Brazil's military is supposed to safeguard democracy – yet its threat of intervention hangs over politics

THE CONVERSATION

Mon, 16 January 2023

The sacking of the three buildings comprising the seat of government in Brasilia on January 8 was a reminder of an unresolved tension in the heart of the Brazilian state: the role of the armed forces.

As in many other democracies, Brazil’s armed forces are supposed to be apolitical servants of the executive branch and subordinate to their civilian commander-in-chief, the president. But the Brazilian officer corps sometimes behaves and speaks as the saviour of the nation. It claims to be the “moderating power”, a role some argue is granted to them by article 142 of the 1988 constitution, which describes the military as the defender of “law and order”.

This belief is shared by a significant portion of the population – and the carnage of January 8 was the physical manifestation of the idea. A mob attacked the buildings housing of the main branches of government while calling for the armed forces to take power.

Some sort of coup attempt had been feared ever since the former president, Jair Bolsonaro, was ousted in a tight election in November last year by Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who was previously president between 2003 and 2010. Bolsonaro’s supporters believed that their leader could induce the army to provide the muscle in an attempt to put Bolsonaro back into power and overturn the 2022 election. But that did not happen. It now appears that the armed forces used Bolsonaro more cleverly than he used them.

Under Bolsonaro, the military held more than 6,000 jobs in the federal bureaucracy. It was able to obtain an exemption from pension reform, symbolising its privileged position within the state.

It achieved de facto control over the ministry of defence and stifled the creation of a cadre of civilian experts in defence and security. And it won generous budgets and big weapons programmes.

After Bolsonaro lost the election, the armed forces stood aside as Bolsonaro’s followers established camps outside military barracks around the country. And their response to the crowds storming the government buildings on January 8 has been criticised as slow and, in some cases, inadequate.

Too big for their boots

But before we congratulate the armed forces for not participating in a coup d’etat, it is important to recognise how their self-aggrandising vision of their political mission remains a problem for Brazilian democracy.

Examples of the expression of this vision abound. One occurred recently. On December 30 2022 Bolsonaro left Brasilia for Florida in the US without having conceded the election. On the contrary, he repeated his claims the election had been fraudulent and made it clear he wouldn’t participate in Lula’s inauguration ceremony, a traditional role for outgoing presidents in Brazil.

Bolsonaro’s departure from the country meant that Vice President Hamilton Mourao, a retired army general, became the acting president. And it was in this capacity that he gave a televised address to the nation on December 31 2022, saying that leaders who should have “pacified and united the nation around a project for the country … allowed silence or an inopportune and deleterious protagonism to create a climate of chaos and social disaggregation and in an irresponsible manner left the armed forces of all Brazilians to pay the bill”.

His words were interpreted as a criticism of the supreme court and the Brazilian congress – but also of his own former president: Bolsonaro himself.

Incendiary talk

At this point thousands of protesters were encamped outside army bases around the country, including hundreds located outside a base in Brasilia.

While Mourao’s words were not well received by most of these protesters, they set up a dangerous dichotomy. On one side were the opportunistic, irresponsible, corrupt, self-serving and arrogant bosses in the supreme court, congress and much of the executive branch – politicians in it for themselves.

On the other side were the armed forces, older than the nation itself and moved by the values of hierarchy, discipline, order and love of country and the common good.

The protesters had been told that the election had been stolen. They had been told that the supreme court’s actions – such as the annulment of Lula’s conviction and the interventions against the spreading of “fake news” on social media during the election campaign – were illegitimate and that Lula should be in prison.

And so the protesters’ hopes became vested in the men in uniform who could intervene, as they had on so many other occasions in the nation’s history, including the founding of the republic in 1889, triggered by a military coup which ousted Emperor Pedro II.

This vision of army guardianship of Brazil, which is supported by so many people – despite its involvement in establishing the 21-year military dictatorship after the 1964 coup – is deeply rooted in the country. Brazil’s transition from democracy in the mid-1980s was unlike those of some of its neighbours, which also threw off rule by the generals in the same period.

In Argentina and Chile, for example, the return to a democratic regime was accompanied by transitional justice, a reckoning with the past and a recognition that the armed forces had strayed from their constitutional mission.

This did not happen during Brazil’s transition, and later, limited attempts at accountability, such as the Truth Commission of 2012-2014, were strongly rejected by the military. But, regardless of the reasons for its existence, the notion that the Brazilian military is a moderating power, and should be called in as the guarantor of Brazilian politics whenever there is a crisis, is alive and well with large sections of the population.

Important reforms aimed at strengthening civilian control over the military are now being proposed, and their consideration will generate vigorous debates. But the widespread belief that the armed forces are guardians of the nation is likely to remain alive long after Bolsonaro has faded into history.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


Anthony Pereira, Director of the Kimberly Green Latin American and Caribbean Center at Florida International University and a Visiting Professor in the School of Global Affairs, King's College London

Anthony Pereira received funding from the British Academy and the Economic and Social Research Council in the past. He is an associate fellow at Canning House.

UK

Court of Appeal to reconsider ruling that Rwanda policy to deport asylum seekers is lawful

Lizzie Dearden
Mon, 16 January 2023 

Court of Appeal to reconsider ruling that Rwanda policy to deport asylum seekers is lawful

Asylum seekers and a charity have been granted permission to appeal the High Court’s finding that the Rwanda asylum deal is lawful.

In December, judges found that the overall policy was legal but quashed the Home Office’s decisions to deport eight people selected for transfer to Kigali.

Suella Braverman hailed the ruling as a victory, claiming it “thoroughly vindicates the Rwanda partnership” and restating her commitment to starting flights to Kigali.

But on Monday, the same judges granted permission for the claimants to challenge their finding that the Rwanda policy was lawful as a whole.

The Court of Appeal will consider arguments including whether the plan amounts to an unlawful penalty under the Refugee Convention, if asylum seekers are given fair opportunity to resist deportation and whether commitments on their treatment made by the Rwandan government can be relied upon.

No date has been set for the appeal hearing and any ruling is expected to take several months, and may itself be appealed to the Supreme Court, further delaying the possibility of any deportation flights taking off.

Lord Justice Lewis told the High Court that some of the issues raised “concern the lawfulness of the arrangement” and have a significant impact on the individual claimants, and all other asylum seekers who may be selected for deportation.

The claimants argued that judges made a mistake in previously deciding that written assurances given by the Rwandan government “provided sufficient guarantees” to protect asylum seekers from future refoulement to countries where they would face harm, or the risk of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.

The contested documents, including the memorandum of understanding signed by Priti Patel, were described in December’s ruling as “an important underpinning for a conclusion that Rwanda is a safe third country”.

Individual claimants and Asylum Aid were granted permission to appeal, while the PCS union, Detention Action and Care4Calais charities were ruled to have no legal standing to continue fighting the case.

Carolin Ott, a solicitor representing Asylum Aid, said: “We look forward to presenting our client’s case that the procedure adopted by the Home Office to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is unfair and consequently unlawful.”

Judges found in their initial ruling that the home secretary was “entitled to rely on the assurances” given because of previous aid payments to Rwanda and “significant financial assistance” for the new scheme.

The claimants are also to challenge findings that being deported to the country is not an unlawful penalty under the terms of the Refugee Convention.

Lawyers representing the UN Refugee Agency previously told the High Court that the policy was a penalty because it “exposes a category of asylum seekers to less favourable asylum procedures than would otherwise be provided, based on their allegedly illicit mode of arrival”.

Government documents revealed as part of the legal battle showed that consideration of Rwanda for a “migration partnership” had started by September 2020.

Rwanda was initially “ruled out” of consideration for an asylum deal by the Foreign Office, but put back on the list of potential countries after “particular interest” was shown by Boris Johnson and Ms Patel.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “Our ground-breaking migration partnership will relocate people who come to the UK through dangerous and illegal routes to Rwanda, where they will be supported to build a new life. This will disrupt the criminal people smuggling gangs who sell lies and put lives at risk.

“The court previously upheld that this policy is lawful and that it complies with the Refugee Convention, and we stand ready to defend this policy at any appeal hearings.”

UK

Minister says there were ‘many things’ Government did not get right in pandemic

Nick Lester, Chief Lords Reporter
Mon, 16 January 2023 


A health minister said there are “many things” the Government did not get right during the coronavirus pandemic, highlighting the controversial procurement of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the test and trace system.

But while acknowledging there were “lessons to learn” from the Covid-19 crisis, Lord Markham also pointed to successes such as the vaccine rollout and stressed the need for “balance”.

There has been strong criticism of the Government over the handling of PPE contracts, which cost billions of pounds, and the quality of many items provided.

It is one of the areas set to be examined by the coronavirus inquiry led by Baroness Heather Hallett.

Raising the issue during a question on the readiness of the UK to deal with any future pandemic, the Bishop of Carlisle, the Rt Rev James Newcome, said: “Can the minister tell us whether the Government have yet put in place a revised system to purchase PPE during a pandemic?”

Lord Markham said: “PPE is an example of where we all agree that we could have done better, to say the least.”

He added: “Yes, we can learn a lot about PPE. At the same time, we did buy 35 billion items, 97% of which worked very well. It is important that we keep all this in context. We got 97% of things right.”

Liberal Democrat Lord Allan of Hallam said: “For many people, the most effective tools for contact tracing during the pandemic were messaging services such as WhatsApp as family and friends kept each other informed about test results and infections.

“But you were often left in the absurd position of someone calling from the official track and trace system about a contact who had let you know about their infection several days earlier, including, sometimes, people who lived in your own home.

“Can the minister assure the House that the Government’s plans for future pandemics will look at how best to work with these local, informal, peer-to-peer networks rather than think that the solution always lies in centralised, expensive systems?”

Lord Markham said: “I agree. There are many examples of where centrally run initiatives did not work so well, test and trace being one. That is what the inquiry is all about.

“There are many examples of things that worked very well, such as our vaccine preparation and our creating the first test for Covid, through the PCR process. There are many lessons to learn, including from many of these centrally run initiatives.”

The minister told peers: “There were many things that we did not get right. The whole reason that we set up the UK Health Security Agency was because we were not happy with the response in some areas.

“That agency was set up with a team of experts to make sure that, learning from those lessons, we are properly prepared for all eventualities next time around.

“There are lessons to learn but, as the Covid inquiry will show, there were also many things that we did right. It is important that we have that balance.”

The Guardian view on wealth taxes: UK needs one on millionaires and billionaires

Editorial
Mon, 16 January 2023 

A COUPLE OF BRIT BILLIONAIRES

Photograph: Tolga Akmen/EPA

During the pandemic, the rich saw their ranks swell as stock markets soared – even as low-income workers returned to work and blue collar jobs were hollowed out. The upshot is that for the first time in three decades, extreme poverty and extreme wealth across the world have gone up at the same time. As the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum opens in Davos, Oxfam has shown that the gaps are yawning wider: the four richest Britons now have more wealth than 20 million compatriots.

This is underlined by the richest ever prime minister. Rishi Sunak is a multimillionaire, but the real money is inherited. His family’s £700m fortune rests on the 1% shareholding that Mr Sunak’s wife, Akshata Murty, holds in her father’s IT firm Infosys. This has almost tripled in value since March 2020 and entitled her, reportedly, to £6.4m in dividend payments last year. Mr Sunak says he has good intentions. But he and most voters live on different planets. His rise symbolises how political influence is being concentrated in the super-rich. Sensibly, he is skipping Davos, where the wealthy and powerful meet.

Official UK statistics hide the true extent of polarisation. Figures for income inequality do not include capital gains, which make the rich considerable sums and attract lower rates of tax. While a comfortably off voter might think about this in terms of second-home sales, these were dwarfed by the sums made from selling or closing down businesses. The economists Arun Advani and Andy Summers found that by including capital gains with income, the average remuneration of the top 0.01% rose from £4.9m to £8.4m in 2017-18. They also found that the richest 5,000 people’s share of total UK “wages” was 3.6% rather than the 2.2% recorded – implying that income inequality is much higher than previously thought.

The disproportionate gains justify new levies on riches. Britain has wealth taxes. But they don’t work very well. Inheritance tax is avoided to such an extent that the effective average tax rate drops from a peak of 20% on estates worth £2m to 10% for estates worth more than £10m. In 2020, the Wealth Tax Commission costed a one-off wealth tax. Levied at 1% above an individual’s net wealth of £10m, it would raise about £43bn from 22,000 wealthy people.

The cash could, without increasing the budget deficit, be used to ease the intensifying squeeze on ordinary incomes and make up for NHS underfunding. In 2007, the average UK household was 8% worse off than its European peers. It is now a fifth poorer. Inequality-reducing redistribution increases overall wellbeing. Other comparable nations are acting. A new temporary solidarity tax in Spain is to be charged on fortunes above €3m (£2.7m).

Mr Sunak, unfortunately, has said he opposes such levies. A bolder prime minister would claim the moral high ground by paying a solidarity tax. But Mr Sunak is not under pressure from Sir Keir Starmer on this issue. The Labour leader is going to Davos and says his party won’t be levying a wealth tax, signalling a lack of focus on the causes of low growth and high inequality.

Britain has become a place where the rich are extraordinarily rich and the poor are very poor. It needs to be one where the rich are well off, but the poor can also enjoy a decent standard of living. The country can do better, but this will require a clear-headed analysis and bravery that have so far been lacking in political debates.

UK

SNP Flynn accuses Tories of turning Indyref2 debate into 'democratic crisis'

Kathleen Nutt
Mon, 16 January 2023 

Stephen Flynn at Prime Minister's Questions. Photo PA. (Image: PA)

THE SNP's leader at Westminster will today accuse the Conservatives of turning the constitutional debate into a “full blown crisis of democracy”.

Stephen Flynn will speak at the Institute for Government’s conference urging opponents of a second independence referendum to avoid a “just say ‘No’ to democracy strategy”.

His party is to hold a special conference in March where members will choose the exact offering to Scottish voters at the next election and whether to back the First Minister's plan to use it as a de facto independence referendum.

Nicola Sturgeon has said she wants to fight the next general election on the single issue of independence, while an alternative option would be to use the next Scottish Parliament election in 2026 for this purpose.

The wording of the party's draft resolution, drawn up last weekend by the party's national executive committee, and which will go before SNP members in March also includes the possibility using the next Westminster poll not as a de facto independence referendum but to gain a new mandate for an agreed vote, as the SNP have done in previous elections since the Brexit vote in 2016.

Mr Flynn, who became the party’s Westminster group leader in December, will give a keynote speech at the Institute’s conference in London.

He will say: “In a functioning democracy, the UK Government would have accepted that democratic vote by the people of Scotland and agreed to a referendum.

“Instead, Westminster has turned the UK constitutional debate into a full blown crisis of democracy.”

The Aberdeen South MP will also criticise Labour for opposing a second independence referendum.

He will continue: “Having campaigned for No in 2014, it appears the word No is literally all the Westminster parties have left.

“But a Just Say No to democracy’ strategy is doomed to fail. Not only is it driving up support for independence, but it’s fatally undermining any remaining case for Westminster control.

“No one is asking Westminster to say Yes to independence but moderate unionists know they need to release themselves from the dead end of denying democracy – or they will do more to make the case for independence than any Scottish Government could ever do.”

Scottish Conservative shadow constitution secretary Donald Cameron MSP hit back and said: “The SNP have shunned democracy ever since Scots voted to keep the UK together in 2014.

“Stephen Flynn’s comments are an insult to the millions of Scots who chose to remain as part of the UK – in what Nationalists claimed would be a ‘once in a generation’ vote.

“Yet Stephen Flynn and his colleagues insist on ignoring this and then playing the grievance card.

“Amid the current global cost of living crisis and with Scotland’s NHS on its knees, the SNP’s obsession with pushing for independence is the wrong priority at the worst possible time.

“Rather than stirring up division with this self-serving nonsense, the SNP should concentrate on the issues that really matter to Scottish people.”

Mr Flynn said on Sunday using the next general election as a de facto independence referendum is the "best option" for his party in the absence of an agreed referendum.

Last year, following his election as SNP Westminster leader, he appeared to raise doubts about the plan saying there were a number of options.

Polling expert Mark Diffley said at the weekend that most recent polls have shown a small majority in favour of independence with the "big picture" suggesting the country was split around 50-50 for either side.

However, he added that polls have have also shown that most voters think using the next GE as a de facto referendum is not a good idea.

"The issue..of the de facto referendum and which election, whether it's a general election or a Holyrood election that the party chooses, is really important," he said.

"Because the majority of voters don't think using the next general election as the de facto referendum is a good idea. So in terms of the next steps towards a referendum or how you fight the next election this is going to be a really really important decision the party has to make."

Scottish Labour was approached for comment.

SCOTLAND

'Full-frontal attack': Sturgeon slams decision to block gender recognition reforms

Katrine Bussey
Mon, 16 January 2023 

'Full-frontal attack': Sturgeon slams decision to block gender recognition reforms (Image: Newsquest)

The UK Government is to block controversial reforms of the gender recognition process passed by Holyrood, in a move branded by Nicola Sturgeon as a “full-frontal attack” on the Scottish Parliament.

She hit out after Scottish Secretary Alister Jack confirmed he would make an order under Section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998.

It is the first time the UK Government has sought such an order, which will now prevent the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from going forward for royal assent, and the move will only further increase tension between the Scottish and UK governments.

Announcing his decision Mr Jack said: “After thorough and careful consideration of all the relevant advice and the policy implications, I am concerned that this legislation would have an adverse impact on the operation of Great Britain-wide equalities legislation.”

He insisted this was the “necessary and correct course of action”.

But the Scottish First Minister in response tweeted: “This is a full-frontal attack on our democratically elected Scottish Parliament and its ability to make its own decisions on devolved matters.”

She pledged the Scottish Government would “defend the legislation and stand up for Scotland’s Parliament”.

She added: “If this Westminster veto succeeds, it will be first of many.”

Her comments came after Mr Jack had insisted the changes in the Scottish legislation could have an “adverse impact” on existing equalities laws.

But his decision comes just hours after Ms Sturgeon claimed if the UK Government moved to block the legislation it would be “unconscionable and indefensible and really quite disgraceful”.

She said she would “robustly and rigorously and with a very, very high degree of confidence” defend the Bill, which was passed by the Scottish Parliament last month.

The legislation sets out to simplify the process of obtaining a Gender Recognition certificate, and for the first time allows transgender people to obtain such a document without the need for a medical diagnosis.

It would also cut the time they have to live in their acquired gender before applying for a certificate, and reduce the age at which an application can be made to 16 with Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer saying recently he was concerned about this aspect of the legislation.

Mr Jack, who has written to both Ms Sturgeon and Holyrood’s Presiding Officer Alison Johnstone about the matter, insisted that “transgender people who are going through the process to change their legal sex deserve our respect, support and understanding”.

He stated: “My decision today is about the legislation’s consequences for the operation of GB-wide equalities protections and other reserved matters.

“I have not taken this decision lightly.

“The Bill would have a significant impact on, amongst other things, GB-wide equalities matters in Scotland, England and Wales.

“I have concluded, therefore, that this is the necessary and correct course of action.”

He said if Holyrood ministers were to bring brought an amended Bill back for reconsideration, he would hope that the Scottish and UK governments could “work together to find a constructive way forward that both respects devolution and the operation of UK Parliament legislation”.

However, Ms Sturgeon had earlier insisted the UK Government would be “using trans people as a political weapon” should Westminster seek to block the legislation.

In a briefing on Monday, the Scottish First Minister claimed any such move would be an “outrage”.

“In my view, there are no grounds to challenge this legislation,” she said.

“It is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, it doesn’t affect the operation of the Equality Act and it was passed by an overwhelming majority of the Scottish Parliament after very lengthy and very intense scrutiny by MSPs of all parties represented in the Parliament.

“So if there is a decision to challenge, in my view, it will be quite simply a political decision and I think it will be using trans people, already one of the most vulnerable, stigmatised groups in our society, as a political weapon.

“And I think that will be unconscionable and indefensible and really quite disgraceful.”

The First Minister said the move to block the legislation would create a “very, very slippery slope indeed”, adding that it could “normalise” and “embolden” the UK Government to do the same in other areas.

“I think it is that serious.

“I think the import and significance of this would go beyond the particular subject matter of the legislation,” she said.

Addressing the Labour leader’s comments, the First Minister said: “Finally, on this issue of Keir Starmer, I start to wonder, and I suspect I am not the only one who starts to wonder, if there is anything Keir Starmer is willing to stand up and be counted on in the face of Tory attacks.

“I don’t think the UK needs a pale imitation of this Tory Government, it needs an alternative to this Tory Government.

“But, on this particular issue, this is legislation that was scrutinised and voted for by Keir Starmer’s own party in the Scottish Parliament, so if he backed any move by the Government to block this he would be showing utter contempt for his own Scottish party as well as the Scottish Parliament.”

Holyrood Social Justice Secretary Shona Robison said the UK Government’s move to block the Bill has made a dark day for trans rights.

In response to the announcement, Ms Robison said: “The use of Section 35 of the Scotland Act to stop the GRR Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent is an outrageous decision.

“This is a procedure that has never been used under nearly 25 years of devolution and is contrary to a Bill that was overwhelmingly passed by the Scottish Parliament by members of all parties.

“This is a dark day for trans rights and a dark day for democracy in the UK.

“As the First Minister said, this is a political decision that is more in keeping with UK Government’s contempt for devolution and the Scottish Parliament.”

What is Section 35 order? The UK 'nuclear option' to block gender recognition law

Hamish Morrison
Mon, 16 January 2023 

A trans rights activist speaks with a member of the Scottish Family Party outside Holyrood (Image: PA)

WESTMINSTER has chosen the “nuclear option” button by moving to block Scotland's gender reform law, in a move sure to trigger a major constitutional showdown between London and Edinburgh.

The UK Government has deployed a little-known weapon in its legal arsenal, under the Scotland Act, to block the Scottish Government’s gender recognition reforms, which MSPs passed overwhelmingly just before Christmas.

It has issued a Section 35 order – something that has never been done up until now.

What is a Section 35 order?

National readers will be familiar with a Section 30 order – the part of the Scotland Act which temporarily gives the Edinburgh parliament the power to pass laws on reserved matters, such as holding the 2014 independence referendum.

A Section 35 order allows the UK Government to block Scottish Parliament legislation under certain circumstances.

READ MORE: 'Outrage' if UK blocks Scotland's gender reforms from becoming law, says Nicola Sturgeon

It is a power afforded by the Scotland Act – the Westminster legislation which created the Scottish Parliament in 1998 – but it can only be used in limited circumstances.

It works by allowing the Scottish Secretary, a post currently held by Alister Jack (below), to stop Holyrood’s Presiding Officer (the Scottish equivalent of the Speaker) from referring the bill to the monarch for royal assent.

The National:
Royal assent is crucial for bills to become law. Any piece of proposed legislation that has passed all stages in the law-making process must undergo the formality of gaining royal assent – the monarch’s agreement to make the bill an act.

Under Section 35 the UK Government can legally intervene to block royal assent for a bill that a Secretary of State “has reasonable grounds to believe would be incompatible with any international obligations or the interests of defence or national security”.

The Government can also act if it believes a bill would change the law as “it applies to reserved matters”.

READ MORE: Blocking gender bill would be 'gift' to independence movement, says Tory MSP

In this case, ministers in London must have “reasonable grounds” to believe that any proposed legislation would have an “adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters”.

This means that a bill can be blocked by Westminster if the Scottish law was believed to be at risk of conflicting with UK law – even if the proposed legislation fell within the powers granted to Holyrood.

The bill specifically mentions its intentions to not modify the UK Equality Act of 2010 – meaning the UK Government will need to prove that they have concerns the Scottish bill will affect UK legislation.
Why is the Government using this power?

MSPs last month passed the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill by 86 votes to 39, approving reforms which would make it easier for trans people to change their gender on official documents by simplifying the process of obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC).

The National:
The bill will also allow 16 and 17-year-olds to apply for a GRC for the first time and would reduce the amount of time a person has to live in their new gender before they can be granted the document.

It will also remove the need for a medical diagnosis to get a GRC – something trans campaigners have long argued was humiliating and invasive.

READ MORE: Keir Starmer faces backlash for contradicting Scottish Labour on gender reform

The UK Government immediately raised concerns, claiming the bill could have ramifications for UK equality law and other pieces of UK-wide legislation.

Downing Street has also expressed concerns the bill could pose problems for single-sex spaces and that the proposed law would remove the checks and balances involved in gaining a GRC.

For its part, the Scottish Government has said it would have no impact on the exemptions or the wider Equality Act – which is reserved to Westminster.

In a statement issued on Monday evening, the Scottish Secretary said: "After thorough and careful consideration of all the relevant advice and the policy implications, I am concerned that this legislation would have an adverse impact on the operation of Great Britain-wide equalities legislation.

“Transgender people who are going through the process to change their legal sex deserve our respect, support and understanding. My decision today is about the legislation’s consequences for the operation of GB-wide equalities protections and other reserved matters.

“I have not taken this decision lightly. The Bill would have a significant impact on, amongst other things, GB-wide equalities matters in Scotland, England and Wales. I have concluded, therefore, that this is the necessary and correct course of action.

“If the Scottish Government chooses to bring an amended Bill back for reconsideration in the Scottish Parliament, I hope we can work together to find a constructive way forward that both respects devolution and the operation of UK Parliament legislation.
Why is Section 35 controversial?

The power has never been used before and to government critics it is an undemocratic intervention by London to override the decision of elected representatives in Edinburgh, effectively undermining devolution.

The move will unleash a constitutional war between Sunak’s government and the Scottish administration.

The National:
Tory MSP Jamie Greene (above), a supporter of the bill, said prior to Monday's announcement that the UK Government blocking the law would be a gift to the independence movement and the FM has said it would be an outrage.

What will the Scottish Government do if Section 35 is used?

The Scottish Government has said it will “vigorously” contest any attempt to block the bill from becoming law.

This would probably result in legal action against Sunak’s Government, leading to what could be another protracted court battle between Edinburgh and London.

LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall has called such an outcome a “nuclear option” which could turn a debate about transgender rights and gender recognition into a broader row over the devolution settlement.

Starmer showing 'utter contempt' for Labour MSPs over gender reforms

David Bol
Mon, 16 January 2023 

Keir Starmer and Anas Sarwar

LABOUR leader Keir Starmer has been accused of "showing utter contempt for his own party" after he opposed the Scottish party's support for the gender reforms.

On Sunday, Sir Keir raised concerns with the gender recognition reforms, backed by the majority of Labour MSPs, over the legislation expanding the process to 16 and 17-year-olds.

Asked about whether someone was old enough to change their gender at 16, he said: "No, I don't think you are."

He said Labour's position was to "modernise the legislation to take out the indignities" involved with changing gender.

Mr Starmer said he would wait to see what action the UK Government would take when asked whether he would block Scotland's gender recognition laws if he was prime minister.

But Sir Keir's stance has upset Labour MSPs who supported the legislation.

Labour MSP Mercedes Villalba, branded the challenge as "an attack on devolution", adding it was "a desperate attempt by the Tories to distract from the financial chaos they have caused".

Her fellow MSP, Monica Lennon added that it was "a shameful decision by the UK Government, made for cynical political reasons".

But a Scottish Labour insider defended Sir Keir's position, claiming he "has to appeal to a very wide audience".

The source added: "The concern is more with this becoming yet another constitutional battle, which always helps the SNP and the Tories and squeezes Labour.

"The UK Government will turn this into a Tory culture war, and Sturgeon will capitalise on the perceived attack on Holyrood".

Nicola Sturgeon said that it is valid to “start to wonder if there is anything Keir Starmer is willing to stand up and be counted” for in response to “Tory attacks” on democracy.

She stressed that the proposals have been “scrutinised and voted for by Keir Starmer’s own party in the Scottish Parliament”.

The FM added: “If he backed any move…he would be showing utter contempt for his own party as well as the Scottish Parliament.”

Former Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale warned that "blocking it will anger nationalists and devolutionists".

The Scottish Tories have written to Labour's only Scottish MP, Ian Murray, asking him whether he backs Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar's position in support of the legislation or Sir Keir's more sceptical approach.

Scottish Tory equalities spokesperson, Rachael Hamilton, said that Labour is "clearly divided on the issue of gender recognition reform".

Scottish Labour has been approached for comment.

The UK Does Not Have Enough Fruit Or Veg To Give Everyone Their 5-A-Day, Research Finds

Kate Nicholson
Mon, 16 January 2023 


The UK is not growing or importing enough fruit or vegetables to provide everyone with five portions a day, according to new stats.

As it is, only one in ten children and one in three adults are meeting the government’s recommended five, 80-gram servings of fruit and vegetables a day.

If everyone met this requirement, life expectancy would increase by eight months on average – and diet-related greenhouse gas emissions would fall by more than 8%.

Now, the global research group, Sustainably and Healthy Food Systems (SHEFS) has found that even if the amount of waste in the UK wasn’t considered, the UK would need to produce or import 9% more fruit and vegetables to meet the country’s requirements.

More than 80% of our fruit supply and almost half of our vegetables comes from imported varieties which cannot be grown in the UK, because consumers have moved away from home-grown foods like peas and carrots in recent years.

But, as the charity Food Foundation pointed out, this makes the UK particularly vulnerable to extreme weather changes felt all over the world, brought on by the climate crisis.

Food is also become one of the most inflated items in our supermarkets since the cost of living crisis has seen day-to-day necessities soar in price.

As SHEFS pointed out, the hike in prices for fruit and vegetables is also adding to the already sizeable health gap between rich and poor.

Between October 2021 and 2022, the price of fruit rose by more than 10% and vegetables by more than 15%.

Price rises in the past 12 months. See story ECONOMY inflation. Infographic PA Graphics. An editable version of this graphic is available if required. Please contact graphics@pamediagroup.com

Price rises in the past 12 months. See story ECONOMY inflation. Infographic PA Graphics. An editable version of this graphic is available if required. Please contact graphics@pamediagroup.com.

Healthier foods are nearly three times as expensive per calorie as less healthy foods, which is why consumers tend to move towards the less nutritious when bank accounts are squeezed.

Budgets are already so stretched due to the climbing costs of energy bills that these essential food groups have dropped off the shopping list.

Even prior to the cost of living crisis, the highest income groups consumed around 1.5 more portions per day compared to those on the lowest incomes.

SHEFS has suggested boosting domestic fruit and veg supply urgently, to prevent the UK suffering from future climate events.

The research group, led by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, funded by the Wellcome Trust’s Our Planet, Our Health Programme, and in partnership with organisations all over the world, also wants taxpayer-funded meals in schools, hospitals, prisons and government offices to include two portions of vegetables.

It also considered increasing TV and online advertising about fruit and vegetables, while providing the greater protection of low-income consumers (like the free school meals programme).
Related...

Thames Water responsible for 25 sewage spills in this river last year

Matthew Norman
Mon, 16 January 2023 

The River Cherwell. Pictured inset is MP Victoria Prentis

 (Image: Mark Gushtscha/Victoria Prentis)

Victoria Prentis discovered on her visit to Banbury Sewage Treatment Works that Thames Water were responsible for 25 sewage spills in the river Cherwell last year.

The MP accepted an invitation to visit the works following a letter sent to the chief executive of Thames Water asking about what is being done to safeguard the river Cherwell and limit sewage discharge into it.

Speaking on the visit, Mrs Prentis said: “Just before Christmas, I accepted an invitation to visit the Banbury Sewage Treatment Works and meet senior company representatives to discuss the safeguarding of the river Cherwell.

“At the site – which serves over 80,000 people in Banbury and the surrounding area – I had a frank conversation about the progress which Thames Water have made to date, and what more there is to be done to protect our rivers.

“I was showed the storm overflow, which is used when the treatment works are overwhelmed by heavy rainfall.

“This is done to prevent sewers from backing up and flooding into people’s homes.

“I was told that the frequency and duration of discharges in Banbury have decreased significantly over the last 3 years.

“Up until my visit, there had been 25 spills last year. This is 25 too many – a point which Thames Water readily accept.

“They assured me they understand releasing untreated sewage into our rivers is unacceptable, which is why they are working at pace to stop it.

“I was reassured they are taking the new statutory requirements placed on water companies very seriously and are demonstrating a commitment to protecting and enhancing our rivers.

River Cherwell (Image: Mark Guschtscha)

“Thames Water are making good progress on delivering £1.25 billion of maintenance and improvements on operational sites between 2020 and 2025.

“£10 million is being invested into two main projects at the Banbury Sewage Treatment Works. “These will upgrade the current infrastructure and improve the quality of the final effluent which leaves the site.

“Crucially, the two projects combined will increase the current output of the site by around 84 per cent - moving from being able to treat 266 litres per second, to 490 litres per second.

“This should reduce the need for storm overflows significantly and provide further headroom for local population growth.

“It is clearly encouraging that Thames Water are taking responsibility for their performance and investing in Banbury.

“Just last week, they launched a near real-time map which shows storm discharge activity from all 468 of their sites.

“Thames Water know how concerned constituents are about the health of our rivers and this transparency will allow us to hold them accountable.

“I will monitor progress in Banbury and across North Oxfordshire very closely this year to ensure that we continue to see improvements in our water quality.”

Solar farm will be one of Cornwall's biggest - to power 17,000 homes

Richard Whitehouse
Mon, 16 January 2023 

A photomontage showing how the proposed solar farm at land at Kestle Mill, Newquay could look

Permission has been agreed for what will be one of the biggest solar farms in Cornwall - despite a warning “Don’t let an energy crisis today turn into a food crisis tomorrow.”

Renewable Connections had applied to build the solar farm and associated facilities on land near Tregonning Farm at Kestle Mill near Newquay.

Cornwall Council’s strategic planning committee agreed to approve the plans on the condition that the council tries to reach a legal agreement with the developers to have community ownership of five per cent of the solar farm.

The committee meeting, which had been postponed just before Christmas due to poor weather, heard that the 54 hectare solar farm would be one of the largest in Cornwall and would provide enough energy for 17,000 homes. Planning officers had recommended that the application be approved saying that the benefits outweighed any harm.

There had been an objection from St Newlyn East Parish Council on the basis that the development would lead to the loss of good quality agricultural land. However, landowner and farmer Andrew Brewer told the committee that he would continue to farm the land used for the solar panels by grazing sheep there.

He said that he did not believe that the development of the solar farm would reduce the agricultural output of the land and claimed that some studies had suggested that output was actually increased on farms using solar panels due to the shelter provided for animals on the land.

The committee heard that there had been 32 objections to the application submitted to Cornwall Council, along with 39 letters of support for the project. There had been no objections from other organisations including landscape officers.

Oliver Baines, a climate change activist, spoke in objection to the plans claiming that solar power was inefficient and it would be better for land to be used for wind turbines. He said that solar was better utilised when placed on the roofs of buildings and said that the land at Tregonning Farm should be reserved for food production.

John Leith, development director at Renewable Connections, said that the scheme was an “exemplar project” and would maximise the generation of renewable energy in Cornwall. He said that extensive work had been done to address biodiversity and ecology across the site and that particular work had been done to protect and enhance skylark habitats as part of the plans.

Steve Arthur, Cornwall councillor for one of the neighbouring wards to the scheme, said that he was concerned about the loss of agricultural land and was not convinced that that would be helped by using it for grazing sheep. He said: “Don’t let an energy crisis today turn into a food crisis tomorrow.”

Committee member John Fitter said that he did not support the scheme and again was concerned about the loss of “best quality” agricultural land, which he felt should be protected. He said: “I believe that the weight of evidence must be that the agricultural yield will diminish.”

He added: “We have to decide at some stage whether we are going to protect our precious and most versatile land.”

Rob Nolan said that it was a “balanced” application but highlighted that the farmer himself had told councillors that he would be able to continue to farm the land and that should be taken into consideration. He said that the only real ground to refuse the application would be on impact to the landscape but the landscape officers and planning officers had not raised any issues with this.

But John Bastin said that the council should be “protecting” food security by ensuring that land can continue to be used for agriculture. He said: “Food security is very much underestimated, we keep brushing it under the carpet.”

Julian German said he was in support of the scheme and proposed that it should be approved but with a condition that a five percent community ownership agreement would be reached with the developers. He said that whilst the developers had offered to make a contribution to the local community it would be better to instead have a community ownership agreement, something which has been included in the council’s new climate change development policy which has recently been signed off by the planning inspectorate.

The committee agreed to delegate authority to planning officers, with the committee chairman to grant planning permission subject to a legal Section 106 agreement being reached with regards to a five per cent community ownership agreement.

UK

Banks still investing heavily in fossil fuels despite net zero pledges – study

Fiona Harvey Environment editor

THE GUARDIAN
Mon, 16 January 2023 

Photograph: Jane Barlow/PA

Banks and finance institutions that have signed up to net zero pledges are still investing heavily in fossil fuels, research has shown, leading to accusations they are acting as “climate arsonists”.

The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) initiative was launched by the former Bank of England governor Mark Carney, as one of the main UK achievements in hosting the Cop26 UN climate summit at Glasgow in 2021.

The UK boasted at Cop26 that 450 organisations in 45 countries with assets of more than $130tn had signed up to GFANZ, to align their investments with the goal of limiting global temperature rises to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

But its members have poured hundreds of billions into fossil fuels since then, according to data compiled by the pressure group Reclaim Finance.

GFANZ is made up of numerous smaller groupings that require members to reduce their exposure to fossil fuels. But at least 56 of the biggest banks in the net-zero banking alliance grouping (NZBA) have provided $270bn to 102 fossil fuel companies for their expansion, through 134 loans and 215 underwriting arrangements, according to Reclaim Finance.

Paddy McCully, senior analyst at Reclaim Finance, said: “GFANZ members are acting as climate arsonists. They’ve pledged to achieve net zero but are continuing to pour hundreds of billions of dollars into fossil fuel developers. GFANZ and its member alliances will only be credible once they up their game and insist that their members help bring a rapid end to the era of coal, oil and fossil gas expansion.”

GFANZ companies are also failing to divest from fossil fuels. In the net zero asset managers grouping (NZAM), another part of GFANZ, at least $847bn in assets in more than 200 fossil fuel companies were held by the 58 largest members, as of last September, according to the report published on Tuesday.

The report also found that few of the GFANZ members had put in place watertight investment polices that would stop them financing new fossil fuel projects, even though all are supposed to be shifting their portfolios to be in line with the 1.5C goal, confirmed at Cop26.

Lucie Pinson, executive director and founder of Reclaim Finance, accused the alliance of greenwashing. “It is business as usual for most banks and investors [involved in GFANZ], who continue to support fossil fuel developers without any restrictions, despite their high-profile commitments to carbon neutrality,” she said. “Their greenwashing is all the more damaging as it casts doubt on the sincerity of all net zero commitments, and undermines the efforts of those who are truly acting for the climate.”

One of the biggest banks involved in GFANZ is HSBC, which announced restrictions on oil and gas financing last month. But it has approved 58 transactions worth $12bn in capital to fossil fuel developers, since joining a GFANZ grouping in April 2021, according to the Reclaim Finance report.

A spokesperson for HSBC told the Guardian: “HSBC’s aim is to reduce emissions in line with a 1.5C pathway, promote energy security, and ensure energy affordability and access, as part of our commitment to a net zero future. In line with our 1.5C-aligned 2030 financed emissions targets and updated energy policy we will no longer provide new finance or advisory for the specific purposes of new oil and gas fields or related infrastructure, or for the most carbon-intensive oil assets. To accelerate an orderly transition to net zero, we continue to support clients who are playing an active role in the energy transition, including through regular engagement on their transition plans.”

The spokesperson added that fossil fuels were still likely to be necessary for a transition period. “The International Energy Agency’s seminal Net Zero 2050 report outlines that an orderly transition requires continued financing and investment in existing oil and gas fields to maintain the necessary output and security of supply – with 2020 financing levels maintained through 2030 and declining to half thereafter,” they said.

However, Reclaim Finance pointed out that the IEA has also made clear that no new fossil fuel development can take place if the world is to remain within the limit of 1.5C of heating, above pre-industrial levels. It has identified the fossil fuel developers in the report as those engaged in expansion of their assets, such as new drilling and new mining.

LGIM is the biggest UK company in the NZAM initiative, yet in September it held at least $13bn of assets in fossil fuel developers, the report found.

A spokesperson for LGIM told the Guardian: “LGIM is one of the founder members of the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative established as part of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) and as part of our commitment to the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative and in partnership with and on behalf of our clients, LGIM has set its own interim net zero AUM [assets under management] target of 70% by 2030, and continues to make progress towards this climate transition. Financing the transition is vitally important and certain fossil fuels will need to be part of the transition to renewable alternatives. By divesting from entire sectors like oil and gas, we won’t achieve any real world outcome and investors lose their ability to exert a positive influence via active engagement.”

A spokeswoman for GFANZ said: “This report focuses on an important aspect of the energy transition. It’s clear a lot of work needs to be done to ensure the world is deploying capital consistent with a 1.5C pathway, which is exactly why GFANZ was created. Based on research GFANZ commissioned last year, we know that investment in renewables needs to be four times the levels going into fossil fuels by 2030 to restrict climate change consistent with the aims of the Paris agreement.”

She added: “GFANZ members will detail how they are financing the transition of the energy sector when they publish their interim targets and transition plans. This will allow government, investors and civil society organisations to track progress. We call on financial institutions not in GFANZ to join the alliances that comprise GFANZ to provide transparency and become part of the solution.”