that Boris Johnson’s much-heralded “levelling up” agenda must amount to more than quick-fix improvements to disadvantaged areas of the Midlands and north of England if it is to make an impression on the UK’s entrenched social inequalities.The prime minister will on Thursday attempt to put some flesh on the bones of his oft-repeated slogan, using a speech in the West Midlands to say that he aims to restore a sense of “pride in their community” among residents of areas that have felt left-behind for decades.But with MP Neil O’Brien appointed to advise Mr Johnson on the strategy only 10 weeks ago and firm proposals not not expected until a white paper in the autumn, the speech is expected to be light on firm announcements and heavy on rhetoric.Extracts released by Downing Street ahead of the speech said that Mr Johnson will say that the drive to boost “left-behind” areas will also relieve pressure on parts of the UK where an “over-heating” economy has delivered sky-high housing costs, overcrowding and congested transport systems.But he will also insist that levelling up the Midlands and north will not mean “levelling down” in the south of England. And, following the by-election loss of Chesham & Amersham driven in part by a voter revolt against planning reforms, he will promise that the agenda will not mean leafy suburbs and villages being “engulfed by new housing development”.“We don’t want to decapitate the tall poppies,” Mr Johnson will say. “We don’t think you can make the poor parts of the country richer by making the rich parts poorer.“Levelling up is not a jam-spreading operation. It’s not robbing Peter to pay Paul. It’s not zero-sum, it’s win-win.”Mr Johnson will argue that previous governments have “turbo-charged” London and the southeast by concentrating investment in areas which were already doing well economically.“By turbo-charging those areas – especially in London and the southeast – you drive prices even higher and you force more and more people to move to the same expensive areas,” he will say.“And the result is that their commutes are longer, their trains are more crowded, they have less time with their kids. They worry at the same time that the younger generation won’t be able to get a home and that their leafy suburb or village will be engulfed by new housing development but without the infrastructure to go with it.”Setting out the metric by which he wants his agenda to be judged, he will say: “We will have made progress in levelling up when we have begun to raise living standards, spread opportunity, improved our public services and restored people’s sense of pride in their community.”But research economist Ben Zaranko, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, told The Independent that change on this scale could take decades to materialise.“The UK is one of the more regionally unequal countries in the industrial world, perhaps the most unequal,” he said. “The scale of the challenge is huge and it is not something you can just make a big speech on, throw some money around and expect change overnight.“There are things the prime minister can do in the short term to make places nicer to live in – renovating high streets, building facilities and so on. That can be achieved relatively quickly with centralised pots of money like the Towns Fund.“But that stuff isn’t going to deal with the deeper, more structural inequalities that are driving differential living standards across the country. Those are things that I don’t think you can make much progress on in the course of a parliament. It’s deep-seated economic changes in areas like education, skills training, transport connectivity and so on which could take decades to complete.”Research suggested that the perception that certain areas had been “left behind” was driven in part by austerity imposed over the past decade of Tory-led governments, he said.“The prime minister’s talk about levelling up does jar a little in that context,” he said.“Spending by local authorities on cultural facilities has fallen by about 50 per cent in real terms since 2010, spending on planning by 60 per cent. It’s all very well him saying that he’s going to turn the taps on, but part of the reason why these things are an issue is because they have been squeezed for the last decade.”The director of the Centre for Progressive Policy, Charlotte Alldritt, said that recent policy decisions – like the allocation of just £1.4bn to an educational catch-up programme costed at £15bn by the man appointed to devise it – cast doubt on whether Mr Johnson was committed to the “long haul” of spreading equality. “The scale of the challenge is vast,” Ms Alldritt told The Independent. “This has been decades in the making. We have very deep and entrenched health, wealth, income and education inequalities in our society which hold back the economy and hold back people’s life chances.“The prime minister could start looking at the foundations for addressing this, but I don’t think he will. I think the government is very much motivated by generating clear tangible results over the next 18 months before a spring 2023 election, which means ‘quick wins’ on things like high streets and leisure facilities.“Tackling the fundamental issues on a scale which people would actually notice would be a very, very difficult task which would take much longer. I’m expecting to see a fragmented approach that doesn’t live up to the scale of the challenge. The levelling up agenda does have potential, but unless it is really gripped more strategically, it will fall short.” More

David Frost says he understands why businesses are abandoning trade with Northern Ireland because his Brexit agreement has made it “too much trouble” to carry on.The negotiator of the deal – which created a border in the Irish Sea – admitted he had not fully foreseen the “chilling effect” of the punishing new red tape, which has left smaller firms facing higher costs.There are “companies in Great Britain who decide that it’s all too much trouble, reasonably enough – can’t be bothered to engage with the process,” Lord Frost acknowledged.“They are often SMEs [small and medium-sized enterprises] and micro-businesses. Dealing with this is a significant call on their time and they decide it’s just not worth it,” he told a parliamentary inquiry.“That’s why you are seeing some of the trade diversion and supply-chain issues to Northern Ireland that we’re seeing.”The admission came ahead of Lord Frost unveiling a new “approach” to the Northern Ireland protocol next week, sparking fresh tensions with the EU.The government insists that the recent three-month truce over the sale of chilled meats and availability of medicines has failed to solve the crisis caused by the protocol.Brussels has been accused of “intransigence” in the ongoing talks and of a “lack of understanding of the sensitivities in Northern Ireland”.Questioned by a Lords committee, Lord Frost refused to set out what his new approach might entail – beyond the aim to make goods “flow as freely as possibly between Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.The Brexit minister also:* Claimed that increased cross-border trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is “a problem” he wanted to discourage.* Revealed he expected £500m to be spent on trader support services, saying: “That is the cost of the protocol.”* Rejected the EU’s insistence that there is no alternative to the protocol, pointing to a future consent vote at Stormont, and asking: “Then what is that vote about?”* Argued it would be “inconceivable” to press ahead with protocol-style arrangements after a no vote, warning: “The politics would be quite significant at that point.”The comments came as the fishing industry accused Tory MPs who had hyped the potential gains from Brexit of going “very quiet” as those benefits failed to materialise.The National Federation of Fisherman’s Organisations protested that nothing was now heard from even the “most vociferous supporters” on the Conservative benches.Peter Hain, the Labour former Northern Ireland secretary, warned that Lord Frost had lost the trust of unionists, nationalists, the EU and the Dublin government, saying sarcastically: “That’s a pretty successful negotiation, isn’t it?”The EU accuses the UK of failing to abide by the protocol – by introducing checks at Northern Irish ports and by supplying data on cross-sea trade – but London blames an over-zealous implementation. More

Britain has exported around three times as much weaponry and military equipment to fuel Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen than previously thought, according to a groundbreaking new investigation. The government’s official figures say ministers signed off £6.7 billion worth of arms sales to the autocracy such a bombs, missiles, and aircraft since the country started its bombardment of neighbouring Yemen in 2015.But researchers drilling deeper into official records and those of arms manufacturers say the true figure is likely to be closer to £20 billion because the official numbers do not include sales conducted under an opaque “open licence” system.The UK government boasts about having “one of the most robust and transparent export control regimes in the world” and publishes the value of arms exports approved under standard licences. It also details what kind of weapons were sold and who they were allowed to be sold to.But the government also operates a parallel, less transparent “open licence” system which give a more open-ended green light to manufacturers to sell specific armaments to a specific country without a monetary limit. Between 2014 and August 2019 the UK operated an open licence for bombs and air-to-surface missiles to Saudi Arabia, for a type repeatedly used in the war in Yemen.Separately, equipment and components for use in the Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft, also used in the same bombardment, have been covered by an open licence. The researchers also looked at the accounts of companies known to be selling arms to Saudi Arabia and found that the revenues to one company alone – BAE Systems – originating from the Saudi Ministry of Defence & Aviation, totalled nearly £17 billion over the relevant period.As a result they estimate that the real value of exports is close to £20 billion.”The use of open licences also offers the government a convenient sleight of hand when it comes under pressure over arms sales to a particular country due to events such as wars, military coups, or well-publicised human rights abuses,” the report warns.The Department for International Trade, which signs off all arms exports, did not dispute the findings of the study but said the UK “takes its export control responsibilities very seriously”.Katie Fallon of Campaign Against Arms Trade, which conducted the research, said: “The use of Open Licences covers up the real extent of the UK arms trade and makes it impossible to know what quantities of weapons are being sold around the world.”UK-made fighter jets, bombs and missiles have had a devastating impact in the ongoing bombardment of Yemen. The fact that the real total of these sales could be so much higher than previously reported emphasises the central role that the UK government and UK-based companies have played in the war. There must be full transparency about what arms have gone over and in what quantity.”So much of the arms industry takes place in secret, and that’s how the arms dealers like it. As long as the widespread use of Open Licences continues, the true nature and volume of the UK arms trade will remain hidden from scrutiny, and therefore from meaningful control.”The government was told by the Court of Appeal in June 2019 to stop sales to Saudi Arabia, after a judge said ministers had “made no concluded assessments of whether the Saudi-led coalition had committed violations of international humanitarian law in the past, during the Yemen conflict, and made no attempt to do so”.Thousands of civilians have been killed in Yemen and the country, with the situation in the country reduced to a humanitarian disaster. Saudi Arabia says it is intervening on behalf of the internationally recognised government of Yemen, which has not controlled the country’s capital nor most of its territory for some years. Targets reportedly hit by the airstrikes include schools, hospitals, weddings, and food factories.Trade secretary Liz Truss resumed arms exports to the country in July 2020 after a Department for International Trade analysis found that there was evidence that Saudi Arabian was committing war crimes. Ms Truss however reasoned that the analysis pointed to the war crimes being “isolated incidents” because they had been of such a variety. Human rights groups including Amnesty International branded the decision “deeply cynical”.Asked about the new research, a Department for International Trade spokesperson said: “The UK takes its export control responsibilities very seriously and operates one of the most robust and transparent export control regimes in the world. “We rigorously examine each export licence application on a case-by-case basis against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria.” “We will not issue any export licences where to do so would be inconsistent with these criteria.” More

The government is advising businesses to use CO2 monitoring equipment to check whether indoor spaces are sufficiently ventilated to stop the spread of Covid-19 in them.Ahead of a further reopening of the economy next week ministers want offices, shops, pubs, and restaurants to identify poorly-ventilated spaces as part of their risk assessments and take steps to fix them or close them off.In a change of emphasis, advice which previously stressed social distancing and masks, has been amended so that ventilation is now “the priority” for risk assessments.The new approach may impose extra costs of some businesses, some of whom have already spent significant sums Covid-proofing their premises in line with the old rules. But an evolving understanding of the way the virus spreads – predominantly through aerosol – has prompted a change in approach. “A CO2 monitor could help you assess whether a space is poorly ventilated. If you can’t improve ventilation in poorly ventilated spaces, minimise use of these spaces,” the government’s new advice, published on Wednesday, says.”People exhale carbon dioxide (CO2) when they breathe out. If there is a build-up of CO2 in an area it can indicate that ventilation needs improving.”Although CO2 levels are not a direct measure of possible exposure to COVID-19, checking levels using a monitor can help you identify poorly ventilated areas.”Advice for fixing a poorly-ventilated space includes opening windows, doors, and improving air ducts and mechanical ventilation. The use of any space found to have poor ventilation that cannot be fixed should be minimised, the guidelines warn – in a move that could see restaurant backrooms and snug bars closed off.The government says local councils and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) will enforce the new rules with nationwide checks, and that businesses could be prosecuted for “significant” breaches. TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady said the new guidelines were “a recipe for chaos and rising infections”.“They have been published without proper consultation with unions or employers, just two full working days before restrictions end on Monday,” she said. “Instead of providing clear and consistent guidance on how to keep staff safe at work, the government is abandoning workers and employers.“As infection rates surge, every employer must by law carry out a thorough risk assessment and take action to keep their workers safe.“But these inadequate guidelines will leave many employers with more questions than answers and worried about their liability if they get things wrong.”On Monday Boris Johnson urged the country to adopt “extreme caution” as the final lockdown restrictions are lifted on 19 July.The Prime Minister called on companies to stagger their transition back to office work throughout the summer, but is removing the remaining legal restrictions on personal activity. More