Markus Andrews

The deal signed by Boris Johnson with the EU on fishing after Brexit fell “short” of industry expectations, the environment secretary has admitted.Speaking at a House of Lords committee on Wednesday George Eustice told peers that “it’s fair to say that we didn’t get everything that we wanted on fishing”.Boris Johnson previously hailed his fishing agreement as a success, but fishermen accused the prime minister of “sacrificing” them in trade talks and having “totally capitulated”.”To get a final agreement compromises were made,” the minister Mr Eustice told peers, though he argued that the deal was “a significant step forwards”.Fishing is a very small part of the British economy but is important symbolically for Brexiteers, who claimed leaving the EU would help Britain regain control of its waters from the Common Fisheries Policy.But since the transition period ended fishermen have reported little benefit and many have instead complained they are unable to export their catches to Europe because of the new bureaucracy created by Brexit.The environment secretary told peers: “I don’t think anyone in the fishing industry believed that we would immediately exclude access for all [EU] vessels.Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayInside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekday”It’s also the case that we knew we wouldn’t get to where we wanted to end up with zonal attachment … and instead what you needed to aim for was year-on-year gains.”It is the case that we argued with the EU that there should be larger year-on-year gains in that period, of course, that was our publicly stated position and what we argued for right through to the end of the negotiations.”It is also the case that we had not intended to grant the EU access in the six-to-12 [mile zone off UK shores], but in the end they were granted access in some areas of the six-to-12 but not all.
UK news in picturesShow all 50 More

Health Secretary Matt Hancock has revealed the Hollywood film Contagion partly shaped his strategy on the UK’s coronavirus vaccination programme.The senior cabinet minister said the movie starring Matt Damon – which focuses on the international struggle to contain a deadly virus – helped prepare him for the global scramble to get hold of vaccines.  Asked by LBC about his own viewing of Contagion, Mr Hancock said the film influenced the government’s approach to placing huge orders with vaccine manufacturers as early as possible.“In the film, it shows that the moment of highest stress around the vaccine programme is not before its rolled out – when the scientists and manufacturers work together at pace – it’s afterwards when there is a huge row of the order of priority,” he said.The health secretary also said the movie influenced the government’s decision to set out a clear order of priority for the domestic rollout, in a bid to avoid ongoing squabbles over who should get the jab first.“I insisted that we ordered enough for every adult to have their two doses,” he said. “But also we asked for that clinical advice on the prioritisation very early, and set it out in public … so that there was no big row over the order of priority.“I wouldn’t say that that film was my primary source of advice on this,” the minister added.
Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayInside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayEarlier on Wednesday Mr Hancock said Covid-19 vaccine supply “slow downs” were behind the daily fluctuations in jab numbers. Asked on the Today programme if the rollout could go faster, Mr Hancock said supply issues were the “behind those variations [in the daily number of jabs]”.He added: “When a batch has come in we’ve got more to deliver, and then it slows down a bit, and another one comes in and we get that out.”Mr Hancock also suggested the government could publish vaccine supply figures. “The Scottish government has asked for those [supply] figures to be regularly published, and we’re talking to them about that,” he said. “We’ll also need to talk to the companies, because we’d need their agreement to publish more in terms of the supply.“When we’re talking to GPs and pharmacists who are delivering this on the ground they often say, ‘Can we have more of a forecast of the supply’.”The health secretary also rejected criticism from France, when asked about reported comments made by French president Emmanuel Macron that the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is “quasi-ineffective” among people over 65.
“My view is that we should listen to the scientists… and the science on this one was already pretty clear, and then with this publication overnight is absolutely crystal clear that the Oxford vaccine not only works but works well.”   More

Therese Coffey has dismissed a proposal reportedly being considered by the chancellor to replace the universal credit uplift with a one-off £1,000 lump sum payment to claimants. The work and pensions secretary told MPs it would not be her department’s “preferred approach” and stressed a “steady sum of money” would be more beneficial to claimants struggling through the coronavirus crisis.The cabinet minister added she was unable to update MPs on whether the £20 per week uplift to universal credit — introduced at the onset of the pandemic — would be extended beyond March, despite intense pressure.Ms Coffey, who is reported to be pushing for the payments to be maintained as the country continues to fight the pandemic, stressed that discussions were “still ongoing” within government and no decision had been reached.But she added: “I’m absolutely resolute, as the prime minister has set out previously, we have the effects of this pandemic ongoing and we recognise the need we need to continue to support people”.It is expected that Rishi Sunak will announce a final decision at the Budget next month, but is also reportedly considering a one-off payment of £1,000 or £500 to claimants to avoid the universal credit uplift becoming permanent.“I am aware that idea has been raised,” Ms Coffey told MPs at the Commons Work and Pensions Committee. “It’s still a level of financial support for people which is welcome, but… that would not be one of the department’s preferred approaches on providing that financial support.Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayInside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekday“But financial support nevertheless is underpinning that desire of it. We’re just not sure it’s the best way to deliver that.”Pressed again, she added: “There’s an element of complexity. Previous experience would be that a steady sum of money would probably be more beneficial to claimants and customers to help with that budgeting process.”“I wouldn’t say no to a one-off payment if in the end that was the decision that was taken because it’s still would be financial support.”Her comments came after the committee heard evidence from charities that the uplift had been a “lifeline” for struggling families and argued a one-off payment “makes no policy sense whatsoever”.Citizens Advice principal policy manager Minesh Patel told MPs the lump sum would not be a “feasible” approach to providing extra supporting during the pandemic, as he argued for people having a “stable regular income”.“In research we carried out, people tell us that having a stable income is the thing that gives them most security in life, but we think that the best way to do that is through maintaining a regular payment through universal credit rather than a lump sum payment which can throw off people’s budgets and how they manage their money,” he said. More

Time is running out for the government to turn its “aspirational words” on repairing Britain’s natural environment into action, MPs have warned.In a scathing report released on Wednesday the influential public accounts committee said ministers were running out of excuses for delays on issues like air quality, water, and wildlife loss.The MPs noted that the government had first promised to improve the natural environment “within a generation” in 2011 and that progress had been “painfully slow” in the ensuing decade. They warned that a 25-year plan set out by ministers in 2018 did not contain a coherent set of long-term objectives and that the environment department Defra was simply being shrugged off by the rest of the government.”Improving the natural environment is a huge task and there are structural issues within government that still need to be resolved to improve the chances of success,” the MPs say.”The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has policy responsibility for most of the plan and relies on other departments to play their part; yet the Department has not shown that it has the clout to lead the rest of government.”MPs also criticised the Treasury for its “piecemeal approach to funding measures to improve the natural environment” and said Rishi Sunak’s department simply did “not yet understand the total costs required”.Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayInside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayAnd they sounded the alarm on the government’s new post-Brexit watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, which they warned might not be “sufficiently independent from government”.Meg Hillier, chair of the cross party committee, said: “These ‘generations’ will soon be coming of age with no sign of the critical improvements to air and water quality Government has promised them, much less a serious plan to halt environmental destruction.“Our national environmental response is left to one Department, and months from hosting an international conference on climate change, the government struggles to determine the environmental impact of its own latest spending round. Government must move on from aspirational words and start taking the hard decisions across a wide range of policy areas required to deliver real results – time is running out.”
UK news in picturesShow all 50 More

The coronavirus pandemic is the “greatest test of global solidarity in generations” but offers an opportunity to rebuild a consensus for international order, Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel have insisted.In a joint article alongside fellow leaders — coordinated by Project Syndication and published in The Independent — they added the emergency has caused the “world’s worst economic crisis since World War II” with inequalities threatening social cohesion.Joined by the president of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and the United Nations general secretary Antonio Guterres, the leaders said: “Recovery of a strong and stable world economy is a fundamental priority. “Indeed, the current crisis is threatening to undo the process we have made over two decades in fighting poverty and gender inequality.”On international relations, they stressed the crisis calls for the “most ambitious decisions to shape the future”, adding: “We believe that this one can be an opportunity to rebuild consensus for an international order based on multilateralism and the rule of law through efficient cooperation, solidarity and cooperation.“Health is the first emergency. The Covid-19 crisis is the greatest test of global solidarity in generations. It has reminded us of an obvious fact: in the face of a pandemic, our health safety chain is only as strong as the weakest health system. Covid-19 anywhere is a threat to people and economies everywhere.“The pandemic calls for a strong coordinated International response that rapidly expands access to tests, treatments and vaccines, recognising extensive immunisation as a global public good must be available and affordable to all.” Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayInside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayThe article warns that the emergency is also “environmental” and calls on leaders to “enhance our efforts to tackle climate change” and make economies more sustainable ahead of the November COP26 summit in Glasgow.By early 2021, countries accounting for more than 65 per cent of global greenhouse-gas emissions, they add, are “likely to have made ambitious commitments on carbon neutrality”, but urge national governments to begin “implementing concrete plans and policies”.It concludes: “To meet these challenges, multilateralism is not just another diplomatic technique. It shapes world order and is a very specific way of organising international relations based on cooperation, the rule of law, collective action, and share principles. “Rather than pitting civilisations and values against one another, we must build a more inclusive multilateralism, respecting our differences as much as our common values enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.The article — coordinated by Project Syndication — is signed by the French president, the German chancellor, the secretary-general of the United Nations Antonio Guterres, the president of the European Council Charles Michel, the president of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and the president of Senegal Macky Sall. More

A top British beekeeper fears 15 million bees could be seized and burned because of new imports rules. 15 million bees burned at the altar of Brexit bureaucracy – we didn’t see that on the side of the Vote Leave bus. Vote Leave veteran Michael Gove thinks the hive mind can help sort some of the huge problems Brexit has created in Northern Ireland. The Cabinet Office minister is hoping to pollinate some goodwill when he gathers his EU counterpart and leaders from the province for a showdown summit today. Westminster, Stormont and Brussels are buzzing for a breakthrough.
Inside the bubbleOur political commentator Andrew Grice on what to look out for today: More

A committee of MPs and peers has drafted its own law to allow care home visits to restart – and set the government a two-week deadline to agree to act.
The current blanket ban is a breach of human rights and is causing enormous distress, they say, criticising ministers for ignoring warnings first issued last year.
The human rights joint committee released evidence from people separated from vulnerable loved ones who had been left “further traumatised” and feeling “abandoned by their families”.
The law would adopt the Canada system of allowing entry to care homes and mental health hospitals by “a designated care-giver, provided they test negative before each visit” for Covid-19.“Relatives must now be reunited with their loved ones in care homes and that needs to be backed up by law,” the all-party committee said.
The move lays bare frustration that ministers have refused to say when visits will resume, despite delivering a first vaccine to all elderly residents – but not staff – in English care homes.
Families and providers fear they will have to wait until booster jabs have been given – which will not happen before all the most at-risk groups have received their first vaccine.
Inside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayInside Politics newsletterThe latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekdayEven when they restart, guidance to care homes must be “enforced by law to make sure it happens in all homes”, the committee is arguing.
The legislation would “require residential care homes to allow visits unless, after individualised assessment, a face-to-face visit is not possible for safety reasons”.
“We have continued to hear far too many examples of people being denied meaningful visits, where these might be safely facilitated,” said Harriet Harman, the committee’s chair, in a letter to Health Secretary Matt Hancock.
“Failure to adopt an individualised approach to the safety of visits risks breaching the right of patients, residents and their families to family life,” she has written.
And she added: “I would be very grateful if you could consider our proposal as a matter of urgency and respond to us by 17 February.”
A separate measure for prisons would trigger the immediate temporary release of all pregnant women and those in mother-and-baby-units, after risk assessments.
The committee is also recommending that “every effort should be made” to release mothers with dependent children who could be “reunited with their children”.
On Monday, the care minister Helen Whately was unable to say when visits would restart – after the policy of one regularly-tested family member being allowed into a home was scrapped.
She defended not fast-tracking second jabs in care homes because “we want to protect as many people as we possibly can, by getting the first job to them”.
But, the minister added: “We’re looking right now at what could we possibly do over the weeks ahead to try and enable more individual visits to start again.” More

Given that the SNP has been in power since 2007 and that Nicola Sturgeon has been first minister for the last six momentous years, it is surprising, if not miraculous, that the party is still riding high in the opinion polls. While a little off the highs of last autumn, the Scot Nats still register solidly above 50 per cent, and are well on course for a substantial victory at the elections for the Scottish parliament in May. With that will come a pledge, and arguably a mandate, for a fresh referendum on independence. On that issue, too, the party is currently on track to achieve its historic aim.  So, treble Scotches all round? Apparently not. So far from concentrating on delivering its precious cargo of Scottish nationhood safely into harbour, the SNP is squabbling and split. Fortunately the voters appear to have taken little even notice of the arguments for them to defect to any of the unionist alternatives, but that may change. What is going on?  It’s complicated, but the key seems to be that the wrangling seems mostly more personal and confined to subjects, rightly or wrongly, not at the top of voters’ minds just now.   More