Markus Andrews

MPs have “blood on their hands” after backing a government plan that indefinitely extends a £4bn-a-year cut to the UK’s international aid to the world’s poorest people, international development charities have said.One anti-poverty campaign said that maintaining the reduction in aid spending from 0.7 to 0.5 per cent of national income at a time of the worst humanitarian crisis in a generation was “a retreat from British values” akin to “cutting the RAF during the Battle of Britain”.And others warned that the UK’s standing on the international stage would be damaged, making a mockery of Boris Johnson’s claims to be delivering a “global Britain” agenda.Theresa May was among 24 Conservative MPs to rebel against Mr Johnson’s plans, accusing the government of “turning its back on some of the poorest people in the world”.The former prime minister defied a three-line whip for the first time in 24 years as an MP, telling the Commons: “We made a promise to the poorest people in the world. The government has broken that promise. This motion means that promise may be broken for years to come.”Also voting to restore the 0.7 per cent commitment – signed into law by David Cameron and repeated in Mr Johnson’s 2019 election manifesto – were former cabinet ministers Jeremy Hunt, David Davis, Damian Green, Karen Bradley, Stephen Crabb and Andrew Mitchell, along with the chairs of the Commons foreign affairs and defence committees, Tom Tugendhat and Tobias Ellwood.But hopes of a revolt of 50 or more failed to materialise, with a number of vocal opponents of the cuts melting away following the offer of a compromise from the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, allowing a comfortable government victory by 333 votes to 298.Mr Sunak’s plan will trigger a return to the United Nations target for overseas aid spending only when underlying debt is falling and day-to-day spending can be met without unsustainable borrowing. He warned that if it was rejected by MPs, tax rises and cuts to domestic spending would be needed to restore the commitment from January 2022.Mr Johnson said that the plan would “provide certainty for our aid budget and an affordable path back to 0.7 per cent, while also allowing investment in other priorities, including the NHS, schools and the police”.But Mr Mitchell denounced the plan as a “fiscal trap” that could put off a return to the UN target forever. Mr Sunak’s conditions had been met only once in the past 20 years, he told MPs.The Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer, said that cutting aid for the world’s poorest during a pandemic was “callous and not in our national interest” and would damage the UK’s image around the world.And the Liberal Democrats’ Sir Ed Davey said the Conservative government had “lost touch with the values of our country”, predicting that traditional Tory voters in Blue Wall seats of southern England would desert the party “in droves” as a result.Former Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson said the rebellion was not big enough, tweeting: “For colleagues who stood on manifesto after manifesto committed to this, it’s a bloody disgrace.”Speaking after the vote, Mr Sunak said that the outcome had made the 0.7 per cent commitment “more secure for the long-term” while helping the government to “fix the problems with our public finances and continue to deliver for our constituents today” in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.But Oxfam GB chief executive Danny Sriskandarajah described it as “a disaster for the world’s poorest people”.“With more people in need of humanitarian assistance than at any time since the Second World War, aid is needed more than ever,” Mr Sriskandarajah said.“We are seeing a yawning gap between the rhetoric of ‘Global Britain’ and the reality of a government breaking its promises to the world’s poorest and further undermining the UK’s credibility on the international stage. These cuts won’t balance the books; the government is putting politics above the lives of world’s most vulnerable communities.”Kirsty O’Neill of Save the Children said that the outcome of the vote made an indefinite reduction to UK aid spending almost certain.“Children will die as a result,” she warned. “We have seen already the immense damage caused in some of the world’s poorest and most fragile countries – from 40 per cent cuts in aid for Yemen to 85 per cent cuts in British support for family planning. “The vote today means that the cuts will not stop there. Faced by the biggest humanitarian crisis in a generation, the UK has stepped back when it needed to step up, and the consequences will be felt for years to come.”Daniel Willis, campaigns and policy manager at Global Justice Now, said that government claims that aid cuts were needed to help pay down the £400bn cost of the pandemic failed to take into account the fact that the 0.7 per cent commitment already provided for automatically reduced spending in difficult economic times.“When the inevitable death and suffering from aid cuts hits the news, each and every MP who has voted to sever the UK’s 0.7 per cent commitment should know that blood is on their hands,” he said. “Today, claims of Global Britain ring hollow.”The UK director of the anti-poverty One Campaign, Romilly Greenhill, said: “Today’s result is a needless retreat from the world stage, enforced by the Treasury, at the exact moment the UK should be showing leadership and stepping up to the greatest global crises in our lifetimes.“It’s akin to cutting the RAF during the Battle of Britain.“This so-called compromise effectively means the end of the 0.7 per cent commitment and will diminish Britain’s global standing.” More

The BBC is damaging its reputation for impartiality by appointing too many people from the political left, Tory cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg has claimed.The leader of the Commons also complained that the corporation was unwilling to take on people from right-wing backgrounds – despite recent appointments of high-profile figures with links to the Conservative Party.His comments follow a row over the appointment of Jess Brammar, a former Huff Post UK editor, as the BBC’s executive news editor.Theresa May’s former communications chief Sir Robbie Gibb reportedly tried to block Ms Brammar’s appointment – leading to calls for him to be sacked from the BBC board.In his podcast for the Conservative Home website, Mr Rees-Mogg said: “When did the BBC last hire somebody from Conservative Home to come and be their senior figure or from the Daily Telegraph?”The cabinet minister also complained about Andrew Marr’s appointment to the BBC, having formally been editor of The Independent.“I remember when they appointed Andrew Marr as their political editor, who was a polemicist for one of the left-wing newspapers, somebody said to them why hadn’t they appointed Boris Johnson or someone from the right,” he told the podcast.“And, of course, they said, ‘We couldn’t possibly do that, it’s too controversial’.”Mr Rees-Mogg said: “When it’s from the left it’s all right – but when it’s from the right that’s beyond the pale. I think the BBC does itself a lot of damage in this regard.”The Commons leader added: “People like (political editor) Laura Kuenssberg make their professional reputations on being completely impartial.“Then the BBC management goes off and starts suggesting it should hire someone from a left-wing outlet, and that damages the whole perception of independence and impartiality at the BBC.”The BBC’s director general Tim Davie – appointed to the role last year – stood as a councillor for the Tories in Hammersmith in the 1990s, when he also spent a spell as the deputy chairman of the Hammersmith and Fulham Conservative party.The BBC appointed Sir Robbie a non-executive director at the corporation in April, after his spell working for a Tory prime minister at No 10 between 2017 and 2019.Labour called on BBC bosses to sack him from the board member after allegations emerged that he attempted to block Ms Brammar’s editorial appointment on political grounds.Ms Brammar had challenged the government during her time as editor of Huff Post UK when Tory minister Kemi Badenoch launched a public attack on Twitter against then-Huff Post UK journalist Nadine White for asking questions about the vaccine rollout.The episode was also highlighted earlier this year by Samuel Kasumu, a former No 10 adviser who resigned in April. He raised concerns about Ms Badenoch’s conduct over her tirade against Ms White, who is now race correspondent at The Independent. More

Police Scotland have opened a formal investigation into the SNP’s finances after complaints were made around the use of donations to Nicola Sturgeon’s party.It follows allegations that £600,000 raised for campaigning towards Scottish independence was diverted elsewhere.Scotland’s first minister has consistently denied any money has gone missing – saying the SNP’s finances have been independently audited.Two SNP MPs quit the ruling National Executive Committee (NEC) in May, citing a lack of transparency from the party.On Tuesday, a Police Scotland spokeswoman said the national force had received seven complaints “in relation to donations that were made to the Scottish National Party”.She added: “After assessment and consultation with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, we will now carry out an investigation … Anyone who has any information which may assist with this investigation is asked to contact police.”Police did not say exactly which donations the investigation relates to. In May, SNP MPs Douglas Chapman and Joanna Cherry resigned from the party’s executive committee.Mr Chapman had been the SNP’s national treasurer and said he had not been given enough information to do his job “despite having a resounding mandate from members to introduce more transparency into the party’s finances”.In June, Ms Sturgeon told STV News: “I’m not concerned about the party’s finances. The finances of the SNP are independently audited … so there’s full scrutiny around that.”She added: “Money hasn’t gone missing … We don’t hold separate accounts, we’re under no legal requirement to do that, our accounts are managed on a cash-flow basis.“But every penny we raise to support the campaign for independence will be spent on the campaign for independence.”An SNP spokesman said: “We will cooperate fully with any investigation.”Scottish Tory MSP Stephen Kerr responded: “The SNP have failed to be fully transparent over this funding for months.“The public to deserve to know the truth. It is only right that Police Scotland are stepping up their investigations, having received numerous complaints.”Earlier on Tuesday, Ms Sturgeon said the requirement to wear face coverings in public places will remain in Scotland, despite Boris Johnson’s decision to end a legal requirement to do so in England on 19 July.The first minister said all of Scotland would move to Level 0 of lockdown measures from the start of next week – but with some “modifications” to original plans. More

Boris Johnson’s government is embroiled in a row over its handling of racism after England players were abused following Sunday night’s defeat to Italy in the Euro final at Wembley.The prime minister and Priti Patel, the home secretary, have both condemned the criminal behaviour, but critics have accused them of fuelling the abuse, which Downing Street strongly denies.Mr Johnson initially declined to call out England fans who booed players “taking the knee” in opposing racism, while Priti Patel described the act as “gesture politics”.The home secretary, who has posted several pictures of herself in an England shirt in recent days, said it was a choice for fans whether or not they booed and declined to say if she would do the same, adding: “I’ve never gone to a football match to even contemplate that.”After Ms Patel condemned the abuse of England players Marcus Rashford, Bukayo Saka and Jadon Sancho, their teammate Tyrone Mings said: “You don’t get to stoke the fire at the beginning of the tournament by labelling our anti-racism message as ‘Gesture Politics’ and then pretend to be disgusted when the very thing we’re campaigning against, happens.”Taking the knee has become a prominent symbol in sport and during anti-racist protests in recent years, and England players chose to adopt the stance to show their support for the issue.A number of Conservative MPs criticised the move because they view it as a political statement linked to the Black Lives Matter movement.But England manager Gareth Southgate, his players and the Football Association have made clear that the team decided to take the knee “for each other” rather than expressing support for any political organisation or ideology.A row broke out in June after England played a friendly match before the Euros started, when fans booed the players who took the knee.Then on 3 July, when questioned on the issue, Mr Johnson told LBC radio: “I do not believe in gestures, I believe in substance.”Four days later, Mr Johnson failed to call out those criticising the England players. A spokesperson for the PM said at the time that he respected “the right of those who choose to peacefully protest and make their feelings known”, adding: “On taking the knee, specifically, the prime minister is more focused on action rather than gestures. We have taken action with things like the Commission on Racial and Ethnic Disparities and that’s what he’s focused on delivering.”Just a few days after those comments, the PM changed tack saying that he supported players taking the knee and told fans not to boo. A spokesperson said: “Yes. The prime minister respects the right of all people to peacefully protest and make their feelings known about injustices. The prime minister wants to see everybody getting behind the team to cheer them on, not boo.”As for the home secretary, in an interview with GB News in June, Ms Patel said football fans had a right to boo the England team for “taking the knee” in protest at racism.She said the anti-racism protest associated with the Black Lives Matter movement amounted to “gesture politics” and dodged a question about whether she would boo herself.“I just don’t support people participating in that type of gesture politics,” she added.Then on Monday, she tweeted: “I am disgusted that @England players who have given so much for our country this summer have been subject to vile racist abuse on social media.“It has no place in our country and I back the police to hold those responsible accountable.” More

Pub owners have been plunged into “confusion” about whether they should require drinkers to show Covid status certificates from next week, ministers are being warned.An industry group and Labour are criticising muddled government guidance – as No 10 hints that proof of vaccination, or of a negative test, could yet become compulsory if the pandemic worsens.Nightclubs and large events are definitely being encouraged to require guests to prove their Covid status from so-called ‘Freedom Day’ in England next Monday.But ministers have not said whether similar pressure will also be applied to pubs, with guidance yet to be published by the Cabinet Office.The Night Time Industries Association said it is also concerned about the powers to be handed to local councils to impose stricter restrictions in Covid hotspot areas.“There is a lot of chaos and confusion, given the short period of time before this comes in,” said Michael Kill, its chief executive.“We are hearing suggestions that some local authorities will want to mandate table service and we don’t know if they will have greater powers than expected to do that.”A Labour spokesman criticised the confusion, saying: “Burying an announcement of this significance in the small print is deeply unhelpful – businesses are crying out for clarity and certainty about what is expected of them.“The government must provide more information about what this announcement entails as a matter of urgency.”The party accused ministers of “passing the buck to businesses and individuals with vague and unclear advice, with no details about how this would work”.It is widely expected that busy pubs will also be urged to use the ‘NHS Covid Pass’, which is being advised “in high risk settings to help to limit the risk of infection”.Downing Street insists the pass is “very simple and accessible” and said it would be happy for long-distance train services to also ask for them, a policy now introduced in France.In a further hint that pubs are in the government’s sights, it encouraged them in places where people are “likely to be in close proximity to others outside their household”.And existing guidance, issued late on Monday, states: “If sufficient measures are not taken to limit infection, the government will consider mandating the NHS Covid Pass in certain venues at a later date.That has prompted the British Beer & Pub Association to warn of the imposition of “unnecessary and unfair restrictions on pubs via the backdoor”, in future.On Monday, announcing that venues can return to full capacity from next Monday, Boris Johnson said: “As a matter of social responsibility, we’re urging nightclubs and other venues with large crowds to make use of the NHS Covid Pass.”But Kate Nicholls, the chief executive of UKHospitality, said it was vital that the industry was “able to keep trading without restrictions through the autumn and beyond”.“Individual businesses will take all necessary measures to keep staff and customers safe, measures which will undoubtedly differ from business to business,” she pledged. More

UK prime minister Boris Johnson has confirmed that England will formally emerge from lockdown on 19 July as the final social restrictions imposed on the public to thwart the coronavirus are removed, despite his own admission that cases of Covid-19 are rising “significantly”.Speaking at Downing Street on Monday evening, Mr Johnson conceded that, “We’ve come to a stage in the pandemic when there is no easy answer or obvious date for unlocking,” observing that infections are rising at a rate of 30,000 a day and acknowledging that the Delta variant is now running rampant across Europe.“We think now is the right moment to proceed, when we have the natural firebreak of the school holidays in the next few days,” he explained, arguing that it is safer to unlock now than in September when the colder weather is beginning to dawn and flu season approaching while conceding that “more hospitalisations and more deaths” are likely to occur.The prime minister was careful to couch his remarks by warning the public that the arrival of “Freedom Day” next week is only possible because of the success of the vaccine rollout and by begging individuals to get their jab and to exercise caution to prevent the reinstatement of lockdown measures becoming necessary.“It is absolutely vital that we proceed now with caution. And I cannot say this powerfully or emphatically enough,” he said. “This pandemic is not over. This disease coronavirus continues to carry risks for you and for your family. We cannot simply revert instantly from Monday 19 July to life as it was before Covid.”On the specifics of what will change, Mr Johnson said: “We will stick to our plan to lift legal restrictions and to lift social distancing, but we expect and recommend that people wear a face covering in crowded and enclosed spaces where you come into contact with those you don’t normally meet, such as on public transport.“We’re removing the government instruction to work from home where you can but we don’t expect that the whole country will return to their desks as one from Monday. And we’re setting out guidance for business for a gradual return to work over the summer.“And as a matter of social responsibility we’re urging nightclubs and other venues with large crowds to make use of the NHS Covid Pass – which shows proof of vaccination, a recent negative test or natural immunity – as a means of entry.”Responding to the prime minister, doctors’ leaders condemned his decision to press ahead with lockdown lifting as “irresponsible”, with the British Medical Association (BMA) warning of “potentially devastating consequences”.Dr Chaand Nagpaul, the BMA council chair, said that by going ahead, the government was reneging on its promise to be led by the data and the impact on the NHS, arguing that scrapping restrictions while a significant proportion of the population was still not fully vaccinated would allow the virus to “retighten its grip”, driving up infections and hospitalisations and putting more lives at risk.“It’s irresponsible – and frankly perilous – that the government has decided to press ahead with plans to lift the remaining Covid-19 restrictions on July 19,” he said.“The BMA has repeatedly warned of the rapidly rising infection rate and the crippling impact that Covid-related hospitalisations continue to have on the NHS, not only pushing staff to the brink of collapse but also driving up already lengthy waiting times for elective care.“The prime minister repeatedly emphasised the importance of a slow and cautious approach, but in reality the government is throwing caution to the wind by scrapping all regulations in one fell swoop – with potentially devastating consequences.”Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard, the chairwoman of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, said her organisation did not generally involve itself in public debate but “felt it necessary to say caution is vital” regarding 19 July.“We need everyone to think very carefully and responsibly about what they’re doing personally: Just because the law changes doesn’t mean that what we do as individuals has to change,” she told ITV’s Good Morning Britain.Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Tuesday, Andy Burnham, the mayor of Manchester, responded to the decision by observing: “One person’s freedom is another person’s Fear Day.”The latest daily official figures showed cases continue to surge with a further 34,471 laboratory-confirmed infections in the UK as of 9am on Monday.Under current modelling, the peak of the wave is not expected before mid-August, when there could be 1,000 to 2,000 hospital admissions per day, with deaths possibly reaching between 100 and 200 per day.What are the rules on masks from 19 July?Nationwide regulations on mask-wearing are to be lifted, although there will be an “expectation” that the public continue to sport masks in confined spaces out of consideration for others.Local transport authorities and airlines will also be able to set mask-wearing as a condition for travel but there will be no law requiring them to be worn.Leaving the issue largely down to a matter of “personal choice” will be welcomed by some who have found them uncomfortable and by conservatives who have long considered the requirement an infringement of their civil liberties but it could cause tensions in workplaces where employees feel uncomfortable about having no more safeguarding measures in place.What are the new rules on social distancing?Social distancing rules will also be scrapped, meaning table service-only measures will no longer be necessary in pubs and restaurants and drinkers can once more order at the bar.Sports stadiums and entertainment venues such as nightclubs, theatres and cinemas will be allowed to fully reopen with no cap on capacity and care homes will be reopened to visitors.However, distancing will continue at ports and airports, where the one-metre plus rule will still apply for passenger safety.What are the new rules on self-isolating?The requirement to self-isolate for 10 days will remain in place for those who test positive for Covid-19 but those who have had both vaccine jabs will not have to quarantine when returning from an amber list holiday destination or, as of 16 August, automatically self-isolate if contacted by the NHS track and trace app.Instead, they will be encouraged to take a PCR test to establish whether they themselves have contracted the virus, only after which might self-isolation be considered necessary.What are the rules on working from home?The requirement to work from home, where possible, will end, but employers are being encouraged to consult with their staff before issuing definite instructions. More

Former prime minister Theresa May has said she will vote against Boris Johnson’s £4bn cuts to international aid plans today, accusing the government of  “turning its back on some of the poorest people in the world”.Ms May was speaking ahead of a crucial House of Commons vote this afternoon, which Tory rebels have warned will end forever the UK’s pledge to meet the United Nations target of spending 0.7 per cent of national income on aid.Mr Johnson told MPs that plans set out by the Treasury would “provide certainty for our aid budget and an affordable path back to 0.7 per cent, while also allowing investment in other priorities, including the NHS, schools and the police”.But Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer warned that conditions set by chancellor Rishi Sunak meant that the cut to 0.5 per cent of gross national income (GNI) will remain in place “indefinitely”.Speaking in the Commons, Ms May said that Mr Johnson’s manifesto on which she stood in the 2019 general election committed the Conservatives to “proudly maintain” the pledge to spend 0.7 per cent of gross national income (GNI) on aid.“I have been in this House for nearly a quarter of a century,” said Ms May. “During that time I have never voted against a three-line whip from my party.“As prime minister I suffered at the hands of rebels, I know what it is like to see party colleagues voting against their government.”But she added: “We made a promise to the poorest people in the world. The government has broken that promise. This motion means that promise may be broken for years to come.“With deep regret, I will vote against the motion today.”Today’s debate was called after a surprise U-turn on Monday by Mr Sunak, who put forward a plan for the 0.7 per cent spending to be restored once the economy recovers. He warned that if MPs – including up to 50 Tory rebels – reject the plan, cash will have to be raised from taxes or cuts to domestic priorities in order to restore aid spending levels next year.But critics led by former international development secretary Andrew Mitchell branded Mr Sunak’s plan a “fiscal trap”, warning that the chancellor’s tests – no unsustainable borrowing for day-to-day spending and falling underlying debt – will not be passed before the next election, scheduled for 2024.With few expecting Mr Johnson to repeat his commitment to meet the UN target in his next manifesto, Tory rebels fear that the 0.7 per cent target will never be met again.Mr Johnson insisted that the cut to 0.5 per cent was temporary and said that the UK could be “proud” that it will still spend at least £10 billion in aid this year.But he said the UK’s public finances are under a “greater strain than ever before in peacetime history” as a result of the Covid pandemic, adding: “Every pound we spend on aid has to be borrowed and, in fact, represents not our money but money that we’re taking from future generations.”Sir Keir said the PM was being “slippery” and noted that every living prime minister except for Mr Johnson is against the cuts.“Cutting aid will increase costs and have a big impact on our economy,” said the Labour leader. “Development aid reduces conflict, it reduces disease and people fleeing from their homes. It is a false economy to pretend that this is some sort of cut that doesn’t have consequences.“This cut will also reduce UK influence just when it is needed most, and of course it risks leaving a vacuum which other countries – for example China and Russia – will fill.”Mr Mitchell warned rebels tempted to vote with the government that the chancellor’s package was “no compromise at all”, as the conditions he set had only been met once in the past 20 years and may never be met again.“We should not be breaking our promise,” he said. “We should certainly not be seeking to balance the books on the backs of the poorest people in the world.”Referring to the Tories’ recent Chesham and Amersham by-election loss, he added: “Anyone who thinks this is not affecting our party’s reputation is living in cloud-cuckoo land. There is an unpleasant odour wafting out from under my party’s front door. This is not who we are. This is not what global Britain is.”Former Tory minister David Davis described the conditions for returning to the 0.7 per cent aid spending as “deceptive”. Labour MP Sarah Champion – chair of the International Development Committee – said the promise of a series of tests to restore the 0.7 per cent level was a “breathtakingly cynical manoeuvre”.Former Tory minister Stephen Crabb said he “won’t be able to support” the government’s motion.He told MPs he recognised there are “enormous pressures” on public finances, but added: “What is a difficult moment for us fiscally and politically, it’s an absolute tragic, devastating moment for the poorest people around the world for whom the pandemic has been the cause of another wave of dire poverty.” More

Covid restrictions are to ease in Scotland from the start of next week, as first minister Nicola Sturgeon confirmed lockdown measures will be eased – but with some changes to original plans.The SNP leader said the requirement to wear face coverings in public places will remain in Scotland, despite Boris Johnson’s decision to end a legal requirement in England on 19 July.She said face coverings would remain mandatory in Scotland on public transport, shops and other enclosed spaces “in all likelihood for some time to come”.Ms Sturgeon said leaders should be prepared to “take the flak” from people who disagree with restrictions if they believe they are for the best – in a veiled attack on Mr Johnson’s approach to mask-wearing.“We shouldn’t lift important restrictions to make our lives easier and then expect the public to take responsibility for doing the right thing anyway,” the first minister said.“It is my view that if government believes measures like this matter – and we do – we should say so, do what is necessary to ensure compliance, and take any resulting flak from those who disagree.”Ms Sturgeon briefed a virtual setting of the Scottish parliament, recalled from its summer recess, that the country would move to Level 0 of lockdown measures – but with some “modifications”.Under the Level 0 rules coming into force for all of Scotland on 19 July, social distancing will be reduced to one metre inside public places. Indoor gathering restrictions in homes will be lifted to allow up to eight people from up to three households to meet.Ten people from four households can meet in a public indoor space – such as a pub or restaurant – and up to 15 people from up to 15 households can meet outdoors.But some planned changes will not go ahead. Ms Sturgeon said “for the next three weeks at least, there will be a requirement for one-metre distancing between different groups of 15” outdoors – despite plans to scrap the restriction entirely.The 11pm closure time for pubs operating indoors will be changed to midnight – a change from plans to scrap the limit entirely. And the planned “gradual return to the office” will be postponed until 9 August.Unlike England, there are also no plans for the return of nightclubs and adult entertainment in Scotland.Ahead of the announcement, Edinburgh University professor of public health Linda Bauld stressed a cautious approach was needed. “What the Scottish government will want to avoid is what is happening in Europe now,” she told BBC’s Good Morning Scotland.“The Netherlands has seen an over 700 per cent increase in cases. They’ve had to close nightclubs again, put restrictions on bars and restaurants, they’ve had to cancel mass events.” More