Home News

Conservationists say Britain’s native wildlife will benefit from a new licensing system for game-bird shooting – which ministers announced just days before being taken to court in an effort to force their hand.The government has resisted years of pressure from environmental experts to bring in mandatory licences for landowners who allow non-native pheasants and partridges to be shot for “sport”.  But now officials have accepted the game birds as a “problem species”, say campaigners who hailed the announcement as a “historic environmental victory”.Wildlife group Wild Justice, jointly led by BBC naturalist Chris Packham, says releasing game birds into the countryside harms native flora and fauna, including native birds, reptiles such as common lizards and adders, and vegetation. The group had been preparing for a legal battle with the government next week over introducing licensing.More than 60 million birds are bred for shooting each year on Britain’s 300 game farms, in an industry that is worth more than £2bn a year, according to the Game Farmers’ Association.At least 50 million captive-reared pheasants and nearly 12 million red-legged partridges are released to be shot – numbers that have risen sharply since the 1980s.The released birds threaten native wildlife by increasing predator numbers and creating competition for food, according to Natural England, the government’s nature advisers.  In announcing the outcome of a review launched earlier this year of the effects of releasing the birds, the Department for Enivronment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said: “There are minimal or no effects beyond 500m from the point of release.”But it also said a new interim licensing regime would be launched for next year’s releases of common pheasant and red-legged partridge within European protected sites and within a 500m buffer zone around the sites.
Wild Justice said in a statement: “We’re delighted. This is a historic environmental victory by the smallest wildlife NGO in the UK against the massed ranks of government lawyers, Defra, Natural England and the shooting industry.“Thanks to our legal challenge, the shooting industry faces its largest dose of regulation since a ban on the use of lead ammunition in wildfowling in England in 1999.”
Opponents of game shooting also say it is cruel, with birds kept in cages suffering severe feather loss and wounding themselves in futile efforts to esape.
One study found only 6 per cent of birds reared make it to the food chain through licensed game-processing plants as demand for shooting them far outstrips demand for their meat. Dead pheasants have been found dumped in pits, but estate owners say most birds are taken home by shooters or sold to pubs and butchers.
Wild Justice added: “Pheasants and red-legged partridges are now recognised by government as problem species where their numbers are too high and they cause damage to vegetation, soils, invertebrates, reptiles etc.”
Environment secretary George Eustice said: “The negative effects of game-bird releases on protected sites tend to be localised with minimal or no effects beyond 500m from the point of release.“However, our review highlighted a need to gain a better understanding of how any localised impacts might be mitigated and existing arrangements strengthened. “The introduction of an interim licensing regime for next year will enable us to manage any potential impacts while gathering more information where evidence gaps exist. We will continue to engage and consult with industry in order to minimise any disruption.”Wild Justice said it would go back to court if Defra failed to implement the licensing system, for which the EU Habitats Directive allows.Tim Bonner, of the Countryside Alliance, said licensing would achieve nothing as there was “no evidence” game birds were doing any damage but welcomed the announcement.Duncan Orr-Ewing, the RSPB’s head of species and land management said: “This is a positive announcement and an important step in recognising that releasing non-native game birds into our countryside every year is not sustainable or in line with the urgent need to protect and restore the best spaces for our native wildlife. “There is no escaping that the UK’s wildlife is facing a crisis with once-common species becoming rarer and vital habitat under threat, so it is essential we understand the threats to our natural world.” More

Driverless trains on the London Underground would cost £7bn while still requiring a staff member onboard every Tube, according to a leaked document.A presentation said to have been prepared for senior Transport for London (TfL) managers said the case for driverless Tube trains “is not financially positive given the high capital costs”.The drivers’ union Aslef, which obtained the leaked document, said it proved the idea is a “politically-driven fantasy”.The document said staff savings by removing the driver would be “offset by increased maintenance costs of the additional safety systems, surveillance, security fencing etc required” and that there would still need to be a train operator on every Tube train.”Overall the case is not financially positive given the high capital costs,” the document concluded.”Its implementation network-wide will present a considerable affordability challenge which will further exacerbate TfL’s current financial and longer-term funding position.”The document said that converting the network to driverless operations “represents poor value for money”.Finn Brennan, Aslef’s organiser on the London Underground, said: “Leaked internal Transport for London documents demonstrate that it would cost an additional £7 billion, on top of the money needed to upgrade existing lines, to make Underground trains driverless and that TfL has concluded that there is, given the evidence, no economic case for doing so.”Aslef has always pointed out that driverless trains on London Underground are a politically-driven fantasy.”Inside TfL’s new driverless tubesA TfL spokesman said: “Our train operators perform a fundamental safety-critical role on the transport network and, along with all our frontline staff, have played an essential role in keeping London moving during the pandemic.”We put together this analysis for the KPMG review into TfL’s finances, commissioned by the government following the emergency funding agreement agreed in May.”The possibilities, costs and benefits of driverless trains are things that TfL has looked at in the past and will continue to keep under review but it is not something we are actively pursuing.”Mr Johnson, who first approved plans to bring in driverless trains on the London Underground when he was the capital’s mayor in 2014, made a pitch for their roll-out in the summer: “You can run these trains without the need for somebody to be sitting in the driver’s cab the whole time.“So what I will be saying to the London transport authority is let’s take advantage of this technological leap forward, let’s not be the prisoners of the unions any more, let’s go to driverless trains, and let’s make that a condition of the funding settlement for Transport for London this autumn.”But Sadiq Khan, the current mayor of London, has described the idea of having driverless trains as “madness”.”Saving some pounds to risk the safety of Londoners, of staff and visitors, is the height of recklessness,” he said in 2018.”Where it’s not safe to do so I will not do so. Where it’s safe to do so of course we’ll consider whatever efficiency savings that we can do.”TfL has plans to run driverless Tube trains but they are not expected on the network until 2030.Some London Underground trains are currently operated either in semi-automatic mode, where starting and stopping is automated but the driver operates the doors and drives the train if needed.Driverless trains have been in operation on the Docklands Light Railway in east London since it opened in 1987, though a train attendant is present to operate the doors and drive the train if needed. More

Non-British rough sleepers face being deported from the UK under new immigration rules set to come into force after the Brexit transition period.Under the new laws, which are due to come into effect on 1 January, rough sleeping will become grounds to cancel or refuse a person’s right to be in the UK.Campaigners have described the plan as “completely unreasonable” and cruel, warning that they could push already vulnerable people, including victims of modern slavery, further into the fringes of society.Officials are thought to be aware of the “extreme sensitivity” around the concept of making homeless people liable for deportation. However, reducing the number of people on the streets is said to be of “great interest” to Boris Johnson and his ministers.The Home Office said removal of rough sleepers would only take place if they refused offers of support or were engaged in persistent anti-social behaviour, and that the new provision would be used “sparingly”. Nonetheless, campaigners questioned the morality of the policy.Lawyers said the new rules ignored the “many different reasons” why people may be sleeping rough, some of which directly related to Home Office’s hostile environment policies.Sonia Lenegan, legal director at the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, told The Independent the plans were “completely unreasonable” given that government policies may have driven some foreign nationals onto the streets.“Twice so far this year alone, the government has been found to have unlawfully applied policies to people subject to immigration control that have resulted in a period of rough sleeping,” Ms Lenegan said.
“The government is now seeking to give itself powers to remove people from the UK on the basis of their rough sleeping, a situation that government policies are likely to have played a part in creating. This is completely unreasonable.”Jon Sparkes, chief executive of Crisis, said the new rules were “unacceptable and cruel” and would only serve to push people who are in the UK legally and facing homelessness “further into the fringes of society”.He added: “While the government has stressed that this policy will only be used sparingly for people who refuse support, it is not as clear-cut as this.“We know through our services that people who have no recourse to public funds because of their immigration status have little or no access to support in the first place and are forced into rough sleeping if they are unable to work. This is a situation that will only worsen as the economic impact of the pandemic begins to bite.”Mr Sparkes warned that the policy would undermine the effective support the government offered earlier in the year as part of its Everyone In scheme, which aimed to house all rough sleepers during the lockdown.Rick Henderson, chief executive of Homeless Link, said the proposals were “deeply disappointing and counterproductive” and would “only serve to dehumanise and criminalise” people for not having a home, leaving victims of modern slavery “particularly susceptible”. He added: “The rules will also undermine trust in homeless charities providing vital support, as has happened with similar policies in the past, causing people to avoid seeking help in the first place.”Anna Yassin, migrant project manager at Glass Door, said she was concerned that the legislation would “perpetuate an environment of fear” and prevent people from seeking the support they need to move beyond homelessness. “We will have an even tougher time supporting people who are extremely vulnerable. We’re handing over power to human traffickers, essentially allowing them to operate in the shadows with people who will be afraid to seek help,” she added.The Home Office declined to comment on these specific criticisms.The latest official figures show that more than one-quarter of rough sleepers in the UK are foreign nationals, with 22 per cent from the EU and 4 per cent from outside the EU and the UK, while the nationality of an additional 10 per cent was unknown.A previous Home Office policy to deport rough sleepers from countries in the European Economic Area was ruled unlawful by the High Court in 2017 after a challenge brought on behalf of two Polish men and a Latvian.Nick Thomas-Symonds, the shadow home secretary, said: “Deporting people for being homeless is immoral. These plans would be appalling at any moment, but what makes it even worse is putting this forward as we face the deepest recession in generations and in the middle of a global pandemic.“It’s completely unacceptable and tells you all you need to know about this morally bankrupt Tory government.”
Under the new immigration rules, all foreign nationals who have been sentenced to at least a year in prison – whether in Britain or overseas – will also be banned from entering the UK, in a significant tightening of restrictions.Currently under EU law, the Home Office must demonstrate that EU nationals present a “genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat” in order to restrict their free movement rights, and this decision cannot be based solely on the criminal conviction.
The new rules will mean that as well as people sentenced to more than 12 months in jail being banned, those sentenced to less than a year could still be prevented from entering the UK, with the Home Office considering on a case-by-case basis their full criminal history and whether they have ties to the country.
Individuals who have not received a prison sentence could also be barred depending on the circumstances, for example if their offending is persistent or causes serious harm, or if it is decided that their presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good.The Home Office said the changes would not apply to EU citizens already living in the UK, but that if an individual that fell into this bracket committed crimes after 1 January 2021, in the UK or overseas, their status could be revoked. Home Office to carry out review of hostile environment following Windrush says Priti PatelThere will be some limited exceptions, such as if banning someone from the UK would breach the European Convention on Human Rights, or if their criminal offence is not recognised in the UK, according to the department.
Immigration barrister Colin Yeo said UK officials at the border may not know who has committed offences abroad if Brexit removes the UK’s access to EU criminal record databases.“The reality is that it will actually be harder to prevent the entry of serious criminals because UK officials will not know who they are,” he added.Home secretary Priti Patel said the rules formed part of the “firmer and fairer” approach the government is taking to the immigration system where people from across the world will be “treated equally”.
“For too long, EU rules have forced us to allow dangerous foreign criminals, who abuse our values and threaten our way of life, onto our streets,” she added.
A government spokesperson added: “We are committed to transforming the lives of some of the most vulnerable in society and to ending rough sleeping for good. This year alone the Government is spending over £700m in total to tackle homelessness.“The new rules provide a discretionary basis to cancel or refuse a person’s leave where they are found to be rough sleeping and refuse offers of support or are engaged in persistent anti-social behaviour. The new provision will be used sparingly and only where individuals refuse to engage with the range of support available.” More

A Merseyside pub has remodelled itself into a joke at the prime minister’s expense as lockdown restrictions are implemented across the area.The landlord for The James Atherton pub in New Brighton, the Wirral, said he’d elected to change the name of the establishment to ‘The Three Bellends’ to reflect local dissatisfaction with the virus response from Boris Johnson, his chief aide Dominic Cummings and the health secretary  Matt Hancock.Alongside the new name, signs were also erected – depicting the PM, the minister and the adviser all with bells for hats.The signage was introduced as pubs across Merseyside were forced to cshut up shop as part of the Government’s new three-tier system of coronavirus restrictions for England.Daniel Davies, chief executive of pub owner Rockpoint Leisure said the new moniker was “a reflection of what the community thinks about them and their decision making,”
UK news in picturesShow all 50 More

A hard border in Northern Ireland would increase the terror threat and become a target for attacks, the government has been warned.After taking evidence from MI5 behind closed doors, parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) said it would “not support the use of any hard border infrastructure” and called for ministers to take the risk into account.A report published on Monday said the threat from dissident Republican groups in Northern Ireland was rated as severe, meaning further attacks are highly likely.“The threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism requires sustained pressure and resources must be maintained – this is more important now than ever,” it added.“Any border infrastructure resulting from Brexit will be both a target and a recruiting badge for dissident Republican groups, who have until now used the impasse in Stormont to justify their cause and bolster their numbers.”Read moreThe ISC said security infrastructure or customs checkpoints erected at the Irish border would immediately become attack targets and increase the risk of political violence or unrest in border areas.It said a hard border would also be “symbolic” for dissident Republican groups and become a recruiting tool to draw in young recruits.“Brexit could also reignite the threat from Loyalist groups that have previously held a ceasefire,” the report said.The committee referenced evidence taken from MI5 during its enquiry, but the text was redacted in the public version of the report.Brexit makes the 300 mile border between Northern Ireland and the Republic the only point where the UK and EU will meet on land.Under the Northern Ireland protocol negotiated last year, goods will not need to be checked when crossing the border because the country will continue to enforce the EU’s customs rules. More

As Boris Johnson prepares to launch his campaign to drive people back to the workplace, office employees throughout the UK have mixed feelings about shifting from working from home to getting on public transport and heading back into city centres.A report by academics at Cardiff University and the University of Southampton found that 88 per cent of employees who worked from home during the coronavirus lockdown would like to continue doing so in some capacity.But some workers have said working from home constantly is an “isolating” experience and are looking forward to the return to traditional working life.Bryce Wilcock, 29, told The Independent that there are some things that simply cannot be replicated in an environment where everyone works from home, and it’s especially important for those working in creative industries to be in one place.The PR account manager works at Creo Communications in Sunderland city centre, and said he cannot wait to go back to the office in two weeks.Read more“My company adapted really easily to working from home, we provide PR, creative design, social media campaigns and such, so everything was really quite seamless and productivity levels were high even when working from home,” he said.“But there’s no replacing the creative cohesion you have in the office, it’s not something you can replicate in working from home. We’ve always been a flexible company, but I think now going forward, remote working is not something we’ll implement as a permanent feature.”Socialising with colleagues and developing new work connections was something both Mr Wilcock and Buzz Carter, 23, said they missed about being in an office.Mr Carter, who works in marketing at an online blinds retailer in Essex, said he found working from home constantly too “isolating” and “lonely”. His company returned to the office two weeks ago and most of them have been working full time there.“Working from home was a mixed bag. I enjoyed not having to commute and have the ability to be more relaxed than at an office, but I did find it isolating because I’d be home all day. At the time, my girlfriend was still working from the office, so for about 10 hours a day, five days a week, I’d be alone.”Aside from going back to the office, commuting to and from work is also at the forefront of employees’ minds – particularly for those who use public transport and have to make longer journeys.Read moreSaurav Dutt, a business development manager, said he is worried about difficulties breathing while wearing a mask on a full train and the anxiety of being in a crowded space. He recently started to go back into work one day a week, commuting from Warwickshire to a large office building in central London.“I think it will have a bigger impact on staff morale than we realise,” he told The Independent. “People will be worried while on the journey to work, about being in close proximity with other people in a train at capacity, and will bring that anxiety into the workplace, where they will be exposed to even more people.“With winter coming, there is the usual risk of getting a cold or flu, but with this virus still around, fears will be even more heightened.”Making the office Covid-secure plays an important part in reassuring workers it is safe to go back.Hollie Hines, a content and digital PR specialist at Clicky, in Chester, said she is happy with her office’s new setup and praised her agency for “going the extra mile” to make staff feel safe.“They reviewed the office space and carefully rearranged the desks in an L-shape so we have naturally socially distanced barriers, and we now have a booking system so we can choose when we want to go into the office and book in to ensure there aren’t too many people there at any one time,” she said.“Each desk has its own hand sanitiser and they provide us with masks. We’ve also been given the option to work from home permanently if we want to, but I go in an average of twice a week, which I really enjoy.”Ms Hines said if all companies could operate this way, people would feel much better about going back to work in city centres.Despite the positive tone echoed by some employees about going back to the office, most of them said they did not agree with the way the government is pushing to get people back into the office.“It feels like they’re doing it for the wrong reasons,” said Mr Carter. “People aren’t being made to go back because working from home isn’t effective – it is effective – but the government is pushing so people have to pay £5 for their Pret A Manger lunch.“It just doesn’t feel based on science to me, and I can’t imagine commuting all the way to London and getting on the tube under these circumstances.”Labour called on the government to “categorically rule out” the campaign, calling it “unconscionable” to force people to choose between their health and their job.Read moreMr Wilcock said encouraging people to go back to the office is “one of the few right things this government is doing”, but that they aren’t using the right approach.“People with vulnerable loved ones should not be pushed back into the office, and they’re wrong in saying that they may be sacked if they continue to work from home,” he said.Reports ahead of the official launch of the back-to-office campaign quoted government sources as warning that working from home “isn’t the benign option it seems” and made employees more vulnerable to being sacked.“It should depend on what you do and where you work, it should be on a case by case basis – ultimately, no one should be forced to go back to the workplace if they don’t feel safe.”Sebastian Mattern, a solicitor from commercial law firm Tiger Law, said reports that employees may be at risk of getting sacked if they continue to work from home are “absolute nonsense” as there are plenty of protections for workers in place.“If people have been told to work from home or their employers have offered that opportunity, there is absolutely no difference in the types of protections they are afforded,” he told The Independent. “Everybody needs to be treated the same way.” More