British Politics Thread

Theresa May’s Brexit strategy has been thrown into new doubt as a former head of the government’s legal services ridicules the prime minister’s claim that the UK can break free of all European laws while continuing to reap the economic benefits of the EU’s single market.

Sir Paul Jenkins, who was the government’s most senior legal official for eight years until 2014, told the Observer that the prime minister’s policy on the legal implications of Brexit was “foolish”. He insisted that if the UK wants to retain close links with the single market and customs union it will have no option but to observe EU law “in all but name”.

The comments – backed by several other leading experts on EU law – cast serious doubt on the central plank of the government’s latest thinking on Brexit, with less than two weeks to go before Brexit secretary David Davis enters a crucial phase of talks on the exit plans in Brussels.

Like many people, I have personal experience of the NHS. In my case, medical care, personal life and scientific life are all intertwined. I have received a large amount of high-quality NHS treatment and would not be here today if it were not for the service.

The care I have received since being diagnosed with motor neurone disease as a student in 1962 has enabled me to live my life as I want, and to contribute to major advances in our understanding of the universe. In July I celebrated my 75th birthday with an international science conference in Cambridge. I still have a full-time job as director of research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology and, with two colleagues, am soon to publish another scientific paper on quantum black holes.

Last year my personal experience of the NHS and my scientific life came together when I co-signed a letter calling for healthcare policy to be based on peer-reviewed research and proper evidence. The specific issue addressed in the letter was the “weekend effect”. Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, had claimed that thousands of patients died unnecessarily because of poor hospital care at the weekend, and used this to argue that we needed to implement a seven-day NHS. I had mixed feelings about the issue. Having spent a lot of time in hospital, I would like there to be more services available at weekends. Also, it seems possible that some patients spend more time in hospital than is necessary because certain diagnostic tests can only be done on weekdays.

However, as we showed in the letter, Hunt had cherry-picked research to justify his argument. For a scientist, cherry-picking evidence is unacceptable. When public figures abuse scientific argument, citing some studies but suppressing others to justify policies they want to implement for other reasons, it debases scientific culture. One consequence of this sort of behaviour is that it leads ordinary people to not trust science at a time when scientific research and progress are more important than ever.

This problem goes beyond the weekend effect. The NHS is in a crisis, and one that has been created by political decisions. These political decisions include underfunding and cuts, privatising services, the public sector pay cap, the new contract imposed on junior doctors, and removal of the student nurses’ bursary. Political decisions such as these cause reductions in care quality, longer waiting lists, anxiety for patients and staff, and dangerous staff shortages. Failures in the system of privatised social care for disabled and elderly people have placed an additional burden on the NHS.

So what is to be done? A physicist like me analyses a system in terms of levels of approximation. To a first approximation, one can see the situation facing healthcare in this country in terms of forces with different interests.

On the one hand, there is the force of the multinational corporations, driven by their profit motive. In the US, where they are dominant in the healthcare system, these corporations make enormous profits, healthcare is not universal, and it is hugely more expensive for the outcomes patients receive than in the UK. We see the balance of power in the UK is with private healthcare companies, and the direction of change is towards a US-style insurance system.

On the other hand, there is the force of the public, and of democracy. Opinion polls consistently show a majority in favour of a publicly provided NHS, and opposed to privatisation and a two-tier system. Therefore, the best way to support the NHS is to empower the public. There are two priorities. First, clear information that public provision is not only the fairest way to deliver healthcare, but also the most cost-effective. Second, a loud voice and the political power to make politicians act on our behalf.

If that all sounds political, that is because the NHS has always been political. It was set up in the face of political opposition. It is Britain’s finest public service and a cornerstone of our society, something that binds us together. People value the NHS, and are proud that we treat everyone equally when they are sick. The NHS brings out the best in us. We cannot lose it.

Jeremy Hunt has accused Stephen Hawking of a “pernicious” lie after the physicist said it seemed the Tories were steering the UK towards a US-style health insurance system.

Hours after the health secretary was criticised for claiming Hawking was wrong in the row about the government’s seven-day NHS plan, he leapt back into the fray with two tweets defending the Conservative party’s record on the health service.

The shadow health minister, Justin Madders, weighed in on the row: “It doesn’t take a genius to work out the Tories are wrecking the NHS.

“Professor Hawking has given us answers to many of the universe’s most challenging questions, and even he can’t work out why Jeremy Hunt is still in his job.”

Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, said Hawking was a “brilliant scientist” with a “brilliant mind” and “brilliant thought process” who should be listened to.

Speaking to broadcasters in north Wales, Corbyn added: “And if Stephen Hawking is saying that our NHS is under threat and in danger and in crisis then I think we need to listen very very carefully with what he has to say. I admire Stephen and I agree absolutely with what he said.”

The former Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said: “A renowned scientist such as Stephen Hawking questioning your evidence might normally be cause to think again, but sadly it looks as though Jeremy Hunt has joined the chorus of those who have had enough of experts.

“It’s easy to accept evidence when it supports your ideological view of how a service should be provided, but we see this government ignoring the evidence time and time again when it suits them, be it on the NHS, our school system or leaving the single market.”

Social media users, including many doctors and scientists, mocked Hunt for taking on the “world’s most famous scientist”.

Martin Mc Kee, professor of European public health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, responded directly to Hunt, citing studies and articles that contradicted his argument.

Mc Kee, who said he has been writing on the subject of hospital mortality for 22 years, added: “I’d appeal to those commenting not to personalise this with attacks on Hunt – let’s stick to evidence – it’s strong enough on its own.”

Trisha Greenhalgh, professor of primary care health sciences at Oxford University, said: “Awake to tweet from Jeremy Hunt telling Stephen Hawking he doesn’t know how to interpret evidence. Replies are good.”

Stephen Hawking has accused ministers of damaging the NHS, blaming the Conservatives in a passionate and sustained attack for slashing funding, weakening the health service though privatisation, demoralising staff by curbing pay and cutting social care support.

The renowned 75-year-old physicist was speaking to promote an address he will give on Saturday outlining how he owes his long life and achievements to the NHS care he received, and setting out his fears for a service he believes is being turned into “a US-style insurance system”.

The author of A Brief History of Time did not name any minister or political party in his general complaint, but he blamed a raft of policies pursued since 2010 by the coalition and then the Conservatives for enfeebling the NHS and leaving it unable to cope with the demands being placed on it.

“The crisis in the NHS has been caused by political decisions,” he said. “The political decisions include underfunding and cuts, privatising services, the public sector pay cap, the new contract imposed on the junior doctors and removal of the student nurses’ bursary.

“Failures in the system of privatised social care for disabled and elderly people has also placed additional burden on the NHS.”

His speech at the Royal Society of Medicine will single out Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, who claimed that 11,000 patients a year died because of understaffing of hospitals at weekends. Hawking will say that four of the eight studies cited by Hunt were not peer reviewed and that he ignored 13 papers which contradicted his statements.

“Speaking as a scientist, cherry picking evidence is unacceptable,” he will say. “When public figures abuse scientific argument, citing some studies but suppressing others, to justify policies that they want to implement for other reasons, it debases scientific culture.

“One consequence of this sort of behaviour is that it leads ordinary people not to trust science, at a time when scientific research and progress are more important than ever, given the challenges we face as a human race.”

Criticising NHS privatisation, Hawking will say that the £2.9bn spent every year by hospitals in England on temporary personnel to alleviate chronic understaffing has enriched private employment firms while denying the NHS vital funding.

“The huge increase in the use of private agency staff, for example, inevitably means that money is extracted from the system as profit for the agency, and increases costs for the whole country.”

Hawking will says he fears that private firms have gained such a large role in treating NHS patients they are now undermining its founding principles and opening the door to the Americanisation of care.

“We must prevent the establishment of a two-tier service, with the best medicine for the wealthy and an inferior service for the rest. International comparisons indicate that the most efficient way to provide good healthcare is for services to be publicly funded and publicly run.

“We see that the direction in the UK is towards a US-style insurance system, run by the private companies, and that is because the balance of power right now is with the private companies.”

He rejects claims that the spiralling costs of treating an ageing and growing population, coupled with tight government finances, mean the NHS, which will receive £149.2bn of public funding across the UK this year, has become too expensive to continue in its present form. That idea has sparked inquiries by select committees of both houses of parliament, thinktanks and medical bodies.

“When politicians and private healthcare industry lobbyists claim that we cannot afford the NHS, this is the exact inversion of the truth. We cannot afford not to have the NHS”, he will declare.

Prof Sir Simon Wessely, the RSM’s president, said: “Prof Stephen Hawking’s reputation goes before him, so when a man of his extraordinary intellect but also with his equally extraordinary experience of illness, talks about the NHS and its values, we must all pay close attention.”

Britain could remain under the direct control of the European court of justice for years after Brexit, it has emerged, and still be forced to implement the court’s rulings on vexed issues such as immigration.

The expanding scale of the prime minister’s climbdown over her promise to “take back control of British law” was revealed as the government published its latest position paper on dispute resolution before the next round of Brexit talks.

While stressing that the range of options it contains are hypothetical, the government outlines only scenarios in which “direct” ECJ authority is eventually replaced by a new court or committee over which Europe maintains “indirect” control.

It has also become clear that the UK government is now open to preserving the direct authority of the ECJ throughout the interim transition period after March 2019 – during which it is expected to spend years negotiating a new trade agreement.

News of the government’s evolving position has led to a growing political storm this week, with Tory Brexit supporters claiming Theresa May is abandoning the hardline position she set out in last year’s Conservative party conference speech and in a speech at Lancaster House in January.

European determination to use the ECJ to protect the rights of its citizens and companies after Brexit is forcing the UK into a corner and threatens to derail talks in Brussels before the British negotiator, David Davis, can switch the discussion on to trade and future relations.

In the long run, the government draws a distinction between enforcement mechanisms and dispute resolution once the new Brexit agreement is in effect – arguing that individual complaints can be dealt with solely by UK courts and only government disputes escalated to the new arbitration body.

However, test cases involving individuals appealing against unfair treatment by, for example, UK immigration authorities may quickly escalate into a dispute over the interpretation of the whole agreement, potentially allowing the ECJ to step in on behalf of aggrieved EU citizens.

Shadow minister Chris Williamson has been criticised by female colleagues and union chiefs for suggesting there was “merit” in introducing women-only train carriages to help cut the number of sexual assaults on public transport.

Williamson, the shadow fire minister, said he was open to the idea first proposed by Jeremy Corbyn when he was running for the Labour leadership in 2016.

But the idea was criticised on Wednesday by the leader of train drivers’ union Aslef and female M Ps, who said that it would normalise attacks.

Williamson, MP for Derby North, tweeted a BBC graphic showing the increase in the number of sexual assaults, along with an accompanying blog post suggesting Corbyn had been right to suggest female-only carriages.

“It would be worth consulting about it,” Williamsom told Politics Home. “It was pooh-poohed, but these statistics seem to indicate there is some merit in examining that.

"Some women have raised with me that a solution to the rise in assault and harassment on public transport could be to introduce women only carriages. My intention would be to make public transport safer for everyone from the train platform, to the bus stop to on the mode of transport itself. However, I would consult with women and open it up to hear their views on whether women-only carriages would be welcome - and also if piloting this at times and modes of transport where harassment is reported most frequently would be of interest."

Williams keeps bees as a hobby in a ditch in a field in Rhydwyn on Anglesey. He checks on his swarm weekly but found the £400 hive and the 30,000-40,000 bees inside had been taken sometime between 26 July and 2 August.

PC Dewi Evans of the North Wales police said: “It is an unusual crime – there aren’t that many people who know how to steal bees.

“We believe whoever was responsible must have been wearing a full bee suit, otherwise they would have been stung to smithereens and very badly injured.”

Evans appealed for information from anyone who may have noticed an unusual buzzing sound in their neighbourhood.

Roberts agreed that the thief must be an experienced apiarist. “You need to know what you are doing to steal a hive – which entrances of the hive to block up, and not to use solid tape, otherwise you could suffocate the bees,” she said.

It is not the first bee heist on Anglesey. In the summer of 2015, 45,000 bees were stolen from the same farm near Cemaes Bay in two separate raids.

Another beekeeper was also suspected of stealing 24,000 bees worth about £2,000 from the Hooton Pagnell Hall estate, near Doncaster, in April. A bee smoker was left at the scene, possibly used to calm the bees before they were taken.

Bee rustling is a particular problem in the US, where crime syndicates have been involved in stealing bee colonies worth millions of dollars and trucking them to almond farms and olive groves. Billions of bees are needed to pollinate California’s almond and orange crops – more than live in the Golden State.

The mistake emerged after a Finnish academic, who has the right to live in the UK, received one of the letters.

Dr Eva Johanna Holmberg, who is married to a British citizen, was told she had a month to leave.

A Home Office spokesperson said "the rights of EU nationals living in the UK remain unchanged".

Theresa May has privately told survivors and relatives of victims of the Grenfell Tower fire that the Conservative-led Kensington and Chelsea council’s response to the disaster was slow and flawed, and assured them that the tenant management organisation (TMO) would no longer be responsible for the rest of the estate.

The prime minister was invited to the meeting by residents to hear about the challenges they continue to face, amid anger that a public inquiry will only look at the practical causes of the fire and not wider issues around the quality of social housing.

May, who was criticised for not meeting residents and victims’ relatives in the immediate aftermath of the fire, spent time discussing support for bereaved families, housing, the inquiry and the distribution of charitable funds. Her promise that the TMO would lose its role in the Lancaster West housing estate was later confirmed by the council leader, Elizabeth Campbell, who said: “We wrote to the TMO yesterday and said that we didn’t think the most viable option was to work with them going forward.”