Markus Andrews

The EU is likely to shut off the flow of vital security and business data and “slow down” exports through Calais if there is a Brexit trade war, Boris Johnson is being warned.Brussels has multiple weapons it can deploy that would have “significant economic consequences” for the UK, if the conflict over Northern Ireland escalates, an expert is predicting.One is the “data adequacy” decision granted by Brussels – to the relief of businesses – but which is only temporary, said Jonathan Portes, of the UK in a Changing Europe think-tank.“The EU could legally withdraw that at any time – that would have pretty serious implications,” Professor Portes warned.“There are other non-tariff barriers the EU could use to disrupt trade. It’s not hard to slow things down at Calais simply by imposing extra bureaucratic procedures.”The warning comes after the prime minister threatened to suspend the Northern Ireland Protocol unless the EU backs down on the checks and restrictions the UK has signed up to.Tensions have cooled a bit – with Brussels likely to agree a three-month delay to a ban on the sale of chilled meats across the Irish Sea – but that will only kick the can down the road.The agreement on swapping data is vital to businesses, particularly in the health, insurance and technology sectors, which regularly transfer customer personal information such as bank details.And it helps with law enforcement co-operation, which has been damaged by the UK losing access to the giant SIS II police database and the European Arrest Warrant system.Prof Portes said the UK invoking Article 16 of the Protocol would expose “a wider breakdown in the UK-EU relationship” – with serious consequences.Northern Ireland is “insignificant” to the UK’s overall economy, but he added: “The consequences of a wider trade conflict with the EU would certainly not be insignificant for the UK economy.”Earlier this month, the European Commission said it was ready to “suspend” parts of the Brexit trade agreement unless the UK ends its refusal to implement the Protocol – but gave no details.Anand Menon, the think-tank’s director, said Brussels had deliberately inserted the “non-compliance with the withdrawal agreement [on Northern Ireland]” as a justification for retaliation on trade.In the past, the EU had been “very political” in choosing how to best inflict pain, he said, giving the example of retaliatory tariffs against the US.“They targeted [senior Republican senator] Mitch McConnell, for instance, targeting with tariffs on whiskey,” Prof Menon said.“They will have thought through things that they think will hurt the government, politically, so it won’t be a sort of generalised tariff war.” More

The European Union needs to stop making “threats” and work out a new way to deal with “big” countries like Britain, David Frost has said.Speaking at a committee hearing in Westminster on Tuesday the UK’s Brexit minister said the post-membership relationship with the bloc had been more difficult than expected and would be “a little bumpy” for some time.He claimed Brussels was not showing “a huge amount of engagement” with the UK’s concerns about the Northern Ireland Brexit deal and said the protocol was threatening the “delicate balance” of the Good Friday Agreement. Lord Frost, who revealed that he was planning to to write a book about his dealings with the EU, offered the 27-country union advice on dealing with other countries like Britain.”I think the EU does need to try and find a way of dealing with big third countries in its neighbourhood that is a bit more responsive, and sort of fleet-of-foot rather than a cookie-cutter approach and fitting everything into a template,” he said.Turning to the Commission’s treatment of the UK, he added: “If it had one criticism, perhaps it is that sometimes it feels like the resort to threats is a bit quick and you know, we don’t make threats in quite the same way as I think some players in the EU do, and I think if we could just sort of dial that down a bit it would help.”Lord Frost has admitted that the protocol he negotiated to deal with the Northern Ireland border issue was more damaging to trade between Great Britain and the province that he had expected.The new arrangement, which puts checks on the Irish Sea, is causing frictions on trade and has angered both unionists and businesses, some of whom have given up shipping to Northern Ireland due to the new bureaucracy.The situation is expected to worsen when grace periods, negotiated in December last year, come to an end – with one crucial one covering chilled meats like sausages set to finish this month.But Britain has taken to unilaterally extending the periods without the EU’s agreement, a move that has angered Brussels, who see it as backsliding on the recently signed agreement. The EU says Britain should implement the agreement it negotiated and has threatened to use agreed sanctions – including potential trade tariffs – if Britain stays in breach.But Lord Frost told MPs: “If those arrangements are going to be sustainable, they have to operate in a pragmatic and proportionate way – and that’s not what’s happening.”The delicate balance in the Good Friday Agreement risks being unsettled. We are implementing the protocol as best we can and spending a lot of money on it, but there are still still big problems, and this is creating a sense of difficulty for identity in Northern Ireland.”Lord Frost added that the current situation was “not satisfactory and it’s hard to see how it can be sustained” because of the need for it to be approved by the Northern Ireland assembly. Turning to the wider relationship with the EU, which has been characterised by growing incomprehension and mistrust on both sides, he added: “There’s been a big change in the relationship, and lots of things have changed very rapidly and everybody is kind of adjusting to that… I think we’ve just got to let that play out, to some extent and and sort of manage it as responsible international actors should/”I think it’s reasonable to think it will be, you know, a little bumpy for some time being because of that. I said last week as a speech to another event that I think we… those who campaigned for Leave would have been surprised to think that the relationship was, as relatively difficult as it is now. “You know it’s not something that we want. We do things the sooner we can move beyond the settling down process, the better. But we probably have to let it work through.” More

The crisis-hit Democratic Unionist Party has its third leader in just two months, after Jeffrey Donaldson was crowned without a contest.The relative moderate replaces Edwin Poots – who was forced out after agreeing to a Sinn Fein demand in order to restore the new power-sharing executive at Stormont.In an early warning shot, Mr Donaldson warned of the threat to “peace and stability” without changes to the Northern Ireland Protocol, which has imposed a post-Brexit trade border in the Irish Sea.Unionists are fiercely opposed to the Protocol – and the weakening of ties with the rest of the United Kingdom it has brought – and have repeatedly called for it to be scrapped.Mr Donaldson said he would be “speaking with the prime minister at the earliest opportunity” to make clear the level of Unionist opposition.“The government and those who claim to be protectors of peace and stability, must step up and deal with the Protocol in a manner which respects the constitutional and economic integrity of the United Kingdom,” he said.Brandon Lewis, the Northern Ireland Secretary, said he looked forward to working with Mr Donaldson and on “ensuring we deliver on the shared interests of all the people of Northern Ireland”.However, he has vowed to use the UK Parliament to force through Irish language legislation – the Sinn Fein demand – if Stormont fails to act by September, setting the scene for a likely future clash.Meanwhile, the outgoing Mr Poots raised eyebrows by claiming he has received a personal assurance from London that significant changes will be made to the Protocol.Mr Donaldson is the province’s longest-serving MP, but is likely to quit his Lagan Valley seat after 24 years in order to become the new first minister at Stormont.He was narrowly defeated by Mr Poots in the previous leadership contest, just three weeks ago, and was the only candidate when nominations closed this time.In a statement, he pointed to the Northern Ireland Assembly as “the place where every element of our society is represented”, saying: “The coalition government is unwieldy, but it ensures every voice is heard.”But he added: “I will play my part but the government and Brussels must step up and recognise the flaws of the Protocol and how it was foisted upon Northern Ireland.”Boris Johnson has repeatedly threatened to suspend the Protocol unless the EU backs down on requiring the checks and restrictions he signed up to.But he has been warned that Brussels has multiple weapons it can deploy that would have “significant economic consequences” for the UK, if the conflict escalates.The EU is likely to shut off the flow of vital security and business data and could “slow down” exports through Calais, it was said.Tensions have cooled a bit – with Brussels likely to agree a three-month delay to a ban on the sale of chilled meats across the Irish Sea – but that will only kick the can down the road. More

Matt Hancock has again sought to downplay Boris Johnson’s claim that he was “f****** hopeless” at the start of the pandemic, insisting the remark was made during a “challenging and frustrating period” and adding: “It doesn’t matter.”Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s former top adviser, last week released WhatsApp messages from spring 2020 in which Mr Johnson apparently made disparaging remarks about the health secretary.Pressed on his feelings when Mr Cummings published the screenshot displaying how the prime minister had spoken about him, Mr Hancock told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I work with the PM every single day, and we have a very good, close, working relationship. “Frankly it was ancient history and of course there’s pressures in the middle of a pandemic, but what matters is what you get done.“It was an expression of frustration at the situation, which was we didn’t have enough testing capacity and I was there driving up the testing capacity, and you know what, I delivered on that goal.”Reminded of the prime minister’s “f****** hopeless” message, he added: “It doesn’t matter – it was an expression in the middle of a challenging and frustrating period where we managed eventually to deliver on the testing capacity that we needed that we didn’t have at the start. “What matters in public life and why I’m in public life is to deliver improvements that really matter and really last and working with the prime minister to protect lives and get this country out of this pandemic … for instance with a vaccination programme that is probably going faster than almost any other country in the world.“That’s something I’m very proud of and he and I were working on that back then, not everybody was involved in that project, but the prime minister and I have been working on that since last January. That’s just one example.” More

Government plans for a new ship aiming to extol the virtues of Brexit Britain have been branded as a “complete waste of time” and “silly populist nonsense” by the senior Tory peer Ken Clarke.With an estimated price tag of £200 million, the former Conservative chancellor dismissed the proposal unveiled by Boris Johnson last month, and urged the government to show “restraint” with public spending.Just moments earlier, however, Matt Hancock, the health secretary, was effusive in his praise of the so-called “royal yacht”, defending the project as a “brilliant idea” and claiming it was “great value for money” in a separate interview.Asked whether it was a good use of taxpayers’ money, Lord Clarke told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “Complete waste of time — silly populist nonsense.“£200 million is not going to cause problems, but it shows there are people in No 10 who just think there’s free money, who think that waving a Union Jack and sending yachts and aircraft carriers around the world shows what a great power we are, we’ve no money for that kind of thing”.The former Tory MP added: “We do need money to actually improve the quality and availability of social care, but all they are arguing about is how much money we spend to make social care cheaper for wealthy people in order to protect the inheritance of their children. We do need spend money on skills training.”His comments come amid a row within Whitehall and the Treasury over future spending priorities and how to deal with the extensive bill the government has accrued throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, with major issues such as reform of the broken social care system yet to be unveiled by No 10.But asked whether the money being earmarked for the new flagship should be spent elsewhere, Mr Hancock, the health secretary, told Sky News: “I’m obviously not the minister responsible for the royal yacht, but what I can tell you is I think it’s a brilliant idea.“It’s a brilliant idea because it’s how we can help to sell Britain abroad. You only need to encourage a small amount of trade in order to pay for yacht like this over and over again.”He added: “By taking the yacht — essentially displaying Britain in countries around the world, in harbours around the world from New York to Singapore, you can sell what is great about this country and great to invest in.“We’ve got so much to sell. The middle part of the 21st century is a fantastic time for the 21st century if we get this right and I think that making the investment to be able to go and sell Britain around the world is money well spent and I think it will repay itself over and over and over again.“Although it’s not my area, you can tell I’m an enthusiast for this and I think it’s long overdue and I’m absolutely thrilled that we’re making progress on delivering it because I think it will be great value for money in the narrow sense, but it’s also very, very important that we sell Britain around the world.”Speaking last month, Mr Johnson suggested the new ship would help the UK seize post-Brexit trading opportunities and reflect the UK’s “burgeoning status as a great, independent maritime trading nation.He added: “Every aspect… from its build to the businesses it showcases onboard will represent and promote the best of British – a clear and powerful symbol of our commitment to be an active player on the world stage.”It is thought British businesses will be able to promote their products on the ship, which will sail all over the world, hosting trade shows and high-level negotiations alongside promoting British interests.The prime minister’s official spokesperson said later on Tuesday that the Ministry of Defence would cover the initial costs of procuring the flagship, but said it was yet to be decided how the final price-tag – unofficially estimated at £200m – would be covered.Responding to Mr Clarke’s dismissal of the scheme as “silly populist nonsense”, the spokesperson said: “Obviously we totally reject that. The new national flagship will boost British trade and drive investment into our economy. It will be used to host high-level trade negotiations and trade shows and will sail all over the world promoting British interests.”The spokesperson was unable to provide any detailed economic analysis to support Mr Hancock’s claim that the boat will “pay for itself many times over”.But he said: “He was simply referring to the fact that this is a ship that will promote UK trade and drive investment back into our country. We expect any costs of building and operating this ship will be outweighed by the economic benefits it brings over its 30-year lifespan.”The spokesperson said he had “no information to hand” about whether any trade and business organisations had lobbied the government to commission the boat. More

The government must review the ease with which genomic tests can be sold directly to consumers, a Commons committee has said, as the popularity of products such as at-home ancestry kits continues to grow. Last September, ministers published the Genome UK report, which sets out a 10-year strategy for Britain to become “the most advanced genomic healthcare system in the world” – including plans for the UK to grow new genomics healthcare companies and increase private sector investment. But in their “Direct-to-consumer genomic testing Report”, published on Tuesday, MPs sitting on the Science and Technology Committee have advised policymakers to address the possible risks posed by the increasing availability and scope of consumer genomic testing.This includes products that divulge family ancestry and genetic traits, as well as diagnose health outcomes. Drawing on evidence taken from genomic testing companies, healthcare professionals and think tanks, the report makes a number of recommendations for the government to consider when updating regulations.Pre-market assessment of tests by an independent bodyMPs believe this assessment should cover the test’s clinical performance – meaning the extent to which it can provide information about treatment of a disease, and the likelihood of improved outcomes – in addition to the current requirement to achieve analytical performance, which describes how well the test can identify the presence of a particular gene. Development of technical standardsClearly defining such standards would facilitate research efforts and reduce the burden placed on the NHS to re-test patients following testing via commercially obtained tests, the report said. It would also enable consumers to differentiate high quality, trustworthy products from those with lower standards.Possible update of advice and support offered when supplying testsMPs said this could, for instance, include a requirement for provision of genetic counselling depending on the severity of the condition being tested, and stipulate the predictive power of the test alongside results. Reconsideration of using genomic testing on childrenAfter hearing evidence from the Nuffield Council of Bioethics and researchers in the field, the Committee noted concerns about testing being used inappropriately on children who cannot give informed consent. Update UK’s data protection framework for genomic testingThe government should review the adequacy of Britain’s data protection framework for direct-to-consumer genomic testing, including the risks and opportunities presented by technological developments and growing numbers of consumers using direct-to-consumer genomic tests. Tory MP Greg Clark, who chairs the Committee, acknowledged in a statement that at-home genomic testing “has opened the door to a wealth of new information about our ancestry, our health and even the likelihood of disease” but said consumers need proper guidance. “Done properly, genomic testing offers great potential for individual knowledge and can provide data which can advance medical research,” he said. “However, these technologies can give rise to questions of quality, which are difficult for consumers to assess, and can sometimes pose challenging ethical questions.” Mr Clark added the government was committed to delivering a “gold standard” for ethical and regulatory standards for genomics in the UK, and signalled the report’s recommendations were the first step to achieving this. More

The government has been urged to “avoid criminalisation” of EU care workers by scrapping the deadline for a post-Brexit settlement scheme or exempting this group.Organisations representing the sector claimed a “substantial number” of care workers were “still not fully aware” of the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS).EU citizens and their families have until 30 June to apply for the scheme if they want to keep living in the UK, with their current legal status and rights set to expire after this date due to Brexit.Charities urged the Home Office earlier this month to scrap the deadline for applications to avoid seeing tens of thousands becoming undocumented overnight.Now, five bodies representing the care sector have raised “serious concerns” over the impact of the scheme and its deadline – which is just over a week away.In a letter, the groups said there was a “clear lack of knowledge/awareness” among EU care workers and employers about what they need to do. They said this was mainly caused by “poor engagement and communication” from the Home Office, according to the signatories, which includes the CEOs of Care England, Scottish Care and the Institute of Health and Social Care Management.The groups said they were worried care workers who were unaware of the scheme or its deadline would not meet the government’s “reasonable groups” threshold for late applications.“Crucially, even in cases where the guidance provides a route back to status, this is not a solution to making people undocumented,” their letter to the prime minister said.“Loss of legal status, barriers to accessing services, liability to criminal penalties for continuing to work and exposure to potential detention and removal creates huge and potentially life-ruining risks.”The organisations from the care sector said: “We ask that the EUSS deadline must be lifted or at the very least an exemption for Care Workers must be put in place prior to the 30 June 2021 deadline.They added: “This would secure their settled status and avoid criminalisation of migrant EU workers as well as employers.”The group – which also includes the National Care Association’s executive chair and the head of the Care Workers’ Charity – also said EU care workers make up 12 per cent of the sector workforce.Caitlin Boswell from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants said: “EU care workers and other key workers – the very people we have relied on over the past year – are in real danger of slipping through the cracks in the scheme.” She added: “Significant numbers of EU care workers falling out of status will devastate the care industry in the middle of a pandemic. It’s more urgent than ever that the government acts now to lift the EUSS deadline.”Succesful applicants to the EU settlement scheme will receive settled or pre-settled status, which carries the right to work, study, use the NHS and access public funds in the UK. MPs and peers warned last month thousands of EU citizens risked losing their legal status in the UK due to the scheme’s dadline, claiming a government outreach campaign has struggled to reach sufficient numbers. Also in late May, The Independent revealed there had been a surge in EU nationals and their families requesting help amid the EU settlement scheme’s looming deadline.A government spokesperson said: “International staff from across the world make an outstanding contribution to our health and social care sector and this has been especially true during the pandemic.”They added: “We have been clear we want international staff already working in the UK to stay and feel welcomed and encouraged to do so, and we’ve worked hard to promote the EU settlement scheme across the sector over the last two and a half years.” More

A furious “culture wars” row has erupted at Westminster over a report that blames the use of the term “white privilege” for undermining the educational chances of white working-class children.Conservative members of the Education Select Committee were accused of inserting the controversial claim for political reasons, in a way that one Labour MP said risked “legitimising narratives of white supremacy”.In a highly unusual move, the committee split along party lines, with Labour members refusing to back the publication of a report that raised questions over whether bodies which use the “white privilege” terminology should continue to receive funding from public sources.And they tabled an alternative report – voted down by the committee’s Tory majority – that branded the argument over terminology a “red herring” designed to distract attention from the true causes of educational under-achievement, which they identified as “the systematic deindustrialisation and underinvestment of successive Conservative governments”.Meanwhile, a headteachers’ union said the row risked distracting from more significant elements of the report, which warned that white working-class pupils have been “forgotten” and “let down” by decades of neglect in an education system that “condemns them to falling behind their peers” and accused the government of being “reluctant” to address their problems.Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), said the committee’s decision to enter the debate “does not seem helpful and is likely to divert attention from the rest of the report”. Schools were already well aware of their responsibility to provide opportunities for discussion in a “sensitive, balanced and measured way”, he said.The majority report, released on Tuesday after being voted through by the committee’s six Conservative members, voiced concerns that the use of the phrase “white privilege” – increasingly widespread since the murder of George Floyd and the emergence of the Black Lives Matter movement – “may be alienating to disadvantaged white communities and it may have contributed towards a systemic neglect of white people facing hardship who also need specific support”.The report cited US research which found that “learning about white privilege may reduce sympathy for white people who are struggling with poverty” and said the committee shared concerns expressed by equalities minister Kemi Badenoch over a risk of some “pernicious” ideology beginning to spread to organisations and charities that work with children.Finding that white pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds are “far from privileged” in the education system, it recommended that schools should consider whether they are breaching equality duties by promoting “politically controversial terminology including white privilege”.And it urged the Department for Education to issue guidance to all bodies to which it issues grants about how to deliver teaching on the issue in a “balanced, impartial and age-appropriate way”.Labour members of the committee said the report was being used to stoke “culture wars” at a time when Downing Street is using the so-called “war on woke” to attract working-class votes from Sir Keir Starmer’s party.They said the inquiry had found no evidence that the idea of white privilege affects outcomes for disadvantaged white pupils, while there was a “wealth of evidence” that their chances in life were harmed by lack of investment.“To make recommendations which pit different groups within our multi-ethnic working class against each other in a struggle for meagre resources is to do an injustice to our most disadvantaged children, including specifically white communities that have been ‘left behind’,” they said.Comments by Ms Badenoch and the recent report from Tony Sewell’s government-commissioned Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities show “a clear ideology beginning to form that borders on an authoritarian attack on freedom of speech and an insidious attempt to prevent racialised communities from articulating their experiences of racism”, the Labour MPs warned.Ian Mearns, the Labour MP for Gateshead, said he had never seen such a strident attempt to use a report for political purposes in his 11 years on the cross-party committee, which normally goes to some lengths to ensure its reports win consensual support of members from across the political spectrum.The issue of “white privilege” terminology was not raised by witnesses to the inquiry but by Conservative MPs who seized on a blog by the charity Barnardo’s offering advice to parents on how to explain the idea to their children, he said.“The inclusion of that section is unfortunate and unnecessary” Mr Mearns told The Independent. “With all the culture wars stuff that is going on at the moment, we were concerned that this would be seized upon as though it was central to the discussion.“We were concerned that it would be a distraction from the real issue, which is that poorer children whatever their background are underperforming at school.”Another Labour member of the committee, Apsana Begum, asked: “Is it a coincidence that Downing Street seem to have a bit of an agenda on this specific area in electoral terms, in terms of which party represents the white working class?“I think there is a specific agenda here which borders into aligning itself with legitimising narratives which are quite dangerous around white supremacy.”Ms Begum said that while she could understand that many white working-class people would not feel that concepts of “privilege” applied to them, it would be “very concerning” if the government seized on the report as a justification for withdrawing funding from organisations that use the term.But the committee’s Conservative chair, Robert Halfon, who did not take part in the votes on alternative versions of the report, denied that it was being used to stoke “culture wars”.“I come from a Jewish background; my father was an immigrant and I know about antisemitism and racism and I despise them,” he told The Independent.“However, the term ‘white privilege’ is wrong-headed because it implies collective guilt over individual responsibility. It’s wrong-headed because it implies that all white people, whatever their circumstances – particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds – are privileged. And it is wrong-headed because white working-class boys and girls underperform in every stage of the educational system compared to most other ethnic groups.“Of course there will be fierce debate and disagreement about these issues, but we have to confront difficult issues and not sweep them under the carpet. We have to challenge conventional thinking, and that’s what this report tries to do.”The report found that disadvantaged white pupils have been let down by “muddled” policy thinking.It highlighted data showing that in 2018-19, just 53 per cent of white British pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) met the expected standard of development at the end of the early years foundation stage.On GCSE performance, it also pointed to statistics showing that just over 17 per cent of the same group achieved at least a strong pass (grade 5 or above) in English and maths, compared with 22.5 per cent of all FSM-eligible pupils.After taking evidence from experts, the committee said many factors had contributed to the poor data, but said it was unconvinced by the government’s “claim that the gap can be attributed to poverty alone”.It pointed to other factors, including family experience of education, disengagement from the curriculum, regional economics and underinvestment, and a failure to address low participation in higher education. More