Markus Andrews

England’s chief medical officer has warned the coming weeks are going “to be the worst weeks” of the coronavirus pandemic for the NHS, as he urged the public to minimise unnecessary contacts in order to reduce transmissions.Highlighting the pressure on the health service, professor Chris Whitty said that while 18,000 people were in hospital with Covid-19 during the April peak last year, on Sunday there were over 30,000 beds occupied by patients with the disease.“This is going to be a significant crisis for the NHS unless we take evasive action,” he warned on BBC Breakfast several days after the government imposed the third nationwide lockdown in England to curb the spread of the virus.Professor Whitty added: “We have a very significant problem. The next few weeks are going to be the worst weeks of this pandemic in terms of numbers into the NHS.“What we need to do before the vaccines have had their effect… is we need to really double down: this is everybody’s problem. Any single unnecessary contact you have with someone is a potential link in a chain of transmission that will lead to a vulnerable person.“We’ve all got to as individuals help the NHS, help our fellow citizens by minimising the amount of unnecessary contacts we have.”Professor Whitty refused to be drawn on speculation that ministers could toughen up the lockdown rules, including preventing people exercising with people outside their households, but suggested the current measures could be need until “some time in the spring” to combat the spread of the virus.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“We’ve got to make this sustainable because we’ve got to be able maintain this for several more weeks now,” he insisted.“We’re really going to have to do a significant action for all of us for several more weeks until probably sometime in the spring for very much of what we have to do.”So, we do obviously need to be able to do essential work which they can’t do from home. We fully accept that that’s necessary to keep society going because you’ve got to be able to do it over a period of time.”So, the three things that people can leave home for are essential work where they can’t do it from home, when they are doing exercise – which is very important for people’s physical health, their mental health – and for essential things like shopping or medical intervention.”In a rare series of morning interviews — highlighting the concern at the top of government over pressure facing the NHS and rising transmissions — professor Whitty also stressed that the virus can be passed on in any place where people from two different households meet together.He said: “So, it can be passed on, and very often is passed on, in households when people invite people into their home and meet them who are not from their household. Of course, it can be passed on in any other environment: outside, in shops, in any kind of environment, and an indoor setting.”The key thing to understand is that when you meet people from another household under any circumstances – and they’re very often your friends, your family – but those are the kind of situations where the virus is passed on.”It doesn’t care who you are, it doesn’t care whether they’re your friends. If you meet someone from another household, the virus has an opportunity to be transmitted.”However, he later told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that fleeting contact outdoors, such as a jogger running past, is “extremely low risk”, adding:  “It’s the much longer contacts in close proximity that can still happen outdoors – if people, for example, are crowded together in a queue … if they’re really huddled together around a market stall or something, that is a risk with this virus.”And people in that situation, there might be some logic to people thinking about wearing masks, but a much better thing to do is to minimise going out for an unnecessary trip in the first place.”In a separate interview, Nadhim Zahawi, the minister responsible for the rollout of the Covid-19 vaccine, raised concerns that members of the public are not complying with lockdown rules closely enough in supermarkets and when exercising outside.”We don’t want to use tougher measures, the lockdown is tough, schools are shut, but it is important to remember this virus loves social interactions,” he added.”We’re reviewing all the restrictions, but these are pretty tough at the moment. I am worried about supermarkets and people actually wearing masks and following the one-way system and making sure when it’s at capacity they wait outside the supermarket.”I’m worried about some of the pictures I’ve seen of social interactions in parks, if you have to exercise you can go out for exercise only.” More

Risk of European firms turning backs on British produce ‘a nightmare scenario’, trade body warns More

Councils across England are facing having to make unprecedented cuts to services in the coming years, after coronavirus left them with multimillion-pound black holes in their funding.The cost to local authorities of the pandemic has been revealed as £1.1bn to £2.2bn, prompting leaders to describe their financial situations as the worst they have ever seen.Early intervention and prevention projects for vulnerable families, as well as recycling schemes, are among the cutbacks most likely to be in the firing line as local authorities seek to claw back cash to avoid meltdown.And council taxpayers will be asked to stump up more, with bills increasing by as much as 5 per cent, just as household incomes have been squeezed by job losses and instability.Already struggling after years of austerity, local authority finances have been badly hit as income from car parking and leisure facilities have fallen off a cliff, at the same time as councils faced unplanned bills for costs such as PPE, helping support care homes and launching test and trace systems.The Local Government Association (LGA) said councils would be forced to absorb £1.1bn in 2020-21 – and warned that given the continued impact of the pandemic, the figure could grow to £2.2bn.  Cheshire East Council, which is down by £13m this year thanks to the pandemic, is among many local authorities consulting residents on where to make cuts.Next year’s budget would be the most challenging it has ever had to set, said deputy leader Craig Browne and warned of having to make “some very tough choices” with no area of responsibility exempt. Sam Corcoran, the Labour leader of the Council, said despite several government grants, the council had not been fully recompensed for the pandemic costs, and told The Independent the axe could fall on household waste recycling centres.Cutting family early prevention services, such as Sure Start centres, would save money now but store up trouble and costs for later, he said.
“We’ve been in austerity for a number of years and it gets harder after the easy things have been cut. Residents have to face either cuts to services or increases in council tax, or both.”
John Clarke, the Labour leader of Gedling Borough Council in Nottinghamshire, told The Independent that cuts might have to be made to the support given to police and the police and crime commissioner, as well as anti-knife crime schemes.Other services such as maintenance of parks and open spaces could be threatened, as well as eco-friendly initiatives such as educating people on recycling and installing solar panels on council buildings.
Mr Clarke could not rule out redundancies among managers at the council, where the senior team has already been restructured through some natural job shrinkages.
Last month, Croydon Council in south London declared “effective bankruptcy” and imposed emergency spending limits.
In a survey by the County Councils Network, eight in 10 councils said they would have to make “damaging” cuts to services. Social care could be among the areas to suffer, the group said, unless the government stepped in.
A spokesperson for the LGA said: “It is not a pretty picture. Councils have worked closely with government throughout the pandemic to protect our local communities and save lives.”As well as a drop in income from parking and leisure, local authorities are having to deal with more people defaulting on council tax and business rates because of the lockdowns. The government is giving local authorities up to 75 per cent of that lost revenue.
Overall, ministers say local government has been given £7bn to cover Covid costs, which is being paid in four tranches. They say councils have also been given extra spending power – but it takes the form of increasing council tax precepts for social care by 3 per cent, on top of a base rate rise of 2 per cent, totalling up to 5 per cent.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned households across the UK may face an average £70 rise in council tax next year.  The spending review also provided councils with £300m of new grant funding for social care.
David Williams, leader of Hertfordshire County Council and chairman of the County Councils Network, said: “If you had told me a year ago we’d spend about £130m we hadn’t budgeted for, I’d have thought you were having a laugh. But I’ve been astounded at the amount of support we’ve had from central government. For councils that deliver social care, the government has dealt with them pretty fairly.”
He said he would be reluctant to cut services for vulnerable families, and would look for central government funding initially.But others say the support is not enough.
Leeds City Council, which has a £119m deficit, earlier this month announced a potential 914 staff redundancies, as well as council tax rises.
Newcastle City Council has revealed it has to save a further £40m over the next two years by raising fees and charges and not filling vacancies, and will raise council tax by 5 per cent.
Leader of Newcastle City Council Nick Forbes said: “Coronavirus has cost councils across the country over £11bn this year alone. The government have so far refunded less than half of that. They have done nothing to fundamentally change the fact that councils will be forced to make severe cuts in 2021 to balance their books.”
City councillors are considering £8.4m of cuts to adult social care spending and £3.8m of cuts to children’s social care.
Extra costs and loss of income have increased costs by £90m this year, it said, despite furloughing some staff.  Byron Rhodes, cabinet member for finance, said the council was stopping non-essential recruitment and spending, and stepping up spending controls.
“Government support has been significant but not enough. Without funding reform or a major efficiency initiative, more savings will be required including service reductions.”
And Brighton and Hove council revealed it had a £20m funding gap, the “biggest black hole the council has seen for a very long time”, deputy leader Hannah Clare said.Paul Hodgkinson, leader of the Lib Dems on Gloucestershire County Council, said he feared roads and road safety measures could be the biggest victim of any cuts in his rural area.
“Our roads have a high accident rate, sadly some fatal, with a lot of single carriageways, which tend to be worse than motorways for accidents, and I would fear measures to make them safer could be in jeopardy.”
The borough council in Crawley, the town identified has having been the hardest hit by the pandemic because it is largely dependent on Gatwick Airport, this month decided to close two children’s playgrounds and close five “superloos” among other measures.
In its budget consultation, Kent County Council said it was potentially facing a financial challenge “bigger than anything we have seen over the last 10 years”.
Leader Roger Gough said the concern was less for the immediate future than for the medium and long term. “We had an in-year budget this year, which we’ve never felt the need to do before.
“We were very concerned about children’s social care. After lockdown, cases coming in were more complex because they’d been left for longer.“Local government tends to be a lower priority for government than the NHS and defence, so it’s likely council tax as a whole will increase – we’ll look at that very carefully. A 5 per cent increase will be a cause for concern and distress for many people already in financial distress.”The LGA spokesperson said early communication with councils was key, and initially, the sharing of testing data with councils was poor.“Lessons must be learnt from the past months, particularly around the importance of tapping into and using local expertise.  “We are calling on the government to address in full the financial challenges facing councils as a result of Covid-19, including all lost income and local tax losses.”
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “Councils have played a critical role during the pandemic, and we are ensuring they have the resources needed to deliver effective services for their communities.  “We’ve given councils an unprecedented £7.2bn package of support. This includes £4.6bn in un-ringfenced funding, recognising that councils are best placed to decide how to meet the major Covid-19 service pressures in their local area. “Next year we’re giving councils access to an additional £2.2bn to deliver services including social care and £3bn of additional support for Covid-19 pressures. This takes the total support committed to councils in England to tackle the impacts of Covid-19 to over £10bn.” More

Speaking on Times Radio, Mr Bercow said the former prime minister had been too eager to “pay homage” to the outgoing president after he took office nearly four years ago.Ms May was the first foreign leader to meet the US president after he came into power, with the pair holding bilateral discussions in Washington just days after his inauguration in January 2017.She also invited Mr Trump to the UK for a state visit not long after his election victory, prompting an outcry across the country. “She seemed almost breathless in her quest to get him to come to this country and speak here,” Mr Bercow, who stepped down as speaker in November 2019, said.However, in the end, he said he believed Ms May realised that her efforts were “ultimately ineffective”.Mr Trump visited the UK in June 2019, which sparked major protests, and she was replaced by Boris Johnson the following month.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 weekdayMr Trump was heavily critical of the former prime minister over her leadership on Brexit, championing her challenger instead, after their relationship soured when Ms May criticised his decision to retweet content from far-right political group Britain First.“Her efforts on Brexit were fruitless and often maladroit, but [Mr Trump] then conducted a running commentary on those efforts, undermining her at every turn,” Mr Bercow said. “So, I think she probably realised that currying favour with him was ultimately ineffective and maybe even counterproductive.”
Trump UK visit: Best placards at anti-Trump protestsShow all 17 More

Nicola Sturgeon will use her appearance before an inquiry into the botched handling of harassment complaints against Alex Salmond to dispel the “absolute nonsense” put forward by her predecessor, John Swinney has said.Mr Salmond said the first minister breached the ministerial code in relation to a meeting with him in her home, where she was told about allegations of sexual harassment made against him.In evidence to the committee established to look into the process of the complaints, which were deemed unlawful and saw Mr Salmond win more than £500,000 in public money, the former first minister accused Ms Sturgeon of misleading Holyrood.Deputy first minister Mr Swinney told Politics Scotland he has confidence in what Ms Sturgeon will say when she appears before the committee later this month.”The first minister will set out clearly, openly and transparently all that she has got to say on this issue, and I’m very confident in the points the first minister will put across,” he said.”The first minister looks forward to setting out, in detail, all of the views and perspectives she has on this issue, to put to rest some of the absolute nonsense that has been circulating about this particular issue.”Mr Swinney added: “We’ve got to remember that we faced a very difficult situation of having to investigate complaints about inappropriate behaviour, a lot of which have now been conceded by Alex Salmond in court, and that issue had to be addressed.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”An incredibly difficult situation, and the first minister will set out exactly her perspective when it comes to all the relevant inquiries into this issue.”Initially, Ms Sturgeon said the 2 April 2018 meeting in her Glasgow home was the first she had heard of the allegations; however, it later emerged that she had met Mr Salmond’s chief of staff, Geoff Aberdein, in her Holyrood office four days earlier.Mr Salmond said omission of the meeting with his aide was “a breach of the ministerial code”.Ms Sturgeon said in her evidence to the committee that Mr Aberdein had stopped by her office while in Holyrood for another reason, an assertion Mr Salmond described as “simply untrue”.An inquiry is currently ongoing into whether Ms Sturgeon did violate ministerial rules in relation to the matter.Both Mr Salmond and the Scottish Conservatives pushed for the remit of the inquiry, being conducted by James Hamilton QC, to be widened.However, Mr Swinney said the investigation is already able to investigate any breach of the ministerial code.He said: “I’m really surprised by this line of argument from Alex Salmond and the Scottish Conservatives, because it appears they’re not keeping up with events.”I answered a parliamentary question in November which made clear the James Hamilton Inquiry on the ministerial code could look at any aspect of a breach of the ministerial code.”PA Scotland More

A Cabinet minister is under fire for wrongly claiming he would curb the crippling fees charged by firms patrolling buildings at a risk of a Grenfell-style fire.
Angry residents – forced to pay thousands of pounds a month for ‘waking watches’ – lashed out at Robert Jenrick for misleading the public and offering false hope.
The housing secretary has also been strongly criticised by the Local Government Association (LGA), after he told councils to crack down on the charges – pointing out they have no powers to do so.
“We will be reporting this to the regulatory authorities and hope that they will clamp down on these practices as quickly as possible,” the House of Commons was told.
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 weekdayFor weeks, his Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has refused to answer The Independent’s questions to establish which regulator he would write to and what its powers are.It has now emerged that Mr Jenrick has told local authority trading standards departments to “use their powers to investigate” sky-high charges.
But trading standards is not a national regulator for housing, being a locally-run service where councils respond to wide-ranging complaints made by local residents.
An LGA spokesperson told The Independent: “Consumer protection legislation does not give councils the power to act on concerns about the cost of waking watch schemes.“If the scheme was provided in such a way as to be seriously misleading then it might be possible to act, but this would depend on specifics of the case – and we are not aware of any cases being brought to councils that were actionable.”
Ritu Saha, co-founder of UK Cladding Action Group, said residents in the 57 flats in her building had paid in excess of a staggering £500,000 on waking watches since November 2017 – at least £11,000 each, per month.
There had been no independent evaluation of their effectiveness and there was “no-one to complain to” in a system “completely unregulated”.
“It is astonishing that Robert Jenrick has no real understanding of the basic issues of the building safety and cladding crisis that has engulfed the nation, over three-and-a-half years on from Grenfell,” she said.“Innocent residents are made financially destitute and are facing extreme mental anxiety with waking watch costs which sometimes are higher than mortgage payments.
“Now he has tried to shift responsibility onto a body that has no powers at all in this area.”
The watches are in place because of the failure to remove cladding from hundreds of buildings, more than three years after the Grenfell tragedy claimed 72 lives.
Last month, Mr Jenrick announced £30m to help residents install alarm systems, to try to reduce the ongoing fees they are paying.
But, the LGA added: “The fund will not cover all the systems that are required as a result of the catastrophic failure of buildings safety over decades.”MHCLG declined to discuss why Mr Jenrick had promised MPs he would call in “a regulator”, when he had in fact written to trading standards.However, a spokesperson added he had “raised the issues with Dame Judith Hackitt, who is advising the government on how best to establish the powerful new building safety regulator”. More

Keir Starmer has dropped his pledge to reintroduce free movement with the EU if Labour wins the next election.The Labour leader said it was “not being straight with the British public to say we can come into office in 2024” and fundamentally renegotiate the relationship with the EU. During his party’s leadership election Sir Keir pledged to his supporters that he would “defend free movement as we leave the EU” and said he would reintroduce the policy if elected.But asked on Sunday whether he would stand by the commitment, Sir Keir told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show: “I don’t think there’s an argument for reopening those aspects of the treaty.”We have a treaty, it’s a thin treaty, it’s not what was promised. But I’m very conscious of the fact that everything I’m doing, everything the Labour Party is doing is focused on winning an election in 2024.”If we win that election and a Labour government comes in, we will inherit that treaty and the British people will expect us to make it work, and the EU27 will expect us to make it work.”The opposition leader said that “the last thing anybody wants including the EU is to start again from scratch with this treaty”.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 weekdayAsked why he had made the pledge during the leadership campaign if he thought it was unrealistic to implement, Sir Keir said: “We’ve negotiated a treaty, that now is the basis of our relationship with the EU. We didn’t know what that was until we saw what it was before Christmas.” 
Everything I’m doing, everything the Labour Party is doing, is focused on winning an election in 2024Keir Starmer, Labour leaderHowever, the government has consistently ruled out including free movement in the future relationship with the EU since 2017, prior to the last-but-one general election. The commitment was first made when Theresa May was prime minister.Sir Keir added: “I don’t think there’s a case for rejoining the EU, I’ve said that before. But pretending to the British public that somehow after four years of negotiation that the treaty that’s just being secured is going to be up for grabs, that is not going to be realistic.”The Labour leader was criticised by Luisa Porritt, the Liberal Democrat candidate for mayor of London, who is a former member of the European Parliament.”As each day passes, it becomes clearer that Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal is bad for our businesses and destroys opportunities for young people,” she said.”It’s sad that Labour has abandoned a close relationship with our European neighbours, giving up on its promise to restore free movement and saying it will keep the Tories’ bad deal as it is.”Free movement ended on 1 January as the UK left the Brexit transition period, along with the EU single market and customs union. 
UK news in picturesShow all 50 More

The UK rejected an offer of visa-free tours by musicians to EU countries, despite blaming Brussels for what the industry is calling the devastating blow of them requiring permits.“It is usually in our agreements with third countries, that [work] visas are not required for musicians. We tried to include it, but the UK said no,” an EU source close to the negotiations said.
The revelation comes after the shock threat of visas sparked protests that future tours will have to be abandoned, at a time when musicians are already reeling from the impact of Covid-19.And it sparked calls for ministers to reveal exactly what took place in the negotiations, after they insisted Brussels was responsible for the damaging new red tape.
Cabinet office minister Michael Gove on Saturday warned all kinds of businesses to brace for “significant border disruption” as more of the consequences from rule changes emerged. The head of the Incorporated Society of Musicians (ISM) said she was “horrified” by the evidence that an offer on music was spurned, while Labour said fans would “not forgive” the government.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 row has sparked bitter recriminations after music bodies were repeatedly reassured that a Brexit deal would protect touring performers, as well as their support teams and equipment.
Stars including folk singer Laura Marling and Charlatans frontman Tim Burgess have signed a parliamentary petition demanding visa-free tours, backed by almost 230,000 people.The government is arguing it “pushed for a more ambitious agreement which would have covered musicians and others, but our proposals were rejected by the EU”.
In fact, countries as contrasting as the United States and Saudi Arabia enjoy a permit-free exemption for performers in their deals with the EU, which offers the arrangement as “standard”.
“The UK refused to agree because they said they were ending freedom of movement. It is untrue to say they asked for something more ambitious,” the source said, adding “there has to be reciprocity”.It appears the stumbling block was Priti Patel’s immigration crackdown which has introduced tough restrictions on tours by EU musicians.
From this month, they must, like non-EU artists, apply for visas – to visit for more than 30 days – as well as providing proof of savings and a sponsorship certificate from an event organiser.
The Independent understands the UK did ask for a similar 30-day exemption for its performers, but rejected 90 days – to fit with its own new rules.Deborah Annetts, the ISM’s chief executive, said: “I’m horrified by this new development. The government must come clean about what steps it took to protect the performing arts in the negotiations.
“The music sector feels deeply let down by the government and we want to get to the bottom of what happened.
“All the way through 2020, we were given assurances that the government understood how important frictionless travel is for the performing arts.”
Alison McGovern, Labour’s shadow culture minister, said: “If Boris Johnson’s Tories have stopped musicians from touring in Europe to make a political point, then music fans will not forgive them.“Music is a huge export for the UK and touring and performing is now one of the main ways artists make money – so why would the Tories deliberately make it harder for musicians to make the most of opportunities in Europe?”
And Jamie Njoku-Goodwin, chief executive of UK Music, said: “Who is at fault is irrelevant and a blame game helps no one.“The important thing is that both sides appear to genuinely want this issue sorted, so it is imperative that they get around a table and urgently agree a solution.”
But, in a House of Lords debate on Friday, the Cabinet Office minister Lord True said: “The UK proposed measures that would have allowed musicians to travel and perform in the UK and the EU more easily, without needing work permits.
“Specifically, we proposed including the work done by musicians, artists and entertainers, and their accompanying staff, in the list of permitted activities for short-term visitors.
“In practice, this would have delivered an outcome closer to the UK’s approach to incoming musicians, artists and entertainers, but these proposals were, sadly, rejected by the EU.”
It is now a matter for each EU member state to decide whether to demand work visas, in the absence of a bloc-wide agreement. More