UK Politics

A decade since a Scottish headteacher set up a scheme to encourage youngsters to run or walk for 15 minutes during their school days, researchers have found the children taking part are mentally and physically sharper than those who do not.Primary pupils who took part in a running programme, such as the Daily Mile, for longer than three months were fitter than those who did so for a shorter period.And, university researchers found, taking time out of lessons for a run or a walk did not have a negative effect on pupils’ thinking skills or wellbeing, while greater fitness was also found to be related with better memory.

It’s great to see the longer term benefits of the Daily Mile for kids health coming through in our workColin MoranDr Josie Booth, from the University of Edinburgh’s Moray House School of Education and Sport, said: “Taking part in the Daily Mile each day can improve pupil fitness and while we did not find longer term benefits for cognition and wellbeing, there was no substantial negative impact either.“The health benefits of physical activity coupled with the immediate benefit, which supports learning, makes such physical activity breaks worthwhile and should be considered by class teachers and school management, as well as education policy makers.”The study was the first to look at the long-term effects on psychological health of school-based running programmes such as the Daily Mile, which involves children taking a 15-minute break from class to do physical activity.Thursday marks 10 years since Stirling headteacher Elaine Wyllie set up the Daily Mile Foundation, which now sees more than three million pupils across the world participate in its programme.In the latest study, researchers at the Universities of Edinburgh, Stirling, and Highlands and Islands observed 6,000 pupils aged nine to 11 who undertook a series of cognitive function tests.Teachers guided pupils through a bleep test to measure fitness and then pupils completed bespoke computer-based tasks to measure attention and memory and reported their own wellbeing.The team used statistical models to analyse the impact of a long-term running programme on a pupil’s cognition, wellbeing and fitness.They also considered other factors, such as age, sex and socio-economic status.Findings showed fitness had a small but detectable association with better memory and thinking skills in pupils who had taken part for less than two months.While participating for longer three months had a significant association with higher fitness levels, no benefits for cognition and wellbeing were found.Dr Colin Moran, from the University of Stirling, said: “It’s great to see the longer term benefits of the Daily Mile for kids health coming through in our work.” More

Nadine Dorries has vowed to press ahead with contentious plans to privatise Channel 4 while hitting out at the “completely outdated” BBC licence fee model.Despite senior Tories voicing “profound scepticism”, the culture secretary is today publishing a broadcasting white paper confirming the government’s intentions to sell-off C4.The cabinet minister claimed the overall reforms – forming part of next month’s Queens speech – will revamp decades-old law and “usher in a new golden age” for British television and radio.Confirming the widely criticised move to privatise Channel 4, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) said it would allow for “greater investment to grow and create more programming”.Under private ownership, the department added it will “remove a restriction on C4 which effectively prohibits it from producing its own content”, but will still be required to commission programming from independent producers.Some of the money from the proceeds from the sale will also “deliver a new creative dividend for the sector”, it was claimed.But speaking during an urgent question on Wednesday, Sir Peter Bottomley insisted the Channel 4 was in “the best state its been creatively and financially for decades” and suggested ministers could “do best by leaving it alone”“We were told earlier it was supposed to be able to compete with Netflix,” he said. “Netflix’s share price is now 198 dollars, it was 700 dollars — that’s an enormous drop and it’s a loss-making, debt-ridden business”.The former Conservative cabinet minister Damian Green added that he had “profound scepticism about the wisdom of the course of action that the government is taking on this”.Labour’s shadow culture secretary, Lucy Powell, said: “Selling of Channel 4 in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis will leave voters scratching their heads about how this will help pay their bills. Their arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny, that’s why Tory MP after Tory MP stood up to pan the central proposal in this white paper”.The confirmation to press ahead with plans to sell-off C4 also comes as Ms Dorries used an interview with The Spectator magazine to criticise the “completely outdated” BBC licence fee.“We are going to very soon announce that we are going to be looking very seriously at how we fund the BBC,” she said, adding: “We are ready to implement a new way of funding the BBC. More

The G7 group of leading global powers should act as “an economic Nato”, with all members ready to come to one another’s defence if their economies are targeted by an aggressive regime like Russia or China, foreign secretary Liz Truss has said.In a highly confrontational message to Beijing, the foreign secretary warned that China’s could face Russia-style sanctions form an “assertive” G7 if it threatens others’ security, adding: “They will not continue to rise if they do not play by the rules.”And she raised the prospect of a “global Nato” able and willing to project influence deep into China’s Indo-Pacific backyard, and ensuring that “the Pacific is protected (and) democracies like Taiwan are able to defend themselves”.Her comments came in a high-profile speech to the Lord Mayor of London’s Easter Banquet, at which she called for a reshaping of the global security order in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.Declaring that “geopolitics is back”, Ms Truss called for a hike in military spending by Western powers.And she said the G7 – the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan and the EU – should take a stronger role, rather than the UN Security Council, where Moscow holds a veto.Just a year after her government completed the process of withdrawing the UK from its partnership with close allies in the EU, Ms Truss said she wanted to build stronger alliances with like-minded states in what she called a “network of liberty”.“My vision is a world where free nations are assertive and in the ascendant,” said Ms Truss.“Where freedom and democracy are strengthened through a network of economic and security partnerships.“Where aggressors are contained and forced to take a better path.”Economic and security structures established after the Second World War have been so “bent out of shape” as to offer no block to Russian aggression in Ukraine, with Vladimir Putin regarding his Security Council veto as “a green light to barbarism”, she said.Hopes that opening up trade with autocracies like Russia and China would usher in democratic change had also proved unfounded.As well as strengthening the collective defence of Nato members and extending the trans-Atlantic alliance into a “global” body able to intervene in the Indo-Pacific, the “new approach” must involve using economic levers in “a much more assertive way”, she said.“For too long many have been naive about the geopolitical power of economics,” said Ms Truss. “Aggressors treat it as a tool of foreign policy – using patronage, investment and debt as a means to exert control and coerce.“They are ruthless in their approach. Our response won’t mirror their malign tactics, but it must more than match them in its resolve.”Access to the global economy must depend on “playing by the rules”, with the sanctions on Russia showing how world powers can cut a rule-breaking regime out of the system, she said.And she issued a stark warning that China could face similar treatment if it used its economic muscle to bully smaller states.She cited Beijing’s failure to condemn Russian war crimes and its increased imports of Russian goods since the start of the conflict, its rapid military build-up, its trade embargo on Lithuania and its efforts to exert influence on applications for Nato membership.But she declared: “Their rise is not inevitable. They will not continue to rise if they do not play by the rules.“China needs trade with the G7. We represent around half of the global economy. And we have choices. We have shown with Russia the kind of choices that we’re prepared to make when international rules are violated.“We’ve shown that we’re prepared to prioritise security and respect for sovereignty over short-term economic gain, not least because we know that the cost of not acting is higher.”The G7 “should act as an economic Nato, collectively defending our prosperity”, she said.“If the economy of a partner is being targeted by an aggressive regime we should act to support them. All for one and one for all.” More

The United Nations high commissioner for refugees has warned that Priti Patel’s controversial Immigration and Nationalities Bill, which completed its passage through parliament today, could “dramatically weaken” international systems for protecting those fleeing war and persecution.The legislation was completed with just a day to spare after the House of Lords gave up a rearguard action to try to soften its most punitive measures.Aid charity Oxfam described the bill as a “devastating blow for families fleeing conflict and persecution”, while Medecins Sans Frontieres branded it “despicable”.The bill will allow indefinite detention, pushbacks at sea and offshore processing, with the government already having struck a deal to deport migrants to Rwanda to make their claims.It will make it a criminal offence to knowingly arrive in the UK illegally and allow for asylum seekers to be treated differently based on how they entered the country.In a process known as “parliamentary ping-pong” successive efforts by the unelected chamber to amend the legislation were overturned by the Commons.And there were cries of “shame” in the Upper House as peers rejected by 212 to 157 a last-ditch bid to ensure provisions in the legislation complied with the UK’s international obligations towards refugees. Shortly afterwards, a sparsely-attended House of Commons was told that it could now go forward for Royal Assent.Ms Patel has cast the bill as a means of stemming the flow of migrants making the perilous crossing of the English Channel by small boat.But UN high commissioner Filippo Grandi said it was “disappointing” that the new law would seek to “deter the seeking of asylum by relegating most refugees to a new, lesser status with few rights and a constant threat of removal”.Mr Grandi said the UK was a country which “rightly prides itself on its long history of welcoming and protecting refugees”.But he contrasted the current administration’s stance with the willingness of some of the world’s poorest nations to take in millions of refugees from neighbouring states, as well as the “extraordinary solidarity” shown elsewhere in Europe towards those fleeing war in Ukraine.“This latest UK government decision risks dramatically weakening a system that has for decades provided protection and the chance of a new life to so many desperate people,” said Mr Grandi.The chief executive of the British Red Cross, Mike Adamson, said the “deeply disappointing” legislation would have a “detrimental” impact on people seeking asylum in the UK.“We believe a person’s need for protection and therefore their ability to claim asylum should be judged on the dangers they have faced, and not on how they enter this country,” said Mr Adamson.“Alongside the recent announcement to remove people to Rwanda on a one-way ticket, there are ever increasing barriers to refugees receiving protection in the UK.”MSF UK spokesperson Sophie McCann said: “We are utterly appalled that this despicable bill has passed. It will create a two-tier system that penalises men, women, and children for arriving to the UK via irregular means, regardless of the fact that safe and official routes are virtually non-existent.”And Sam Nadel of Oxfam said: “The passing of this heinous bill is a devastating blow for families fleeing conflict and persecution.“The government should be protecting, not punishing, refugees. Alongside the immoral plans to offshore our asylum responsibilities to Rwanda, it is yet another example of the UK reneging on its promises to refugees.”- Legislation to introduce voter ID and give ministers powers to direct the independent Electoral Commission watchdog also passed after peers voted down last-ditch bids to amend it, as ministers battled to force the last remnants of the government’s agenda into law before the parliamentary year finishes on Thursday.The House of Lords voted by 202 to 181 against a move to ensure the Commission is “not bound by” strategic priorities set by the government, despite Conservative former minister Baroness Altman warning of “a significant risk of gerrymandering elections”. For the Liberal Democrats, Lord Wallace warned that provisions of Elections Bill, which require voters to show official ID before casting their ballots in Britain but make it easier for expats to vote from abroad, were “very odd, and not entirely democratic”. An eleventh-hour bid to allow voters to use their polling cards as ID was defeated by 208 to 150.Labour frontbencher Baroness Hayman said: “The government has simply got it wrong on requiring voter ID to be presented at polling stations. We are disappointed and unhappy that there has been absolutely no movement whatsoever from the government on this.”She added: “There is clear concern right across this House about the undermining of the independence of the Electoral Commission.”Tom Brake, the director of the Unlock Democracy thinktank, said it was “a dire day for democracy when the government takes powers for itself to control the elections watchdog.”He said: “This is a slippery slope that could lead to the end of free and fair elections in the UK.” Naomi Smith of democracy campaign group Best for Britain said: “Tonight was the last chance to protect the independence of the elections watchdog and with it free and fair elections in the UK.“There is now an urgent need to remove this government and undo the damage they have wrought on our institutions and public trust in politics. Opposition parties must work together to make this a reality.” More

Chancellor Rishi Sunak has said it would be “silly” for the government to provide more help to families struggling with energy bills despite the mounting cost of living crisis.Desperate Britons are facing an average £700 increase in their gas and electricity bills after April’s energy price cap rise – with another 50 per cent spike expected in October.In an interview with Mumsnet, Mr Sunak rejected the idea of further help in the immediate months ahead – insisting that he was willing to make himself unpopular by sticking by his spending plans.Asked by one disabled user whether he could do more on energy bills, the chancellor said he had already provided support through his £200 “energy rebate” loan and £150 council tax rebate.Mr Sunak said: “We’ve said we’ll see what happens with the price cap in the Autumn. I know people are anxious about this and wondering if they are going to go up even more.”Hinting at possible action closer to October, he said: “Depending on what happens to bills then, of course, if we need to act and provide support for people, we will.”He added: “But it would be silly to do that now or last month or the month before when we don’t know exactly what the situation in the autumn will be … We’ll see where we are with that if we need to do more.”Mr Sunak said he had rejected the opposition call for a windfall tax on fossil fuel giants because the government did not want to put off investment in new oil and gas extraction in the North Sea.But he hinted that he could change his mind if they did not invest in greater supply. “If we don’t see that type of investment coming forward and companies are not going to make those investments in our country and energy security, then of course that’s something I would look at, and nothing is ever off the table in these things.”The chancellor was cleared on Wednesday of breaching the ministerial code by Boris Johnson’s standards adviser Lord Geidt after considering the tax affairs of the chancellor and his family.Quizzed about how someone in his financial position can empathise with people struggling, Mr Sunak, whose wife is the daughter of a billionaire, harked back to his grandparents who emigrated to the UK “with very little”.The senior Tory added: “Of course now I’m in a fortunate position – but I didn’t start like that, that’s not how my family started.”Mr Sunak also told Mumsnet he is ready to make himself unpopular by focusing on keeping of borrowing down over fears for homeowners rates and for “our kids’ future”.The chancellor explained he was not “being mean”, adding: “The other thing is I care about the future – my kids, everyone else’s kids.”Roughly half of the public have a lower opinion of Mr Sunak than they did a year ago, a poll published by Ipsos MORI on Wednesday has found.Not only did 51 per cent of people say they felt less positively towards him now than a year ago, more than two in five Conservative voters said the same thing, while only 10 per cent felt more positive about him.Boris Johnson was branded an “ostrich” with his head in the sand as Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer raised cost-of-living concerns at PMQs.Tax rises in people’s latest payslips have the PM’s “fingerprints all over it”, Sir Keir said before he labelled the Conservatives the “party of excess oil and gas profits” due to their rejection of a windfall tax to cut energy bills.But Mr Johnson repeatedly claimed Labour has “no plan” and defended his government’s economic record, saying of Sir Keir: “This guy is doomed to be a permanent spectator.”It comes as the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) president dismissed the idea of cutting food tariffs – discussed at a cabinet ideas meeting this week – saying it will not fix UK’s cost of living crisis.Minette Batters said it would “not even begin to deal with the problem” and it would be “misleading” for ministers to suggest it could help consumers by cutting supermarket prices.Brexit opportunities minister Jacob Rees-Mogg is reportedly keen to cut tariffs on food that cannot be produced in the UK, such as rice.But international trade secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan dismissed the idea on Wednesday, telling MPs: “In terms of tariffs, it’s a tiny, tiny proportion, 0.4 per cent, on the cost of living. That isn’t really where the key areas are.”Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesperson Christine Jardine described Mr Sunak’s comments as “totally tone deaf”. in the middle of a cost-of-living emergency“Families being hit by soaring energy bills need support right now, instead Rishi Sunak is clobbering them with unfair taxes,” said Ms Jardine. “The chancellor should offer an emergency tax cut to help families now, not make more vague promises about the future.” More

Chancellor Rishi Sunak has been cleared by Boris Johnson’s ethics adviser of breaching ministerial rules over his wife’s non-dom status and the green card granting him residency in the US.The prime minister’s independent adviser Christopher Geidt said Mr Sunak had declared his interests correctly and had been “assiduous in meeting his obligations and in engaging with this investigation”.But Labour denounced the findings as a “whitewash”, with deputy leader Angela Rayner saying: “Downing Street has lost all ethical credibility.”Mr Johnson asked Lord Geidt to conduct an inquiry following revelations in The Independent about the arrangements which meant his billionaire wife Akshata Murty paid no UK tax on her earnings abroad.The arrangement, which is likely to have saved Ms Murty many millions of pounds, sparked outrage, coming at a time when her husband was raising the tax burden to its highest point since the 1940s as a share of national income. Ms Murty later announced she was giving up her non-dom status and Labour has since announced plans to abolish it altogether.In a report published today, Lord Geidt ruled that the non-dom status did not breach the ministerial code of conduct. He revealed that Mr Sunak disclosed his wife’s tax arrangements and her holding in her father’s Infosys company – as well as the green card and the blind trust which oversees the chancellor’s private financial affairs – when he first became a minister.But he said that not all of them were necessarily published in the register of ministerial interests, such as items which were “not directly relevant or … do not give rise to a conflict”.Lord Geidt’s ruling comes as a significant boost for the chancellor, as breaches of the code are normally treated as a resigning matter.The exposure of his wife’s tax arrangement sparked a collapse in Mr Sunak’s popularity, with the chancellor going from hot favourite to rank outsider in the race to succeed Boris Johnson as prime minister.The peer stressed that his inquiry related only to compliance with the ministerial code and did not pass judgement on “any wider question of the merits of such interests or arrangements”.The ethics adviser said that holding a green card – which requires an individual to pay tax in America and commit to eventually settling in the US – was not “an inherent conflict of interest” and “could not reasonably be said to be in tension with the faithful discharge of his duties” as chancellor.There were no policy changes since his arrival at the Treasury which were relevant to Mr Sunak’s green card status, he found.And while there were two measures, relating to inward investment and non-dom status, which would impact on his wife’s position, Lord Geidt found that Mr Sunak took steps on each ocassion to avoid conflicts of interest by ensuring another Treasury minister took the lead on decisions of substance.Meanwhile, it was not deemed necessary to publish details of Ms Murty’s Infosys holding in the register as the company had no contracts with the Treasury during her husband’s time at the department.Lord Geidt concluded: “I advise that the requirements of the ministerial code have been adhered to by the chancellor, and that he has been assiduous in meeting his obligations and in engaging with this investigation.“In reaching these judgements, I am confined to the question of conflicts of interest and the requirements of the ministerial code. My role does not touch on any wider question of the merits of such interests or arrangements.”Ms Rayner said: “It was clear from the start that this report would be an utter whitewash – the government announced the result of this inquiry before it had even started. This report fails to answer the most basic questions and makes a mockery of our democracy.“Now we know that the government was fully aware of the chancellor’s tax-dodging tactics but failed to inform the public or take any action.“Given Rishi Sunak’s tax affairs appear to be an open secret in Whitehall, the crucial question is whether the prime minister was aware of these and allowed him to continue running the UK economy, hiking up taxes for working people while potentially benefitting from loopholes.“The prime minister and chancellor have spent the last few weeks entirely preoccupied with saving their own skins, failing to do anything to address the spiralling cost of living.” More

Sajid Javid used an offshore trust while working as an MP in the heart of the Treasury – but did not declare it in the register of members’ interests, The Independent can reveal.As the then chancellor George Osborne’s parliamentary private secretary (PPS) in 2011, Mr Javid – now health secretary – played a key role in selling the Coalition government’s austerity policies to MPs.But at the same time, Mr Javid was using a trust, understood to have been located in a tax haven, to cut his personal tax burden. He also served in the Treasury while the government launched a consultation on policies covering non-doms and overseas trusts in December 2011.Earlier this month, Mr Javid admitted he had used non-dom status before entering politics and to having had an offshore trust, but it is only now that it has been revealed that he did not declare the trust as an MP and PPS.The ministerial code states that while PPSs, who act as ministerial aides, are not technically members of the government “they must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their role as a parliamentary private secretary, and their private interests”.It was only on becoming a government minister in 2012 that former banker Mr Javid revealed more details on the extent of his overseas assets and how they were managed.”If Sajid Javid held money in an offshore trust while he was part of the Treasury, it would raise further questions about decision making in this government,” said James Murray, shadow financial secretary to the Treasury.“It is rank hypocrisy for senior ministers to defend the tax hike hitting working people this year, when they have spent so many years avoiding their fair share of tax themselves.”Earlier this month Mr Javid admitted he had used non-dom status to cut his tax bill after The Independent revealed that Akshata Murty, the chancellor’s wife, exploited the same route to cut her tax bill in the UK. Ms Murty subsequently decided to pay tax on her worldwide income in the UK, but has retained non-dom status.Offshore trusts and use of non-dom status are entirely legal methods of limiting taxes.Mr Javid’s trust was not listed in his entry in the register of members’ interests in 2011, but he did declare a shareholding in Deutsche Bank, his former employer.A spokesman for Mr Javid declined to say if the assets in the trust – which Mr Javid said in a statement he dissolved in 2012 – included these Deutsche Bank shares as well as other assets, including shares in different companies. They also declined to say whether this trust was operated as a blind trust or under a blind management arrangement, or say where it was located.The health secretary did not collapse the offshore trust until the year after he entered the Treasury. He stopped making use of the controversial non-dom tax status in 2009, before entering politics.“Sajid has been very open and transparent about his previous tax status in the UK and when he lived abroad. He has nothing further to add,” a spokesman for the health and social care secretary said.When he dissolved his trust, Mr Javid, incurred a rate of 50 per cent tax, which he claimed offset any “accrued benefit” from the financial arrangement. He also said that he had always declared the information required by tax, governmental, and parliamentary authorities.“The public has a right to know which ministers have benefited from tax avoidance arrangements and how much money they have saved as a result,” Mr Murray said.“While the Tories are raising taxes on working people as inflation and energy bills soar, Labour would make the tax system fairer. We would abolish the outdated ‘non-dom’ system, so that everyone who makes their home in Britain pays tax here on all their income,” he added.The fresh examination of the timeline laid out by Mr Javid reveals he was at the government’s political front line, selling tough austerity policies to Tory backbenchers in the aftermath of the financial crisis, while exploiting mechanisms to protect his wealth.During his time as a banker, Mr Javid – himself a former chancellor – was linked to Dark Blue Investments, an employee benefit trust in which staff were paid share bonuses via trusts to avoid tax. The supreme court ruled that tax ought to be paid on these bonuses.Experts have queried Mr Javid’s use of non-dom status, given that he was born in the UK and therefore would have had to declare that he did not intend to live in the country in the long term. More

Tory councillors have been reprimanded over a “negative and vindictive” election campaign thought to have triggered online antisemitic abuse against a rival candidate, following an independent QC-led inquiry ordered by Conservative head office.In the run-up to a 2020 by-election in Hertfordshire’s Hertsmere Council, a fake newspaper front page alleging Labour candidate Dan Ozarow supported Hezbollah appeared on an electronic billboard outside the railway station in commuter town Borehamwood.The allegation was also included in official Conservative leaflets distributed in the ward – which has a large Jewish population and is in MP Oliver Dowden’s constituency – in the days before the ballot.Dr Ozarow, who is Jewish, said he felt “terrorised” by a stream of antisemitic abuse and death threats directed at him and his family on social media as the campaign reached its climax.A 104-page submission to the investigation included posts in which he was told to “go to the gas chambers” and told that he “lacked a Jewish soul”. Several posts were reported to Hertfordshire Police as hate crimes.Conservative co-chair Ben Elliot has now accepted the recommendations of a panel of party members, led by independent QC Richard Price OBE, which found that Councillors Brett Rosehill – who won the by-election – Glenn Briski and Paul Morris were “party to a personal campaign against the claimant in relation to the 2020 by-election, and which continued for many months”.It also concluded that “this negative campaigning may well have encouraged others to send antisemitic posts or messages to the complainant”.The panel also condemned the billboard posting as “unnecessary and vindictive” and a “clear example of negative campaigning in support of Conservative candidate Brett Rosehill”.And it found that council Conservative group leader Morris Bright, who should have “taken steps to rein in the activities of these councillors at an early stage” and made similar criticisms of election agent Jane West. All five have received formal reprimands from Mr Elliot and ordered to attend training seminars.Dr Ozarow, who lost the by-election but was later elected a Labour councillor, said he was “delighted” by the findings. He said: “No-one should have to suffer like my family and I did and it really saddened me to hear Jewish people from other parties telling me that they were too frightened to stand for election because of what happened.”Hertsmere Labour group leader, Cllr Jeremy Newmark said: “I commend the Conservative Party for this full and robust investigatory process. What matters now is what will actually be done about the findings?“Will there be sanctions, training and disciplinary measures? Or will this now be left to gather dust?”A spokesperson for Hertsmere Conservative Association said: “We are deeply concerned to note that Hertsmere Labour Party have decided to publish the findings of an investigation while the process of appeal by those named is still continuing. “The named individuals – four out of five of whom are proud members of the Jewish community – are hurt and dismayed over what are clearly politically motivated claims of antisemitism from Labour. “Further comment will be made after the appeal process has reached its conclusion.”There was no immediate response to a request for comment from the Conservative Party nationally. More