Diane Abbott’s Labour suspension should be resolved ‘as swiftly as possible’, says minister – UK politics dwell

The variety of severe air pollution incidents attributable to water companies throughout England rose by 60% in 2024 in contrast with the earlier yr, the Setting Company stated.

The watchdog revealed constantly poor efficiency from all 9 water and sewerage companies within the nation regardless of expectations for incidents to lower, PA reported.

The Setting Company assesses all air pollution incidents from water companies into classes, with class 1 (main) and class 2 (important) being probably the most severe, which might have a extremely adverse affect on wildlife, ecosystems and swimmers.

Final yr, 75 class 1 and a pair of incidents had been recorded, up from 47 severe incidents the earlier yr.

Three water companies – Thames Water, Southern Water and Yorkshire Water – had been answerable for 81% of the intense incidents, based on its findings.

Thames Water was answerable for 33, Southern Water for 15 and Yorkshire Water for 13.

In the meantime, simply two firms – Northumbrian Water and Wessex Water – had no severe incidents final yr, assembly the Setting Companies expectations to see a development to zero air pollution incidents by 2025.

General, the watchdog stated all air pollution incidents elevated by 29% with water firms recording 2,801, up from 2,174 in 2023.

Setting secretary Steve Reed referred to as the figures “disgraceful” and a “stark reminder” of how underinvestment and weak regulation have led to sewage polluting England’s waterways.

“In just one year, this new government has banned unfair bonuses for polluting water bosses, brought in jail sentences for pollution, and secured £104 billion to upgrade crumbling sewage pipes – one of the biggest infrastructure investments in history,” he stated.

“Next week the Independent Water Commission will recommend changes to strengthen the rules so we can clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.”

HS2 has incurred “significant cost” as a result of public our bodies have launched 9 authorized challenges in opposition to it, transport secretary Heidi Alexander stated.

The Cupboard minister famous that in “almost all cases”, the courts have present in favour of the high-speed rail scheme between London and Birmingham.

HS2 Ltd was given the facility to assemble the railway when the Excessive Pace Rail (London – West Midlands) Act acquired royal assent in February 2017.

The newest of the 9 authorized challenges the undertaking has confronted from different public our bodies since then was launched by North Warwickshire Borough Council in relation to the extension of the under-construction Bromford Tunnel.

In Might, the Excessive Court docket rejected the council’s bid for a judicial evaluation.

Since royal assent was obtained, there have additionally been 25 appeals referring to the HS2 planning regime.

John Swinney has pledged to “turn the heat up” on the UK authorities to permit a second independence referendum as a part of his newest technique to attain separation.

Writing within the Nationwide newspaper on Friday, the Scottish first minister pledged to extend help for Scotland leaving the UK and confused the significance of supporters of independence backing the SNP at subsequent yr’s Holyrood election.

Because the first vote in 2014, successive UK governments have repeatedly turned down requires a second referendum, with the UK Supreme Court docket ruling in 2022 that solely Westminster can permit one other ballot, PA reported.

The primary minister pledged to mobilise help across the calling of one other vote, although prime minister Keir Starmer is extraordinarily unlikely to again down.

The primary level of the three-part plan outlined by Swinney – who has been feeling some stress for the reason that SNP misplaced in June the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election to up his push for independence – focuses on rising help for leaving the UK.

“First, it will be a campaign designed to build the highest levels of support possible for independence as the best future for Scotland,” he wrote.

“I will be saying to those who voted Yes in 2014, and who have become independence supporters in the years since, that what they believed in then is just as valid today.

“They saw that Britain was fundamentally broken, that Westminster couldn’t deliver on their dreams and aspirations, and what they saw has come to pass. And now it is time to do something about it.

“But I will also be urging people who were not persuaded of the merits of independence in 2014 to see the state of Britain today and take a different view.”

The previous defence secretary Grant Shapps has defended using an unprecedented superinjunction to suppress a knowledge breach that led to the UK authorities relocating 15,000 Afghans.

The Afghanistan Response Route (ARR) was created in haste after it emerged that private details about 18,700 Afghans who had utilized to return to the UK had been leaked in error by a British defence official in early 2022.

It has additionally emerged that particulars of members of the SAS and MI6 had been amongst greater than 100 Britons named within the database.

Talking on BBC Radio 4’s In the present day programme, Shapps, who was defence secretary from 31 August 2023 to five July 2024, stated his focus after the leak was on “sorting out the mess and saving lives”.

The previous minister, who was in put up whereas the superinjunction was imposed on the incident, recommended he believed it ought to stay in place as a result of he thought there was a danger of these named being murdered if it didn’t. The superinjunction lapsed on Tuesday, when a excessive court docket choose concluded the menace to the 18,700 Afghans was not very important.

Information divulged as a part of the Afghan leak may very well be utilized by “states who want to do us harm”, the chairman of the Intelligence and Safety Committee (ISC) has stated.

Talking to BBC Radio Scotland, Lord Beamish lamented that nobody “saw fit” to inform the committee in regards to the leak and the following superinjunction which blocked it being reported.

He added: “That’s the most concerning point, that other states who want to do us harm, or entities, could use that, not just to target these individuals, but they could also use it as a way of seeing other operations that our security services are involved in.”

The committee has demanded safety assessments on the problem from the federal government.

There are “serious constitutional issues” raised by the Afghan information leak, the chairman of the Intelligence and Safety Committee (ISC) has stated.

Talking on BBC Radio Scotland on Friday, Lord Beamish stated the ISC was not knowledgeable of the breach, regardless of the names of greater than 100 Britons being divulged – together with spies and SAS operators.

“You’ve got to understand how our committee got its powers in the first place,” he stated.

“The Justice and Security Act 2013 introduced closed hearings into court for intelligence cases – the quid pro quo for that was to give the ISC the power to reassure, to be able to see the information legally, to reassure the public and Parliament that there was public scrutiny of the security services.

“Someone in government chose just to ignore that and go down the legal route, so I think there are serious constitutional issues here.”

Grant Shapps stated he supported the publication of a defence evaluation which fashioned the idea of the superinjunction over the Afghan information leak and he was “surprised” the gagging order had remained in place “so long”.

Requested whether or not he backed calls from the Intelligence and Safety Committee for the report back to be launched, the previous defence secretary instructed BBC Radio 4’s In the present day programme: “Yes I would.

“And secondly, this injunction, the superinjunction, was in place for longer than I was defence secretary, right?

“So it’s been in place a lot longer under the current government than it was under us, and I’m surprised it’s lasted quite so long.

“My expectation was, as the risks start to lessen over time and people are removed from the theatre, from Afghanistan, and measures are taken to protect the Brits on the list… I’d thought that it was probably going to come to an end last summer, the autumn perhaps at maximum.”

He insisted he would “do the same thing all over again” to guard Afghans and Brits concerned and stated he thinks “the public understands that there are times where you simply have to act in the most maximalist way in order to stop people from being murdered and executed, and that is, quite simply, what properly happened in this case.”

He added: “Now, as I said, I don’t think it should have carried on as long as it had… those questions are for others.”

“I came in, I dealt with it and as a result I think that we saved lives,” Shapps stated.

Grant Shapps stated his focus as defence secretary following the Afghan information leak was on “sorting out the mess and saving lives”.

The previous minister, who was in put up whereas a superinjunction was imposed on the incident, recommended he believed it ought to stay in place as a result of he thought there was a danger of these named being murdered if it didn’t.

The injunction was sought by Shapps’ predecessor, Ben Wallace, and a superinjunction was as a substitute put in place when Shapps took over the temporary.

Talking to BBC Radio 4’s In the present day programme, he stated “it was appalling to learn about this and my focus was on two things… one, sorting out the mess and saving lives, and two, making sure that systems were in place which frankly should have always been in place to make sure this sort of sensitive information could never be sent on”.

“The judge himself decided it should be a superinjunction… the injunction had been applied for by my predecessor, quite rightly, in my view, it came into place just as I came into office,” he stated. “And it is the case that I thought that once the superinjunction was in place, it should remain as a superinjunction.

“And here’s why, the problem with this list and all of the uncertainty surrounding it, and one of the reasons why I haven’t come out in the initial couple days of this to speak about it was that obviously, with the new information that’s now been released about the fact that there were British Special Forces and secret services on that list, it seemed to me that if there was any doubt at all, that erring on the side of extreme caution, a superinjunction meant that that was entirely justified.

“And I’ll tell you what, anybody sat behind the desk that I was sat in as defence secretary and faced with the choice of whether that list would get out and people would be pursued, murdered and executed as a result of it, or doing something to try and save those lives, I’d much rather now be in this interview explaining why a superinjunction was required, than being in this interview explaining why I failed to act and people were murdered.”

Good morning and welcome to our protection of UK politics. We’re now in recess however we’ll nonetheless be bringing you all of the information from throughout the nation together with continued response to the suspension of Diane Abbott.

This morning, a minister has denied the veteran MP’s assertion that “it is obvious this Labour leadership wants me out”.

Exchequer secretary to the Treasury James Murray instructed Instances Radio:

That’s completely not the case.

What’s occurred is Diane has made some feedback which come on the again of earlier feedback which she made and for which she apologised a while in the past.

He added that there was an inner investigation and “we now need to let this process play out” so it may be resolved “as swiftly as possible”.

Abbott now faces an investigation over her defence of remarks greater than two years in the past that folks of color skilled racism “all their lives”, which was totally different from the “prejudice” skilled by Jewish folks, Irish folks and Travellers.

In a press release to Newsnight on Thursday night, Abbott stated: “It is obvious this Labour leadership wants me out. My comments in the interview … were factually correct, as any fair-minded person would accept.”

Within the interview with the BBC earlier on Thursday, Abbott, the primary black lady elected to parliament, had stated: “Clearly, there must be a difference between racism which is about colour and other types of racism because you can see a Traveller or a Jewish person walking down the street, you don’t know.

“I just think that it’s silly to try and claim that racism which is about skin colour is the same as other types of racism. I don’t know why people would say that.”

In different information: