Councillor Niall Innes proposed to have current Stockton Council leader, Labour group leader Cllr Bob Cook, removed and replaced with the Tory group leader, Cllr Tony Riordan. He said this was to “move forward respecting the democratic choice of the electorate” after the Tories gained seats in May’s elections.
The Conservatives are the largest party on the council, with 26 seats to Labour’s 22, but Labour still enjoy the support of seven Independent councillors allowing them to keep minority control of the council, with Thornaby Independent Association (TIA) councillors and Ingleby Barwick Independent Society (IBIS) agreeing to work with Labour on an “issue-by-issue basis” without a formal coalition.
Cllr Innes, Conservative member for Hartburn to run as candidate for Stockton North MP, put forward the same motion to oust the leader in July, but withdrew it as he admitted “we just didn’t have the numbers”. He tried to withdraw it again in the meeting at Stockton Baptist Church last night (Wednesday, September 20).
But this time, mayor Cllr Jim Beall put it to a vote and let councillors decide whether the motion was to be withdrawn or not. They voted 29-25 against withdrawing it, with Labour member Cllr Paul Rowling saying the proposal needed to be heard “to create clarity for the borough”.
Cllr Rowling said: “There’s a clear stable political position in this council and bringing this motion back every month undermines that very fact. It is damaging investment in the borough so we need to create certainty.”
So the motion was heard, prompting a string of Labour members to deliver scathing critiques of the Conservatives including their electoral campaign, national and local record, while speaking up in praise of their leader. Cllr Innes’ proposal was lost by another 29-25 vote, allowing Labour to retain its control of the council.
How does āSpreadsheetā Sunak square this anomaly, or was this policy concocted in a rush? – Owl
Car firms will still be forced to meet strict quotas for selling electric cars despite the ban on sales of new petrol and diesel vehicles being delayed.
From January, just over a fifth of vehicles sold must be electric, with the target expected to hit 80% by 2030.
The government confirmed the policy would remain even though Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced the petrol and diesel ban would be moved to 2035.
Firms that fail to hit the quotas could be fined Ā£15,000 per car.
Industry insiders said the quotas would be a “stretch” for manufacturers to achieve, adding the delayed ban could make it harder to sell electric cars, while Auto Trader suggested firms might cut prices to boost sales and meet targets.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has defended the government’s decision to push back the ban, insisting the UK will meet its net zero targets.
But there was some uncertainty whether the change to the ban would affect the quotas for electric sales, before Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch confirmed that the so-called Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) mandate would remain in place.
It is expected the mandate will require car makers to ensure 22% of vehicles sold are electric next year and increase each year after that to reach 80% by 2030.
If a car maker fails to hit the targets, it will either face fines expected to be Ā£15,000 per vehicle, or have to buy a surplus credit from a company that has sold lots of electric vehicles. However, a firm could claim back penalties if it surpasses the quota in future.
One large manufacturer told the BBC that forcing firms to hit the target on electric vehicle sales, while pushing back the ban on new petrol and diesel cars, would make it harder for firms to sell the electric ones.
Ian Plummer, commercial director of online car selling site Auto Trader, said the quota on firms for electric car sales would be a “stretch for the majority of manufactures to achieve” in its current form.
He said to meet targets “some manufacturers are likely to use price reductions as a lever” to attract drivers to buy electric.
“It’s likely price will need to play a big part in this,” he added.
“Electric vehicles carry a hefty price premium, so if prices come down, they’ll suddenly become a far more attractive proposition for a greater pool of car buyers.”
According to Auto Trader, the average price of a new electric vehicle is 39% more expensive than a petrol or diesel equivalent.
Prices for second-hand electric cars are almost double (Ā£31,946) on average compared to used petrol (Ā£16,332) and diesel (Ā£16,233) cars, and electric prices in the second-hand market are increasing as demand rises.
Motor industry analyst Philip Nothard, insight and strategy director at Cox Automotive, told the BBC the target for electric car sales was “arguably a greater influence” on the market than delaying the ban on new internal combustion engine vehicles.
He added that because many carmakers were already committed to hybrid and electric-only ranges based on the government’s previous 2030 policy, greener vehicles might be more attractive to buyers in terms of price because consumers would eventually face a “limited choice” of new petrol and diesel cars, causing the prices of those vehicles to rise.
The targets for electric car sales mean only a maximum of 20% or less of new cars sold by 2030 can be petrol or diesel, with some of those likely to be hybrids.
Car manufacturers have given mixed responses to the decision pushing the ban on new petrol and diesel car sales back from 2030 to 2035. Ford said the move undermined its electric car investment plans, but Toyota welcomed the announcement, saying the delay was “pragmatic”.
Motor industry sources said the impact of the ban being delayed was expected to be limited.
Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), said the regulations compelling increased sales of electric vehicles “remains the single most important mechanism to deliver the UK’s net zero commitment”, rather than the ban on new cars with petrol and diesel engines being changed.
He said consumers needed to be encouraged to make the switch, which would “require a package of incentives for private buyers that complements those on offer to businesses, as well as measures to accelerate the rollout of charge points”.
What’s the policy now?
Prior to Mr Sunak announcing a shift in policy, the government had planned to ban the sale of new, pure petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030. Now, it will begin in 2035.
By phasing out fossil fuel-powered vehicle sales, it aims to accelerate the transition to electric and achieve net zero by 2050. Net zero is when a country’s net carbon emissions are cut to zero, and is seen as vital to tackling climate change.
Under the ban, from 2035 only electric battery-powered cars and other zero-emission vehicles will be able to be bought new. However, most people will not be affected by the ban immediately, as the majority of drivers buy vehicles second hand and only sales of new petrol and diesel models would be affected – not existing ones.
The delay in the ban brings the UK into line with the European Union, which is also banning sales of new petrol and diesel cars by 2035.
Thank Goodness! (Owl can never remember which of the seven to put out on a Friday)
Rishi Sunakās pledge to scrap a series of green measures has prompted ridicule from critics who say they were never a reality ā and on social media have taken on a life of their own.
āYou boy, which of the seven bins is it this week?ā read the caption above an image of Scrooge ā from the 1951 adaptation of A Christmas Carol ā in a tweet lampooning the prime ministerās claim he had spared people from being forced to recycle in as many different bins.
The pledge inspired the lionās share of mickey-taking, including a mocked-up picture featuring a scene from a fictitious film, āSnow White and the Seven Bins (1937)ā, with its eponymous heroine flying over a snowy, bin-strewn hillside.
The broadcaster and author James OāBrien, meanwhile, shared his relief on Thursday, telling followers: āThank goodness I donāt have to put all seven of them out any more.ā
Wednesdayās announcement at Downing Street was likened to Soviet-era rewriting of history, such as when secret police official Nikolai Yezhov was airbrushed out of a photo showing Stalin at the Moscow canal. Standing in front of Stalin in a new imaging of the photo were ā¦ those seven bins; it was followed by another version of this image in which the bins had been made to conveniently disappear.
Elsewhere, the thought of what the Conservative leader may promise next occupied usersā imaginations.
āNext up on @RishiSunakās list: ā Santa made to have a pilots licence ā Monsters under your bed deported to Rwanda ā Unicorns limited in horn length ā Tooth fairy income will be taxed ā Number limits on invisible friends kids can have,ā suggested a user of X, formerly known as Twitter.
The @Parody_PM account, which boasts more followers than many MPs, promised to unveil further moves on Thursday to scrap imaginary proposals, pledging: āToday I will be announcing the cancellation of the requirement for people to work in a chain gang for five years.ā
2030 is now 2035ā¦. followed by 2040? ā¦ā¦ā¦.. towards 2050!
Time is running out. – Owl
āThe whole point of setting interim targets is to make it more likely that you hit the main end goal. Presented with a legally binding commitment, the government risks looks incapable of delivering a plan that it can stick to.ā
One can understand why Rishi Sunak sees political opportunity in watering down a few climate policies. Previous soundbites about āthe economic opportunity of the 21st centuryā may be correct in the round, but voters have also noticed that heat pumps are expensive and that the path to net zero by 2050 involves costs as well as opportunities. A strategy that claims, in effect, that net zero can be delivered more gently is not absurd for a party that is miles behind in the polls.
The problem, though, is the one highlighted by the furious reaction from some carmakers, in particular, to Sunakās flip-flop. Any realistic route to net zero involves winning, and keeping, the broad confidence of businesses that will be overhauling the infrastructure. At one level, hitting the 2050 target requires an enormous public-private effort to rewire the entire economy. The whole point of setting interim targets is to make it more likely that you hit the main end goal. Presented with a legally binding commitment, the government risks looks incapable of delivering a plan that it can stick to.
The former Siemens UK chief executive JĆ¼rgen Maier spoke about āa disaster for business confidence and investmentā and one can understand why. The phasing-out of sales of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030 was a policy adopted as recently as November 2020, which is hardly another age. Sunak was chancellor at the time.
Manufacturing investment decisions were made on the assumption that the deadline was solid. Veering to 2035 ā never mind what the EU is doing ā feels perverse when the government is simultaneously throwing subsidies at Mini and Jaguar Land Rover to crank up their electric vehicle ambitions in the UK.
It was a similar story with the offshore wind auction a fortnight ago. In that case, the ā still intact ā goal is to have 50 gigawatts of capacity installed by 2030, which requires a tripling of what the UK already has. The auction, however, delivered precisely zero bids because the governmentās maximum price for contracts was set at an unrealistically low level.
One can grumble about offshore developersā greed ā some have had a spectacularly good ride in the past ā but inflation in construction costs was undeniable on this occasion. The governmentās inflexible approach also looked counterproductive in its own terms if the 50GW target is to be hit. Developers next year will have a stronger negotiating hand in an auction in which the government is obliged to land more bids. A āpragmatic, proportionate and realisticā approach, to use one of Sunakās phrases on Wednesday, would have been to try to smooth the bumps in the interests of steady delivery.
On cars again, if one challenge to electric adoption is the lack of charging points, as Sunak said, a legitimate role for government would be to fill the gaps in the network or create the incentives for companies to invest. If the problem, actually, is that the grid infrastructure is incapable of handling mass adoption of electric vehicles by 2030, it would be better to spell out the facts.
Business wonāt hate everything in this reset, of course. If a āfast trackā to improve connections to the grid is confirmation that decarbonisation of the power sector will happen by 2035, that is significant. The target is immensely demanding from a technical perspective ā and more important than, say, what happens with heat pumps.
But consistency in policymaking matters. In attempting to signal pragmatism, Sunak may send the message to business that UK targets cannot be relied upon. An awful lot of foreign capital is required to deliver the investments behind transition. Overseas investors may fairly wonder if more U-turns are coming.
The announcement, which will also weaken the plan to phase out gas boilers from 2035, sparked an outcry from business leaders, climate campaigners and his own MPs, who believe it drastically undermines the UKās position as a world leader on climate change.
But speaking from his Downing Street briefing room in front of a podium brandishing the Tory conference slogan of āLong-term decisions for a brighter futureā, he claimed previous governments ā both Tory and Labour ā had sought to get to net zero āsimply by wishing itā.
Mr Sunak added: āNo one in Westminster politics has yet had the courage to look people in the eye and explain whatās really involved. Thatās wrong, and it changes now.
āIt cannot be right for Westminster to impose such significant costs on working people, especially those who are already struggling to make ends meet and to interfere so much in peopleās way of life without a properly informed national debate.ā
But there were significant doubts over the existence of several other policies Mr Sunak scrapped, namely a meat tax, a frequent flyer tax, ācompulsory car sharingā and plans to force households to have seven recycling bins.
Plans to raise household grants for heat pumps from Ā£5,000 to Ā£7,500 were widely welcomed, however.
The decision to delay the ban on new diesel and petrol cars and gas fired boilers was met with significant unease from industry.
The Governmentās own Climate Change Commission warned the UK has a ālegal obligation to meet its net zero 2050 targetā and a ācommitment to hit the interim emission reduction targetsā already in law.
āTodayās announcement is likely to take the UK further away from being able to meet its legal commitments,ā the commissionās chair, Piers Forster, said, before adding: āThis, coupled with the recent unsuccessful offshore wind auction, gives us concern.ā
The Conservative Environment Network, which represents around 150 Tory MPs, warned Mr Sunak his watering down of green policies risks reputational damage for the Tories.
Director Sam Hall said: āThis was an unnecessary speech that risks damaging the Conservative Partyās hard-won reputation on environmental issues.ā
Labourās shadow Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, said the speech was an āact of weakness from a desperate, directionless Prime Minister, dancing to the tune of a small minority of his partyā.
āDelaying the phase out of petrol and diesel cars will add billions in costs to families and damage investor confidence in the UK, as we have seen from the furious business reaction today,ā he added.
The National Housing Federation said scrapping targets to insulate homes would lead to people facing higher bills āfor years to comeā.
Chief executive Kate Henderson said: āItās hugely disappointing to see the Government row back from its commitments to net zero, particularly on improving the energy efficiency of our homes.
āMaking homes more energy efficient is a win-win, not only helping to save our planet, but also boosting our economy by creating jobs and, crucially, saving money,ā she added.
In the opinion of Claire Savage, the manager of the Ironstone Miner pub in Guisborough, the prime ministerās plan to water down net zero commitments that he says impose a direct cost on consumers is disingenuous.
And she is not alone in thinking that. Savage lives in the constituency of Simon Clarke, the Tory MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, who said on Tuesday that his constituents did not support the rollback.
The former levelling up secretary, who served under Liz Truss, posted on X (formerly Twitter): āOur climate is changing dramatically. The UK has carved out a world-leading role delivering net zero in a market-friendly way that will deliver clean, secure energy and thousands of jobs in deprived communities like Teesside. My red wall constituents overwhelmingly support it.ā
And he appears to be right. Plans that could include delaying a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and watering down the phasing-out of gas boilers were not popular among those grabbing lunch in torrential rain on Wednesday.
For 17-year-old Jack McDougall, a college student, there needs to be a more holistic approach to tackling net zero: he said the commitments the prime minister was rolling back on were already not enough.
āItās naive just to say we need to invest in more electric cars because in more deprived areas affording them is an issue. Mitigating climate change is really important so we need more investment, and wider investment, rather than less.ā
McDougall, who is studying geography, added: āIām going to spend my life being affected by this. The damage is already being proven by the wildfires weāre seeing.ā
Joanne Powell, who works at a local accountancy firm, agreed but added that better infrastructure would incentivise more people to buy electric cars, rather than banning petrol cars. She said: āThe main problem with the take-up of electric cars is that there arenāt enough charging points. Things are not going to get better until they install more.ā
Green industry is growing on Teesside, where Europeās first lithium refinery was given the green light last month.
It will start production in 2027, using materials imported from Australia, and is expected to have an annual production capacity of 50,000 tonnes of battery-grade lithium chemicals, enough to provide batteries for 1m electric car batteries.
āIn the north-east in general, more jobs are needed,ā said Amy Leach, a criminology student. āItās worth investing to create those jobs.ā
Sunakās move is designed to shore up support among those who voted for the Conservatives in 2019. But a new poll of 4,000 voters by Public First for the centre-right thinktank Onward shows it could backfire.
According to the poll, the target of reaching net zero by 2050 is overwhelmingly popular with voters, including Conservative ones, 49% of whom say they support it while only 20% oppose it.
The individual policies Sunak will roll back also poll well: 35% of respondents said they supported the plan to phase out gas boilers by 2035, compared with 27% who opposed it. Meanwhile, 38% supported ending the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030, with only 31% opposed to the move.
Sunakās announcement came as a poll by the campaign group Green New Deal Rising found that most people wanted the UK government, fossil fuel companies and wealthy people to pay more for climate action measures.
A total of 60% of the public thought increasing taxes or ending subsidies for fossil fuel companies, rather than making cuts in other areas of UK spending, should be used to deliver the international climate funding the UK has promised.
At the Ironstone Miner, a Wetherspoonās pub named after the industry that supported the town ā and left its scars on the land ā Savage said she felt there was a need for a more international view.
She said green technologies themselves were far from perfect and a big concern was the impact on people who lived and worked in the areas where minerals used for electric cars were mined.
āWhat about the people who are left with big holes in the ground and environmental problems? Arenāt we ruining the environment by digging up places?ā she said. āIām not against [net zero investment], not at all. I just want them to do whatās best for everyone, to do good.ā
Pollution from treated and untreated sewage is the greatest threat to river biodiversity, causing more damage than runoff from farms, according to research.
There is a need for more regulation of water companies and improvements at their treatment plans to protect rivers, say the authors of the study.
The research from the University of Oxford was released on World Rivers Day. No river in England passes tests for chemical or biological pollution, and government targets to improve the water quality in rivers will not be met.
āImprovements to wastewater plants should be implemented along with more regulations. These efforts are crucial in safeguarding the integrity and safety of our rivers ā fundamental elements of both ecosystems and human wellbeing,ā said the lead author, Dr Dania Albini, of Oxfordās biology department.
Treated sewage released by water companies into rivers and raw effluent that is dumped in rivers via storm overflows is the primary driver of increased nutrients, algae and sewage fungus in rivers, according to the study.
Sewage discharge radically alters plant, animal and microbe communities and increases the abundance of harmful species. While runoff from farmland has negative impacts on river water quality, the research reveals that sewage discharge into rivers has a greater impact on water quality and the animals and plants that live in rivers.
The findings were published in the journals Global Change Biology and Ecological Solutions and Evidence.
Albini said: āOur study highlights the disproportionate impact that sewage discharge has on river quality, presenting an urgent need for a comprehensive action plan targeting the sewage discharge problem.ā
Sewage from households and businesses is treated by water companies at treatment plants and then discharged into rivers. Raw sewage is also discharged via storm overflows, but this should only take place in exceptional circumstances. Water companies are at the centre of a criminal investigation by the Environment Agency and an inquiry by the financial regulator Ofwat into failures in the way they run their treatment plants.
James Wallace, of the UK-based charity River Action, said: āThis important research demonstrates yet again the damage from unregulated water companies and agriculture. In addition to the catastrophic impact on wildlife from nutrient pollution, the public should be aware that sewage systems do not remove dangerous bacteria such as E.coli and intestinal enterococci from treated sewage.
āWhen will the government make water companies and farms clean up their act, especially in places where human lives and sensitive protected habitats are threatened?ā
Separate research by Dr Leon Barron, part of the Environmental Research Group at Imperial College, which involved hundreds of samples taken from 14 waterways in Greater London over three years, reveals that 21 compounds were detected that posed a potential risk to the environment in freshwater ecosystems. The pollutants included antibiotics, pain medication and pet parasite medications, which contain neonicotinoids.
The study showed that water companiesā treatment plants and combined sewer overflows, which release raw sewage and runoff, were the main sources of chemical risks to rivers overall.
The team found that smaller rivers feeding into the Thames were most affected by wastewater pollution.
The research compared sampling taken during Covid lockdowns with those taken when society opened up again. Barron, a senior author of the research, said it was the largest study of a heavily urbanised river system and provided uniquely detailed insights into Londonās water quality.
Guy Woodward, a professor of ecology in the department of life sciences at Imperial, and a co-author of the paper, said: āThis ā¦ picks up on several [chemicals] that are at potentially harmful concentrations for wildlife, but which have seemingly been overlooked in traditional surveys of our water quality in urban areas at this resolution.ā
“The debate about how we get to Net Zero has thrown up a range of worrying proposals and today I want to confirm that under this government, theyāll never happen.
The proposal for government to interfere in how many passengers you can have in your car.
Iāve scrapped it.
The proposal that we should force you to have seven different bins in your home.
Iāve scrapped it.
The proposal to make you change your diet ā and harm British farmers – by taxing meat.
Or to create new taxes to discourage flying or going on holiday.
Iāve scrapped those too.
We will never impose these unnecessary and heavy-handed measures on you, the British people but we will still meet our international commitments and hit Net Zero by 2050.“
As a consequence of verbose schoolboy debating antics from the proposer, Mr Liddell-Grainger MP (Bridgwater and West Somerset), and nothing new from the Minister replying to him, the debate ran out of time and lapsed.
Mr Liddell-Grainger’s seat is being redrawn and he is now the prospective Tory candidate for the new Tiverton & Minehead constituency, which may explain a lot.
The debate achieved nothing more than puff a few Conservative egos.
For example Mr Liddell-Grainger managed to insert this piece of totally irrelevant electioneering propaganda into his speech:
āThat reminds me that there is in Tiverton an almost dead building firm called 3 Rivers Developments. It was conceived by senior officers in Mid Devon District Council, next to the Exe. They thought it would solve their financial problems. They have never built a Lego house, never mind a real one. They do not have a clue. Six years and Ā£21 million later, the company is stony broke.ā
āShe is running a mob that has convictions for polluting rivers, pays its top gun criminal bonuses and, despite the wettest July on record, still has a hosepipe ban. It is operating like a mafia.
āThis is absolutely appalling. May we have an urgent debate in Government time on these ruddy water companies, who are blackmailing their customers and parliamentarians to stop the truth coming out?ā
Mr Liddell-Grainger, remember, was the chair of Simon Juppās previous February Westminster Hall debate on SWW, used by both of them to indulge in political point scoring, thereby also achieving nothing of consequence.
On Tuesday 19 September Mr Liddell-Grainger (Landed Gentry according to Wikipedia) was granted a half hour slot for another Westminster Hall debate.
His opening harumph which did no more than repeat SWWās well known failures in the style of a schoolboy from the lower fourth debating society took half of the 30 minutes allotted to the debate.
The other half was taken by a āreplyā from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Rebecca Pow. She listed all the actions the Government has taken (mostly only recently). Here is a sample quote:
āNo Government have ever done as much as this Government are doing to tackle storm overflows. In 2013, the Government set out expectations that water companies must monitor the vast majority of those combined sewer overflows, as I referenced earlier. It is that monitoring that has meant that regulators understand the scale of combined sewer overflow discharges and can take stronger action within the existing legal framework.
In 2022, the Government launched the storm overflows discharge reduction plan. Our strict targets will see the toughest ever crackdown on sewage spills and will require water companies to deliver the largest infrastructure project in water company historyāthat is, Ā£56 billion by 2050ā¦.ā
In between, the only other speaker in the ādebateā, Richard Foord, managed to put his finger two relevant issues but didn’t get answers.
At around half time when Richard Foord asked Liddell-Grainger if he would āgive wayā he did so saying:
āI give way to the Member for the womenās auxiliary ballerina corps.ā
Yes, seriously, itās on the record – Owl
Richard Foordās point was:
āThe hon. Member is giving a bombastic speech of which the late Lord Flashheart would have been very proud. What does he think of the actions of the Government in this space? Although he seeks to shift the blame on to water companies or regulators, the Government ultimately have the responsibility for the regulation of South West Water and for holding it to account.ā
This was met by more bluster.
At one point the Minister said:
āThe Environment Agency is investigating that (discharge at Harlyn bay, Cornwall). Clearly, action can be taken only if we have the evidence and if there is an issue. There is a permit system and there are exemptions for extreme weatherāwe know why that is in placeābut I have asked the CEO to ensure that, should pollution be identified, signage is put on the beach so that it is made very clear to bathers and surfers alike. They have taken up my point.ā
So Richard Foord asked this question:
āI heard the Minister say a moment ago that enforcement action can only take place where there is evidence. Is it the case that the Minister does not have sufficient evidence for enforcement action to take place against South West Water?ā
Here is the Ministerās response:
āit would need to stand up in court if the EA chose to prosecute any of the cases raised by the BBC. If it stands up in court and the information is there, of course the EA will take action if it finds non-compliance.ā
Owl’s take
The Tories are still in denial over the consequences of privatisation and the effect austerity cuts have had on regulators, trying to blame everyone else.
āIf this is true, the decision will cost the UK jobs, inward investment, and future economic growth that could have been ours by committing to the industries of the future.
āIt will potentially destabilise thousands of jobs and see investment go elsewhere. And ultimately, the people who will pay the price for this will be householders, whose bills will remain higher as a result of inefficient fossil fuels and being dependent on volatile international fossil fuel prices.ā Chris Skidmore, a Conservative former energy minister.
Rishi Sunak risks sparking a furious Tory party row as he signalled plans to water down the governmentās net zero pledges.
The prime minister confirmed he would use a speech in the coming days to announce a major shift in the Tory partyās approach to green policy, saying he wants to achieve net zero in a more āproportionate wayā.
It comes after the BBC said it had seen documents suggesting that changes could be made to as many as seven core commitments, including weakening the plan to phase out gas boilers from 2035 and delaying the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars ā currently due to come into force in 2030 ā by five years.
Confirming the reports on possible changes to policy, Mr Sunak said: āWe are committed to net zero by 2050 and the agreements we have made internationally ā but doing so in a better, more proportionate way.
āOur politics must again put the long-term interests of our country before the short-term political needs of the moment.ā
It is also understood that some Tory MPs are considering submitting letters of no confidence in the prime minister if he goes ahead with the changes.
Mr Sunak has repeatedly deployed the language of pragmatism and proportionality when discussing net zero, but campaigners and activists have charged him with displaying a lack of interest in climate policies.
Tory success in the summerās Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election, won largely through a campaign against the expansion of the ultra-low-emission zone, has led some MPs to call for Mr Sunak to water down or abandon Britainās net zero pledges.
While Mr Sunak has repeatedly said he is committed to cutting carbon emissions, the granting of new oil and gas licences for the North Sea and recent moves to curb green policies have attracted criticism.
Chris Skidmore, a Conservative former energy minister who has become increasingly outspoken on net zero, told reporters: āIf this is true, the decision will cost the UK jobs, inward investment, and future economic growth that could have been ours by committing to the industries of the future.
āIt will potentially destabilise thousands of jobs and see investment go elsewhere. And ultimately, the people who will pay the price for this will be householders, whose bills will remain higher as a result of inefficient fossil fuels and being dependent on volatile international fossil fuel prices.
āRishi Sunak still has time to think again and not make the greatest mistake of his premiership, condemning the UK to missing out on what can be the opportunity of the decade to deliver growth, jobs and future prosperity.ā
Hannah Martin, a co-director of Green New Deal Rising, said: āOnce again this government has shown that they are hell-bent on breaking their promises and doing nothing to stop climate chaos. Just weeks after the hottest summer on record, Rishi Sunak has decided to ignore science and stoke a culture war.
āWhilst global leaders are meeting to discuss how to tackle the climate crisis, he has stayed home to set fire to some of the only remaining climate policies this government had left.
āNot only will the UK miss out on the opportunity to create millions of good green jobs and secure our energy future, we will be once again seen as a laggard as we duck out of doing our fair share to tackle the biggest existential crisis we face.ā
Greenpeace UKās policy director, Doug Parr, said rowing back on such policies would only ensure āwe stay at the mercy of volatile fossil fuels and exploitative energy companiesā.
āThe many scandals we face, like the cost of living, inequality, and the energy crisis, can be fixed with the same solutions we know will tackle the climate crisis. Sunak must explain how we will meet our net zero commitments by rowing back on all of the policies to get us anywhere near it.ā
And Jess Ralston, head of energy at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, said that backpedalling on energy efficiency would only leave the poorest with higher bills. āAll of this would leave us more dependent on foreign oil and gas, less energy independent, and with investors spooked, putting jobs in the industries of the future in jeopardy,ā she said.
A government spokesperson said: āThe government remains completely committed to its net zero commitments, with the UK having cut emissions faster than any other G7 country. Our approach will always be pragmatic and ensure costs are not passed on to hard-working families.
A grammar school in Devon is the latest to be confirmed as having been constructed using reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, known as RAAC. Colyton Grammar School, located in the village of Colyford in East Devon, has confirmed the areas affected in the school have been closed for safety.
RAAC has been deemed dangerous by the government due to its tendency to crumble. Overall, 174 education settings in England have been confirmed with Raac as of September 14.
A spokesperson for Colyton Grammar School said: āWe can confirm the existence of RAAC in a small part of our estate, and the affected areas are now closed. We are working with the DfE and related experts to mitigate the issue and to minimise the impact on students’ learning.”
DevonLive has also contacted Colyton Grammar School for comment. Elsewhere, Petroc College, situated in both Barnstaple and Tiverton, has also been impacted by RAAC.
Discussing the dangers of RAAC, Education Secretary Gillian Keegan said: āWe are taking a cautious approach so every parent in England can be reassured their child is safe in their school. School and local leaders deserve huge credit for making sure the vast majority of settings with confirmed Raac are continuing to offer pupils face-to-face learning ā including all of the 147 schools initially identified two weeks ago.
Liz Truss has been claiming from the Ā£115,000-a-year public fund awarded to former prime ministers to run their offices, despite only serving for 49 days.
Cabinet Office accounts released on Tuesday show that the Conservative MP claimed Ā£23,310 in her first five months out of office.
It was understood she has continued to claim in the current financial year that started in April, but the sum will not be disclosed until next yearās report.
Ms Trussās office declined to comment.
After she announced her resignation, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer was among those arguing that Ms Truss should āturn it downā because of the brief time spent in No 10.
The Liberal Democratsā Cabinet Office spokeswoman Christine Jardine urged Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to ādo the right thing and stop Liz Truss from claiming taxpayersā cash from the ex-PM fundā.
āItās an outrage that while families struggle to pay their bills and put food on the table, Liz Truss profits from her own failure,ā she said.
āIf Liz Truss wants to cut tax she should lead by example and stop taking hardworking British taxpayers for a ride by claiming handouts.ā
The Public Duty Cost Allowance affords former prime ministers up to Ā£115,000 a year to cover office and secretarial costs arising from public duties.
Applicable costs including those for running an office, handling correspondence as an ex-PM and for support with visits.
Sir Tony Blair and Sir John Major were the only former leaders to claim the maximum amount in 2022/23, though Gordon Brown was close on Ā£114,627.
Ms Trussās chaotic tenure in No 10 ended on October 25 after losing the support of Tory MPs.
On Monday she defended her economic crisis-inducing mini-budget a year on from her chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng unveiling the Ā£45 billion package of unfunded tax cuts.
She hit out at economists and āinstitutional bureaucracyā for her downfall as she hinted at further plans to intervene in Tory politics at the party conference next month.
The Cabinet Office accounts also detailed the total cost of Boris Johnsonās taxpayer-funded legal defence to the inquiry that found he lied to MPs over partygate.
The final cost was put at Ā£263,079, in line with what the department had previously revealed.
The public spending watchdog questioned the decision to use taxpayersā money for Mr Johnsonās lawyers.
National Audit Office chief Gareth Davies said he looked at the spending because while the amount was ānot quantitatively materialā in the wider scale of the Cabinet Officeās finances, there was āsignificant public interest as to whether these costs are a legitimate use of public moneyā.
He said the arguments put forward to justify the spending ā including that similar legal support had been provided to ministers appearing before public inquiries ā were not āwholly persuasiveā and it was a āborderlineā judgment.
Text of recent Facebook page from Paul Hayward, Independent Cllr, Deputy Leader EDDC.
“You may have seen a recent post promoting the campaign of a certain local MP by a colleague in the same party which criticised the district council for low flytipping enforcement numbers.
The photos below (screenshots from relevant articles) go some way to explain why the statistics published by the MP (and shared without question) should be taken with a pinch of salt and read in the context of a forthcoming general election.
But, the facts are simple. Devon County Council refuses to permit trade waste disposal and recycling at its waste centres in East Devon. It levies some of the highest charges for household waste disposal of common household items. This is what causes fly-tipping. Devon County Council POLICY.
Not the authority that has to pick up the waste from laybys and streets, but gets virtually no money from DCC to do so. Not the farmers and landowners who have to pay to have flytipped material cleared from their private land.
It can be done differently but Councillors at DCC just stick their fingers in their ears and use the subject for electioneering- one might argue that they should have done something while they could instead of bleating about it now.
It can be done differently. Take Slough Borough Council. A builder can take their trade waste from a clients house to the tip. Their van is weighed in and weighed out. They pay a flat rate per tonne on the difference. They get a receipt and can give that to their client to get reimbursed. But, they donāt just dump it. No, they have to separate and recycle like everyone else. So, not only does Slough get paid for trade waste, they sell the tipped material for profit AND their fly-tipped rate is very low. Which means they save money too on the collection and disposal of fly-tipped waste. Itās a win-win-win. Because they provide the amenity for genuine builders, chippies, tilers, sparkys, plumbers, plasterers to use.
But Devon refuse to listen. Refuse to act. Refuse to help.
And so people take the law into their own hands under cover of darkness. We all pay the price of this rural blight and nuisance because the County Council is too insular, wooden and set in its ways to try a different approach. Theyāve been asked multiple times, but they do NOTHING.
But, funnily enough, you donāt see the hopeful Tory candidate having a pop at the Tory run County Council. Strange huh?
Itās almost like they know that the problem is close to home, but they dare not rock the boat. The final photo also reveals that Government cuts (yes, a Tory government) are at the core of why local authorities down the line are struggling to cope).
The Government has said it is continuing to engage with Birmingham City Council amid reports that Michael Gove is set to announce plans to appoint commissioners to take over the day-to-day running of the authority.
Reports have also suggested that the council, which issued a Section 114 notice on September 5, effectively declaring it was bankrupt, may be forced to sell off assets, including its stake in Birmingham Airport.
The issuing of the notice, because the council will not be able to balance its budget in the next financial year, bans all new spending with the exception of āprotecting vulnerable people, statutory services and pre-existing commitmentsā.
It is believed an announcement could be made by the Government as soon as Tuesday.
In a statement, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) said: āWe continue to engage regularly with Birmingham City Council, as we have done in recent months, over the pressures it faces, including around its equal pay liability, and have expressed serious concern over its governance arrangements.
āWe have requested written assurances from the leader of the council that any decision regarding the councilās issues over equal pay represents the best value for taxpayersā money.ā
National and local newspaper reports have suggested the flagship Library of Birmingham, the cityās Council House, the nearby Museum and Art Gallery, Aston Hall, and the Sarehole Mill Museum are all at risk of being sold off.
Speaking at the weekend, the leader of the Labour-run council, John Cotton, said he had met Mr Gove to discuss support for the council.
Mr Cotton told the BBCās Politics Midlands programme: āIt is clear we are facing a number of challenges in Birmingham so I would like to start by offering an apology on behalf of Birmingham City Council to the people of the city.
āI am apologising for the impact we know this has on citizens.
āWe are having to review all of our council activity and look at where we make our spend, but my priority is that we continue focus on frontline service delivery, the things that matter most to the people of this city.ā
The council has been grappling with an equal pay liability which has grown over several years.
It is now estimated to stand at around Ā£1 billion and is increasing by millions of pounds per month.
It is also facing an in-year financial gap in its budget which is currently in the region of Ā£87 million, and is having to spend around Ā£100 million on fixing errors in the implementation of a new IT system.
Birmingham City Council declined to comment on the reports.
The number of under-18s on the waiting list for paediatric care in England has soared to 423,500, the highest on record. Of those, 23,396 have been forced to wait over a year for their appointment.
Delays facing children and young people are now so common that Dr Jeanette Dickson, the chair of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the body representing all UK doctors professionally, warned that children are āthe forgotten casualties of the NHSās waiting list crisisā.
Fewer than three-fifths (57%) of children are now seen within 18 weeks, even though NHS treatment targets say that 92% should be. The number on the waiting list has jumped by 52% since 2021.
āAs a paediatrician, Iāve seen first hand the damaging impact that long waiting times have on children, on their education and overall wellbeing, and of course on their families,ā said Dr Camilla Kingdon, the president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH).
The figures came from the RCPCHās analysis of official performance data recently published by NHS England.
The health of some children was deteriorating while they languished on the waiting list because their illness and age meant they needed to have their treatment fast, Kingdon added. āMany treatments and interventions must be administered within specific age or developmental stages. No one wants to wait for treatment, but childrenās care is frequently time-critical.ā
She cited the example of children with serious hearing problems being harmed as a result of being forced to wait to have surgery to receive cochlear implants. āItās critical for language development to get them in around a year of age,ā she said.
āWaiting lists for radiology ā because you usually need a general anaesthetic for good-quality pictures ā mean that the pre-op work up is often delayed for months, plus surgery can be delayed by 10 to 12 months. So instead of doing it at 10 months of age, itās done at 18-20 months. Thatās a massive difference developmentally in terms of speech and language development.ā
Under-18s were also facing long delays for community-based services, not just hospital care, added Kingdon, a consultant paediatrician in London. āI had a baby with an evolving cerebral palsy who desperately needed a special occupational therapy chair. This was a bright little boy of eight months who had every potential of making very good progress.
āBecause he [was in] a neighbouring borough with very long therapy waiting lists, there was a six-month delay for getting the chair. Six monthsā delay when youāre eight months old and wanting to sit but needing the extra support is an absolute disaster.ā
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: āCutting waiting lists is one of the governmentās top five priorities and despite disruption from strikes, we have virtually eliminated 18-month waits and are taking immediate action to bring down long waits.
āWe are improving support for children, young people, and their families by providing around Ā£300m to fund a three-year Family Hubs and Start for Life programme, in 75 local authorities in England, and they are already making a difference by bringing together services and support for families with babies and children of all ages.ā
Dickson and Kingdon voiced their fears as the academy published a new report into childrenās health that criticised the government for ignoring young peopleās needs when devising key health policies.
āAll medical Royal College leaders are genuinely horrified at the current lack of emphasis on the health of children and young people. Itās as if they donāt exist,ā said Dickson.
The report highlights the governmentās controversial decision to publish a strategy covering a large number of major conditions, instead of having specific plans for each one. Although the strategy will replace several key child health plans, it mainly focuses on adult health.
The academy also criticises ministers for abandoning plans to tackle obesity, despite the growing number of school-age children who are dangerously overweight, and also for delaying publication of a vaccination strategy, even though take-up has declined across 13 of the 14 routine childhood vaccinations.
The report urges Rishi Sunak to create a cabinet-level minister for children and young people, offer free school meals to all primary school pupils, ramp up vaccination efforts, and expand mental health services for under-18s as part of a renewed drive to improve child health and prevent illness.
Around 83% of Devon’s beaches could potentially be dangerous to swim in after 28 of them triggered a “sewage pollution alert” and 11 others have been handed a “pollution risk forecast or incident alert”. This is according to Surfers Against Sewage (SAS), who monitor water quality across 47 beaches in the county.
According to SAS, a pollution alert means “storm sewage has been discharged from a sewer overflow in this location within the past 48 hours”. Meanwhile, a “pollution risk forecast or incident alert” means there is potential for sewage to be in the area.
Beaches on both the south and north side of Devon are affected, including tourist hot spots Torquay, Salcombe and Exmouth. The main contributing factor to polluted beaches is urban runoff, which sees fertilizers, pesticides, oil, and untreated human and animal waste all entering waterways, such as rivers.
These harmful contaminants then eventually end up at our beaches. The contaminated water largely remains on the surface. This can make it dangerous to enter the water. According to Surf Today, some experts even suggest waiting 72 hours before entering the sea again after it rains.
Swallowing water that could be contaminated with fecal matter could lead to gastroenteritis, hepatitis, giardiasis, skin rashes, amoebic dysentery, nose, ear, and throat problems, pink eye, and other respiratory illnesses. Symptoms to look out for include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, cramps, inflamed stomach and intestines.
Devon beaches with pollution alerts or pollution forecasts
Coastal towns dominate league table for centenarians – as numbers in England and Wales top 13,900…
The number of centenarians in England and Wales has reached a new record high of nearly 14,000, with a striking map showing how coastal areas dominate the long life hotspots.
Some 13,924 had reached the milestone by the time of the 2021 census, up a quarter on a decade ago and a staggering increase from just 110 when the survey was conducted in 1921.
The oldest person was aged 112, according to the analysis released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
And the figures suggested that those with longer lifespans tend to be by the sea, with East Devon, Arun, the New Forest and North Norfolk among the places with the most centenarians relative to their populations.
Nine of the top 10 on that metric were in coastal areas.
Some 13,924 people in England and Wales had reached age 100 by the time of the 2021 census, a staggering increase from just 110 when the survey was conducted in 1921.
Birmingham had the highest number of centenarians overall at 193, but was a long way down the table relative to population.
Six of the eight local authorities with fewer than 10 centenarians per 100,000 population were London boroughs, while Knowsley and Crawley both had nine.
The census details underline the huge increases in life expectancy during the 20th Century, with numbers making it to 100 increasing sharply from the 1960s.
The growth has been attributed to advances in healthcare for the elderly, as well as public health measures improving air quality and working conditions.
At the time of the latest survey in 2021 there were 11,288 women and 2,636 men aged at least 100, reflecting the long-standing position that women tend to live longer.
Their average age was 101 years, one month and 2 weeks.
Around the time of birth of these centenarians in 1921, life expectancy stood at 67.9 years for females and 61.2 years for males.
That meant they had outlived their anticipated lifespans by three or four decades, and experienced momentous events including women getting the vote, the Second World War, the introduction of the NHS and advent of television.
Strikingly, a quarter of the centenarians reported having good or very good health, and almost a third did not have a disability. ā¦.
East Devon Watch 