UK Politics

Boris Johnson has been urged to resign over an illegal Christmas Party that took place in No10 during lockdown restrictions last year.SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford said the prime minister was facing “a moment of moral reckoning” and should either quit or be removed by his party.“Downing Street wilfully broke the rules and mocked the sacrifices we have all made, shattering the public’s trust,” the Scottish nationalist chief said.“The prime minister is responsible for losing the trust of the people. He can no longer lead on the most pressing issue facing these islands. “The prime minister has a duty. The only right and moral choice left to him: it is for his resignation. When can we expect it?”Mr Johnson rejected the call – telling MPs at a heated PMQs session: “I am going to get on with the job and I believe that is what is the right thing to do.”The prime minister accused the opposition of trying to “muddy the waters of events that took place a year ago”.Mr Blackford replied that he had seen “no dignity from a prime minister that quite simply just doesn’t get it”.“It is clear that this prime minister desparately is clinging, onto power and I have nothing left to say to a man whose replies we simply cannot trust … If he doesn’t resign then he simply must be removed.”Labour leader Keir Starmer also criticised Mr Johnson, though he stopped short of calling for the prime minister to resign.The allegations exploded on Tuesday night after ITV News revealed a video showing top No.10 officials laughing about the party.Mr Johnson says all rules were following during the bash, while Downing Street denies that what occurred was a party, but has offered nothing concrete to substantiate its claim.The prime minister issued a half-apology on Wednesday at PMQs, saying sorry for the video of his staff causing offence. But he did not apology for the party, still refusing to acknowledge that it occurred. The Tory leader, whose ministers refused to go on television and radio to defend him this morning, said he would launch an investigation into the get-together led by cabinet secretary Simon Case. More

Priti Patel’s claims that there is a “legal basis” for forcing migrant boats back to France have been called into question by peers.The House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee said it was “not convinced” the plans were safe or lawful, as a law that would grant Border Force staff legal immunity over refugee deaths passes through parliament.In a letter sent to the home secretary on Wednesday, committee chair Baroness Hamwee said the recent deaths of at least 27 asylum seekers in the Channel “starkly demonstrate” the risks at stake.“We are not convinced, as yet, that having a policy where boats can be ‘turned around’ is safe and/or lawful,” she added.“We are not aware that the government have published any arguments to substantiate the claim that a legal basis currently exists.”During an evidence session held by the committee, the home secretary said the pushback policy was “based on saving lives and preventing people drowning”.Baroness Hamwee questioned the assertion and wrote: “It is difficult to see how the practical ramifications of the tactics tally with the duty to render assistance.”The committee asked Ms Patel to respond to a series of questions on the legal basis for pushbacks and how it complies with international law by 5 January.Several legal challenges, including one by a union representing Border Force staff, are being launched over the policy and France has said it will not accept pushbacks.The Independent understands that complex rules imposed by the Home Office to prevent the operations violating international law mean that pushbacks can only happen in a certain area of the Channel if numerous conditions are met.In a statement, Baroness Hamwee said:“The so-called ‘turn around’ policy would force fragile small boats crossing the Channel to turn back. It is hard to imagine a situation in which those in them would not be in increased danger or where captains would not be obliged to render assistance.“Instead, the home secretary has set a policy of forcing them to turn around. Even if there is a domestic legal basis, if it were actually implemented, it would almost certainly contravene the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.”Channel deaths fuel UK-France tensions over migrant crisisIt comes after MPs voted against an amendment to the Nationality and Borders Bill that would have prevented the powers from being “used in a manner or in circumstances that could endanger life at sea”.The proposal, brought by Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) chair Harriet Harman, was defeated by 313 votes to 235 on Tuesday night, while a series of other amendments to strengthen protections around pushbacks did not go to a vote.Ms Harman questioned “what reason the government could possibly have to oppose the amendments”, saying they “represent what they say is their intention”.In a report published last week, the JCHR found that planning to push migrant boats back to France was unlawful and will put lives at risk.It said the Nationality and Borders Bill, which would grant Border Force staff partial immunity from prosecution if migrants drown during pushbacks, contained several unlawful clauses and questioned their effectiveness.The committee warned the bill “would effectively criminalise the act of seeking asylum in the UK” by making it a criminal offence to cross the Channel via small boat, or arrive by any other means without entry clearance.“No visa for the purposes of claiming asylum exists and it is not possible to claim asylum without coming to the UK,” the JCHR said.“Setting up a system whereby refugees are unable to travel to the UK to claim asylum without committing a criminal offence is inconsistent with the overall purpose of the UN Refugee Convention.”The law would leave “extremely limited” resettlement schemes as the main legal route to claiming asylum in the UK.The committee, which contains MPs and peers from all main political parties, said the proposals must be scrapped or changed to comply with the law.But the Nationality and Borders Bill is set to clear the House of Commons on Wednesday without any of the changes recommended by the JCHR. It will face further challenge in the House of Lords.A Home Office spokesperson said: “As part of our ongoing operational response and to prevent further loss of life at sea, we continue to evaluate and test a range of safe and legal options to find ways of stopping small boats making this dangerous and unnecessary journey. These all comply and are delivered in accordance with both domestic and international law.“These protections are nothing new. Border Force have existing powers to intercept vessels in UK territorial seas and an officer is not liable in any criminal or civil proceedings, if the court is satisfied that the act was done in good faith, and there were reasonable grounds for doing it.” More

Watch live as Boris Johnson faces Keir Starmer at PMQs as Covid restriction rumours swirlBoris Johnson has ordered an investigation into claims Downing Street staff broke lockdown rules by holding a Christmas party last year – but doubled down on his claim that no such gathering took place. The prime minister apologised “unreservedly” for the offence caused by leaked footage showing senior Downing Street staff joking about holding a Christmas party.But Mr Johnson insisted that he had been repeatedly assured that “there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken”.He said he had asked Cabinet Secretary Simon Case “to establish all the facts and to report back as soon as possible – and it goes without saying that if those rules were broken then there will be disciplinary action for all those involved”.In the video obtained by ITV News, Boris Johnson’s then spokesperson Allegra Stratton joked that the party was “was not socially distanced” and suggested passing it off as “a business meeting”.Show latest update

1638974908Boris Johnson should quit if he misled parliament about party, Scots Tory leader saysBoris Johnson should resign if he misled parliament about an illegal Christmas party at Downing Street, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives has said.Speaking on Wednesday Douglas Ross said that there was “clearly” a party “of some kind”.He told reporters: “If he knew about the party this time last year or at any point up until he was asked about it in the House of Commons and still said he knew nothing about it and I wasn’t a party, that’s a serious allegations – and I don’t support anyone deliberately misleading parliament, so I’m not going to protect anyone for that.”Here is the full story:Tom Batchelor8 December 2021 14:481638973835Peers question legality of migrant boat ‘pushback’ tacticsThe legality of Priti Patel’s plans to turn back migrant boats at sea has been called into question by peers, including senior lawyers and a former judge.The Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee has written to the home secretary, expressing “concerns” over the legal basis for the so-called pushbacks.The letter adds to “growing concern both in and outside parliament” over the policy proposed in a bid to curb Channel crossings, peers said.The committee’s Liberal Democrat chairwoman, Baroness Hamwee, a former solicitor, said: “Statements, including from the Home Secretary, are that there is a legal basis for the policy of so-called ‘turnarounds’. We question that.“The so-called ‘turnaround’ policy would force fragile small boats crossing the Channel to turn back. It is hard to imagine a situation in which those in them would not be in increased danger or where captains would not be obliged to render assistance.“Instead, the Home Secretary has set a policy of forcing them to turn around. Even if there is a domestic legal basis, if it were actually implemented, it would almost certainly contravene the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.“Policing borders should be done in full accordance with the principles of national and international law, and we look forward to full engagement with our questions.”Matt Mathers8 December 2021 14:301638972500Ruth Davidson: PM’s response to ‘indefensible’ No 10 party ‘was pathetic’Ruth Davidson has described Boris Johnson’s defence of a Covid lockdown party in No 10 last year as “pathetic”.Speaking after Prime Minister’s Questions, the former Tory leader in Scotland “none of this is remotely defensible”.She added: “Not having busy, boozy not-parties while others were sticking to the rules, unable to visit ill or dying loved ones.“Nor flat-out denying things that are easily provable. Not taking the public for fools.“And today’s “we’ll investigate what we’ve spent a week saying didn’t happen and discipline staff for rules we continue to say weren’t broken’ was pathetic. As a Tory, I was brought up to believe in playing with a straight bat. Believe me, colleagues are furious at this, too.”Matt Mathers8 December 2021 14:081638971761Tory MP accuses PM of ‘diversionary tactic’ over Covid Plan B measuresConservative MP William Wragg accused Boris Johnson of “diversionary tactics” by using Covid rules to deflect attention away from the Christmas party controversy.The PM and senior ministers today expected to agree on the introduction of tighter ‘plan B’ Covid restrictions at an emergency meeting.The backbencher, a leading lockdown sceptic, asked Mr Johnson about the possibility of Covid passports with plan B – and said “very few will be convinced by this diversionary tactic”.Mr Johnson responded: “No decisions will be taken without consulting the cabinet.”Matt Mathers8 December 2021 13:561638971148Boris Johnson reveals UK diplomatic boycott of Winter Olympics in BeijingBoris Johnson has said there will “effectively be a diplomatic boycott” of the Winter Olympics in Beijing – revealing no UK ministers or officials will be attending the games.My colleague Adam Forrest has more details below: Matt Mathers8 December 2021 13:451638970550Watch: Ian Blackford calls for Boris Johnson’s resignation calling it ‘a moment of moral reckoning’Ian Blackford calls for Boris Johnson’s resignation calling it ‘a moment of moral reckoning’Matt Mathers8 December 2021 13:351638969769Sturgeon urges PM to ‘come clean’ over Christmas partyScotland’s first minister has urged the prime minister to “come clean” over the reported party held at Downing Street last year. “The prime minister appears to be not being straight and truthful about it,” Nicola Sturgeon told the BBC.“That really matters because he is likely to be asking people to do difficult things again over this Christmas and it’s really important that he’s straight and honest with people – if mistakes were made, to own them, to apologise for them.”She added: “I think this is a really serious issue for the prime minister and I think he has to come clean.”Tom Batchelor8 December 2021 13:221638969430Watch: ‘They’re laughing at us’: Tom Bradby slams No 10 staff joking about Christmas party‘They’re laughing at us’: Tom Bradby slams No 10 staff joking about Christmas partyTom Batchelor8 December 2021 13:171638967979PM facing questions over further parties at No 10Dominic Cummings has alleged there were further parties being held at No 10 over the period in question last winter. Labour MP Catherine West used PMQs to ask whether there was a Downing Street party on 13 November.Mr Johnson replied: “Mr Speaker, no, but I’m sure that whatever happened the guidance was followed at all times”.Labour MP asks Johnson if Downing St held another Christmas party in NovemberTom Batchelor8 December 2021 12:521638967806Rumours of plan B a ‘diversionary tactic’, says Tory MPTory MP William Wragg has suggested rumours of a move towards Plan B, meaning stricter Covid rules, may be a “diversionary tactic”.Ministers are said to be considering calling for people to work from home and implementing vaccine passports.Speaking against the a tightening of the rules on showing proof of vaccination, the Conservative backbencher suggested Boris Johnson may be attempting to distract from the furore by announcing new measures. Tom Batchelor8 December 2021 12:50 More

Dominic Cummings has alleged a Downing Street flat party took place on 13 November when England was in the midst of a second Covid lockdown.It comes after the prime minister ordered an investigation by the cabinet secretary — the most senior servant — into a separate party held before Christmas after footage emerged of No 10 staff joking about the event.Posting on social media, the former senior No 10 adviser Mr Cummings said: “Will the CABSEC [cabinet secretary] also be asked to investigate the *flat* party on Fri 13 Nov, the other flat parties, & the flat’s ‘bubble’ policy…”.The date identified by Mr Cummings was also the same day he left Downing Street with immediate effect after losing a power struggle and just eight days after the prime minister imposed England’s second national lockdown in response to surging Covid rates.Asked by the Labour MP Catherine West whether there was a Downing Street party on 13 November during prime minister’s questions, Mr Johnson replied on Wednesday: “Mr Speaker, no, but I’m sure that whatever happened the guidance was followed at all times”.Earlier, Mr Cummings also suggested the possible introduction of “plan B” Covid measures at a press conference later on Wednesday was to distract from the leaked video showing No 10 officials laughing about a banned Christmas party last December.Addressing the incident in the Commons at prime minister’s questions, Mr Johnson apologised for the “offence” caused by the footage published by ITV News and claimed he shared the “anger of No 10 staff making light of lockdown measures”.“I was also furious to see that clip, I apologise unreservedly for the offence it has caused up and down the country and the impression it gives,” Mr Johnson said.But the prime minister still refused to admit a festive gathering had taken place at No 10. “I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken.”Mr Johnson added: “I’ve asked the cabinet secretary to establish all the facts and report back as soon as possible – if those rules were broken then there will be disciplinary rules.”Downing Street later said it hopes the cabinet secretary’s investigation into the events of December 18, following allegations of a No 10 staff Christmas party, would be finalised “as soon as possible”.“That will be an independent process carried out by Cabinet Office staff, under the leadership of the cabinet secretary,” the prime minister’s spokesperson told reporters.Asked about the remit of Simon Case’s review, the spokesman said: “He has been asked to establish the facts on any events on (December) 18, and that’s what he will start work on.”Pressed on how long the probe is likely to take, they added: “It is obviously rightly for them to dictate the timescale. I don’t have a set period but obviously we want it to be as soon as possible.” More

Boris Johnson has agreed to hand over information about potentially illegal Christmas parties in No 10 to the police, opening up a new front in the controversy.Under pressure from Keir Starmer to co-operate with any investigation by “handing over everything that government knows”, the prime minister replied: “Of course we will do that.”The move comes after the Metropolitan Police said it is examining the video of senior Downing Street staff joking about holding a lockdown-breaking party, as part of a review of alleged law breaches.In the Commons, Mr Johnson switched tack – after days of denying any party took place – by condemning the recording and announcing an investigation by the Cabinet Secretary.However, he still refused to admit that any party took place, prompting ridicule from the Labour leader for a week of Downing Street wriggling on the issue.“Last week the prime minister told us there was no party, now he thinks there’s something to investigate,” Sir Keir said.“The justice secretary thinks the police don’t investigate crimes from a year ago – well I rang the Crown Prosecution Service and I can tell him that’s total nonsense.”More than a dozen breaches of Covid restrictions last December were being prosecuted “right now” in Westminster Magistrates’ Court, including for those who hosted parties, the Labour leader said.“Will the prime minister support the police and support the CPS by handing over everything the government knows about parties in Downing Street to the Metropolitan Police?” he demanded.Mr Johnson replied: “Of course we will do that and we will get on with the investigation by the Cabinet Secretary.”The form of the prime minister’s apology was also attacked by the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice.“Not content with having caused untold amounts of pain and anguish for bereaved families, the prime minister is now trying to gaslight us, by pretending that it’s those who have spoken out who are responsible for ‘undermining public confidence’,” said Matt Fowler, the group’s co-founder.“How can he not see it is the actions of 10 Downing Street that are putting us all at risk?”The clashes came as Mr Johnson came close to confirming that his Covid ‘plan B’ will be triggered later today, after a meeting of cabinet ministers.One Conservative MP, William Wragg, took the extraordinary step of accusing his own party leader of a “diversionary tactic” from the row over the No 10 party which would convince “very few” people.In response, Mr Johnson told MPs: “No decisions will be taken without consulting the Cabinet.” More

MPs are currently debating the Nationality and Borders Bill – a series of proposals, spearheaded by home secretary Priti Patel, which the government says will “fix the UK’s broken asylum system”.The Home Office has said the tragedy in the Channel last month, in which 27 people drowned while trying to cross to the UK on a small boat, demonstrates why it is important that the new legislation is passed.However, the bill has faced fierce criticism and more than 80 pages of amendments have been tabled to it. Many of these amendments were put forward by MPs – including a number of Conservatives – who are concerned about the impact it will have in its current form.But these attempts to make changes to the bill failed on Tuesday evening, and the legislation is now set to complete its passage through the House of Commons on Wednesday.Here are some of the amendments that MPs proposed.Remove clause allowing asylum seekers to be processed offshoreAn amendment tabled by David Davis, and signed by 19 other MPs including prominent Conservatives Andrew Mitchell and Caroline Nokes, sought to scrap the plans in the bill to send people to another country while their asylum claims are processed.The Home Office has already floated proposals to place asylum seekers offshore in Gibraltar, the Scottish islands and Albania – but all of those governments have swiftly responded with anger and stated that they have no plans to agree to such an arrangement.Speaking to The Independent about the plan last month, Mr Davis described the offshoring plan as “unworkable” and accused the government of floating “macho-sounding” policies to appeal to voters, when in fact they are “expensive and ineffective”.New clause to prevent Home Office from charging child British citizenship fees which exceed cost of processing the applicationAn amendment that gained 85 signatories would have prevented the government from charging children the £1,012 fee which it currently costs to register for British citizenship, and abolished such fees altogether for looked-after children until they reach the age of 21.The proposed change, tabled by Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy, would have also required the government to produce a report setting out the effect of these fees on children’s human rights.The cost of processing a child citizenship application is £372 – less than half of the fee charged by the Home Office. A freedom of information request submitted by Citizens UK revealed this week that the department made £102.7m profit from these applications between 2017-2020.Ms Ribeiro-Addy MP said it was “shameful” that “government profiteering” was “blocking” children who have grown up British from enjoying their citizenship rights.New clause to allow young Hong Kongers with a British National Overseas (BNO) parent to apply for UK statusAn amendment tabled by Tory MP Damian Green, and signed by 42 other MPs – including 24 Conservatives – would have extended the UK’s settlement route for Hong Kong nationals to include swathes of young people who are currently excluded due to their age.The British National Overseas (BNO) scheme requires that applicants hold a BNO passport – documents that were issued to citizens following the handover of Hong Kong from the UK to China in 1997, meaning anyone born after that date does not hold one.The amendment sought to allow those born after 1997 to resettle in Britain on the basis of the BNO status of one or both of their parents, rather than having to travel with them.Speaking to The Independent last month, Mr Green said Britain had a “moral obligation” to the young Hong Kong citizens who are currently excluded from the programme and urged ministers to accept his amendment in order to rectify the “unfair” policy.New clause to grant a physical document for people granted EU settled statusThirty-six MPs, including a number of Tories, signed an amendment to require the government to issue a physical certificate when granting status under the EU settlement scheme, allowing all those with such status to provide documentary proof.The change, tabled by Labour’s Meg Hillier, sought to address concerns about difficulties EU nationals in the UK – who have had to apply for EU settlement in order to remain in the country following Brexit – have faced in proving their immigration status to employers, landlords and others.In September, the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish governments wrote a letter to the immigration minister raising alarm about the issue, warning that denying EU nationals a physical document would lead “at best to confusion and at worst to discrimination”.Amend clause so that use of ‘pushbacks’ in the Channel is bannedAn amendment tabled by chair of the human rights committee Harriet Harman sought to prevent the use of maritime enforcement powers ‘in a manner that would endanger lives at sea”.The government’s pushback proposal, which is set to see Border Force boats physically turning back dinghies heading from France to the UK, is one of a set of hardline measures in Priti Patel’s Nationality and Borders Bill designed to make it tougher for asylum seekers to make their claims in Britain.The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) said last week that pushbacks would “create a situation where state actors were actively placing individuals in situations that would increase the risk” of drowning.Remove clause that would enable the Home Office to deprive UK nationals of citizenship without noticeAn amendment tabled by David Davis and co-signed by nine other MPs sought to remove a clause in the bill that would allow the home secretary to strip people in the UK of their British citizenship without prior warning.The Home Office says it would be used if authorities do not have the subject’s contact details or if it is not “reasonably practical” to do so, or is it is “in the public interest” not to notify those deprived of their citizenship.But campaigners say these new powers would make it harder for those who are stripped of citizenship to appeal against the Home Office’s decision. The department insists that those deprived of their citizenship would still have the right to appeal.New clause to allow a person in France to claim asylum in the UK in certain circumstancesAn amendment tabled by Labour MP Neil Coyle would have allowed migrants to seek “humanitarian visas” in France, allowing them to be transported safely across the Channel to claim asylum.Currently, people fleeing violence and persecution in their home countries cannot claim asylum in the UK unless they take an unauthorised, and often highly dangerous, journey to British shores. there is currently nothingMr Coyle told The Independent last week the proposed change would “save lives, help us meet our international obligations and prevent money going to smugglers”, adding that the government’s plans as they stood would cause “more dangerous routes and more risk to people seeking to reach the UK”. More

Dominic Cummings has suggested that Boris Johnson has asked for so-called plan B restrictions to distract from the leaked video showing No 10 officials joking about a banned Christmas party.The prime minister and senior ministers are today expected to agree the introduction of tighter Covid restrictions at an emergency meeting called in response to the rise of the Omicron variant.Mr Johnson’s former top adviser claimed he would have asked for a “dead cat” to take attention away from footage showing No 10 staff joking about holding a festive party during lockdown last December.Mr Cummings tweeted: “Martin need a f***ing dead cat army matey, yeah yeah Plan B great…. [thumbs up run from room] CRASH. Noooooo that will make the party story worrrrrse Martin, need something else. SMASH.”The former adviser also declared that “regime change is coming” and “the fish rots from the head” following the growing row over denied claims of a festive shindig at Downing Street on 18 December.The video shared by ITV, recorded on 22 December 2020, shows then-press secretary Allegra Stratton appearing to joke about an illicit party at No 10 during a rehearsal for televised daily government media briefings. “Is cheese and wine all right? It was a business meeting,” Ms Stratton says, laughing.A backlash over the footage has seen Tory MPs warn the prime minister that he needs to seek and provide clear answers on the claims of a breach in Covid regulations.Conservative MP Sir Roger Gale has warned the “game’s up” for Boris Johnson if he deliberately misleads the Commons over any Christmas party held at Downing Street.“I think the chairman of the 1922 committee Sir Graham Brady would have to carry a very clear message to the prime minister under those circumstances … meaning, the game’s up,” Sir Roger told the BBC on Wednesday.Conservative peer Baroness Warsi also called for anyone found to have attended the festive event to resign, while fellow Tory Tobias Ellwood, chair of the Defence Select Committee, called for the cabinet secretary or another “senior figure” to investigate any events held at No 10 over the Christmas period.Conservative MP Peter Aldous said the leaked footage of senior No 10 aides laughing about an alleged Christmas party looks “very bad” and casts “the situation in a different light”.In a highly unusual turn of events no government minister was made available to broadcasters on Wednesday morning to defend Downing Street’s record, despite invitations.Foreign secretary Liz Truss was forced to answers on the Christmas party controversy after giving a major speech on Britain’s role in the world at Chatham House.Asked about claims of festive events held at Downing Street, Ms Truss said: “It’s in everybody’s interests that we follow the Covid rules. As to alleged events at No 10, I don’t know the details of what happened.”Pressed again on whether the public can trust the government if the government doesn’t follow rules, the senior minister said: “We do follow the rules on Covid. On that particular issue, I’m not aware of the precise circumstances.”Senior Whitehall sources said that a meeting of the government’s Covid-O committee has been called to discuss whether to step up restrictions, with a press conference expected later on Wednesday to announce changes.Plan B involves new guidance to work from home if possible, as well as the introduction of Covid passes for crowded venues such as nightclubs. More

Boris Johnson and senior ministers are today expected to agree the introduction of tighter “plan B” restrictions at a meeting called in response to the surge in infections with the omicron variant of Covid.The contingency plan — first outlined by ministers in the summer — includes new guidance to work from home if possible, as well as the introduction of Covid passes for crowded venues such as nightclubs, and is intended for introduction if the NHS is in danger of being overwhelmed.Senior Whitehall sources said that a meeting of the government’s Covid-O committee has been called to discuss whether to step up restrictions, with a press conference expected later in the day to announce changes.Downing Street sources said “no decisions have been made” on plan B ahead of the meeting, suggesting that the possibility remains that Mr Johnson will hold back from imposing new curbs.News of the meeting was greeted by scepticism by Westminster insiders who suspected that the timing may have been calculated to distract attention from damaging headlines over an alleged Christmas party at 10 Downing Street last year.Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s former chief adviser at No 10, described the move towards plan B as a “dead cat” strategy.According to the government’s Covid autumn and winter plan, published in September, the plan B strategy would “only be enacted if the data suggests further measures are necessary to protect the NHS”.It stated the measures include a mandatory vaccine-only Covid status certification in certain settings, such as nightclubs and indoor crowded venues with 500 or more attendees likely to be in close proximity with other households.It also proposed the return of work from home guidance, with the Sage committee stressing the measure had played an “important role in preventing sustained epidemic growth” in the months before Covid restrictions were released.Another key tenant of “plan B” is to legally mandate face coverings in certain settings — a measure that has already been adopted by the prime minister a fortnight ago for public transport and shops, but could be extended to further settings.It comes after a member of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) today said that a UK-wide lockdown to deal with the threat of omicron cannot be ruled out.Professor Neil Ferguson, from Imperial College London, whose data was instrumental to the UK going into lockdown in March 2020, said the variant is concerning but it is still unknown what its impact will be on severe disease.Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme professor Ferguson said cases of the omicron variant were doubling “at least every days, maybe even every two days at the moment”, adding: “It’s likely to overtake Delta before Christmas at this rate, precisely when is hard to say.Asked whether people should be told to work from home, he said: “It will be up to the Government to decide what to announce in the coming days and weeks.“There is a rationale, just epidemiologically, to try and slow this down, to buy us more time principally to get boosters into people’s arms, because we do think people who are boosted will have the best level of protection possible, but also to buy us more time to really better characterise the threat.“So, if you imagine a kind of Plan B Plus with working from home might slow it down – it wouldn’t stop it but it could slow it down, so it’s doubling rather than every two or three days, every five or six days.“That doesn’t seem like a lot, but it actually is potentially a lot in terms of allowing us to characterise this virus better and boost population immunity.” More