Reform UK council leader in Northants criticised on net zero
A newly elected Reform UK council leader has been criticised over his remarks about net zero targets.Earlier this week, North Northamptonshire Council's Martin Griffiths questioned the role of local authorities in tackling climate change.Griffiths, appointed council leader on 22 May, said his party was not made up of "climate change deniers" but believed that net zero was a "global matter" that was "making everyone poorer".But the leader of the Green Party group on the council, Emily Fedorowycz, said his statements on net zero were "irresponsible" and "dangerous".
Fedorowycz said there was an "enormous" economic opportunity from climate projects and there would be future costs to residents if targets were ignored."Blaming climate action for rising poverty is a deliberate distraction from the real causes: a broken energy system, years of underinvestment in insulation and public transport, and global reliance on fossil fuels."
Labour MP for Kettering Rosie Wrighting also criticised the comments, writing on social media: "Constituents regularly raise concerns with me about the climate emergency and bills."Tackling net zero is vital to both issues, so I am disappointed to read these comments by the new Reform leader of [North Northamptonshire Council]."Wrighting added: "Councillor Griffiths describes [net zero] as a 'global matter', brushing it off as someone else's problem."But local councils have a role to play and I will be watching [the council's] climate approach closely."
North Northamptonshire Council declared a climate emergency in 2021 and committed to becoming a carbon-neutral authority by 2030.The council's targets align with the UK's national legal requirement to reach net zero emissions by 2050 or earlier.The Reform administration is expected to lead the council until 2029, shaping local environmental and policy decisions during that time.
Speaking to the Local Democracy Reporting Service earlier this week, Griffiths said on other areas relating to the climate and environment, he agreed with wanting to plant more trees and clean up the county's rivers.The stance taken by the new leader of the council mirrors the opinions of the Reform party at the national level.Griffiths has been contacted for further comment.Dr Iain Staffell of Imperial College London said that in the long term, renewables "will be bringing down overall energy bills, and specifically electricity bills, for the UK".But some analysts have said in the short term, green energy prices could rise due to the rush to secure enough renewables to meet the 2030 net zero goal.
Follow Northamptonshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
39 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why Lords are striking a blow for creative industries over new AI bill
Strange to say but a government with a Commons majority of 156 is somehow in danger of losing one of its more important pieces of legislation. The Data (Use and Access) Bill is commonly called the 'data bill' or ' AI bill' because it is central to the regulation of the new world of artificial intelligence; indeed, it is the first act of parliament specifically designed to deal with it. After breezing its way through the Commons, it has encountered unexpectedly stiff resistance in the House of Lords. Peers have five times rejected parts of the bill, and unless the government is prepared to compromise, the AI bill will have to be abandoned. Why is the AI bill in trouble? There are a lot of complicated parliamentary shenanigans involved, but at issue is the right of artists, creatives, authors – and, indeed, journalists – to own and make a living out of their work. Elton John, Kate Bush, Damon Albarn, Dua Lipa and Paul McCartney are just a few members of a formidable coalition of interests who want to stop AI giants 'scraping' their work, undermining their livelihoods, and potentially killing the whole sector. It's the biggest change to the law in copyright and intellectual property in generations, effectively abolishing royalties, and hasn't really been subjected to the kind of national debate that it merits. The artists, writers and musicians have found a doughty defender in Beeban Kidron, a film director (Bridget Jones) who's been leading the guerrilla warfare in the upper chamber. As a lead character, she's been compelling. What do the Lords rebels want? A relatively modest amendment to the bill that would subject AI companies to copyright rules and make them declare when and what material they are using for their own commercial purposes: a duty of transparency. Thus, copyright holders are able to see when their work has been used and by whom. How determined are the rebels? Very. In the words of Baroness Kidron: 'It is not fair, not reasonable, not just, balanced or any other such word to stand in the way of the creative industries identifying those who are taking their work or their property. It is not neutral – it is aiding and abetting what we have called in the House widespread theft. We have asked privately and repeatedly on the floor of both Houses what is the government going to do to stop the work of creatives from being stolen right now? The answer is nothing.' Why won't the government give way? It has offered concessions, but ministers maintain the new law does not weaken copyright law; creatives, who have the most to lose, beg to differ. Obviously, the government is anxious not to lose a whole piece of legislation that also covers, for example: a data preservation process supporting bereaved parents; new offences for intimate image deepfake abuse; smart data schemes such as open banking; and a framework for research into online safety. AI is also an important driver of economic growth. More than that, the government has been trying to tread a middle path between the more restrictive European approach and the American policy of laissez-faire. If Britain annoys the Americans, who lead in the sector, it might spoil the trade deal and relations more widely. Can't the government just force it through? Not easily. The deadlock between the Commons and Lords is such that either the bill gets amended to the satisfaction of both sides, or it cannot go forward for final readings and ultimately royal assent. This resistance by the Lords is exceptional and called 'double insistence', arising from the fact that the bill originated in the Lords rather than the Commons. (It must have been assumed to be less controversial.) But in the end, the government could get its way by invoking the Parliament Act, which trumps anything. The new law would be delayed, but the rebels might lose their cause by refusing to compromise. What is likely to happen? A compromise – but with further Lords reform in the way, the rebel peers may feel they have nothing to lose. By delaying the bill, they would force ministers to think again and allow the campaign by Elton John and his formidable creative forces to regroup and build more momentum – the issue still lacks much salience with the public. Either way, it has been tough on the personable Peter Kyle, secretary of state for science, innovation and technology.
Telegraph
42 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Met officer in VIP abuse scandal has gross misconduct charges dropped
The senior police officer who led Scotland Yard's VIP child abuse inquiry has had gross misconduct charges against him dropped. Steve Rodhouse, a former assistant commissioner at the Metropolitan Police, had been due to face a disciplinary hearing over his handling of aspects of Operation Midland. He had been accused of breaching professional standards and making dishonest statements while leading the operation. Mr Rodhouse, who is currently the director general of operations at the National Crime Agency, was the only officer to face disciplinary proceedings as a result of Operation Midland, which saw several high-profile figures investigated over false allegations of child abuse. On Thursday, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) announced that it was dropping the charges. A spokesman for the watchdog said the decision had been taken after a large volume of relevant material was unexpectedly disclosed by the Met. The decision means not a single officer has been held to account for the blunders that led to innocent people, including high-ranking military personnel and former ministers and MPs, being investigated over malicious child sex allegations. Operation Midland was launched in 2014 after fantasist Carl Beech went to police claiming he had been raped and abused by a VIP paedophile ring in the 1980s. He told police that well-known figures, including Sir Edward Heath, the former prime minister; Lord Brittan, the former Home Secretary; Lord Bramall, the former head of the Army; and Harvey Proctor, the former Tory MP, had raped and even murdered children. The Met spent 18 months investigating the claims, even raiding the homes of some of those falsely accused, before shutting it down without making a single arrest. In July 2019, Beech was jailed for 18 years after being found guilty of perverting the course of justice and fraud. Two other men, known as Witness A and Witness B, were alleged to have also come forward during Operation Midland to corroborate Beech's lies with false allegations, but they were never charged. The claims against Mr Rodhouse centred on comments he made in the media about the honesty of Witnesses A and B, and subsequent remarks he made to Sir Richard Henriques, the former High Court judge who was carrying out an independent review into the handling of Operation Midland. Following an IOPC investigation, the watchdog concluded that Mr Rodhouse had a case to answer and should attend a disciplinary hearing. But that decision has been reversed following the late disclosure of a cache of material from Scotland Yard. Harvey Proctor, who is the only living Operation Midland victim, described the decision to drop the charges as 'appalling'. An IOPC spokesman said there was no evidence within the material that there was any 'inappropriate motivation' in Mr Roadhouse's comments. The spokesman said: 'There was, however, substantial evidence to indicate the comments made to the media were the result of collaboration between senior Met officers and staff and that there had been appropriate considerations, including a desire not to discourage victims of historic sex offences coming forward.' Amanda Rowe, director of the IOPC, said: 'It is highly regrettable for all concerned that material we requested three years ago during our investigation, and we believed had not been retained due to the Met's retention policy, has only recently been discovered and disclosed. 'Police forces have a legal obligation to provide information to the IOPC when we request it. However, we acknowledge that we could have taken further steps during the investigation to seek additional assurance from the Met that relevant email material was definitely unavailable. 'We apologise to all of those affected and we are working with the force to establish exactly how and why this situation has occurred, and to reduce the risk of it happening again. 'Today's announcement does not change our finding that by failing to follow Sir Richard's recommendation in his review to investigate the witnesses, the Met's service was unacceptable and its subsequent reviews concluding no investigation was needed were flawed. 'During our investigation, we reported a potential crime to the Met, which is being actively investigated by another force.' Mr Rodhouse said the allegations made against him were 'ill-founded and incorrect'. In a statement, he added: 'I am pleased that the IOPC has finally recognised that I acted with honesty, integrity and care throughout a difficult investigation. 'I welcome the IOPC's apology, but I have yet to receive an adequate explanation as to how this debacle occurred. 'I recognise that senior police officers must be held accountable for their actions, and that public complaints must be properly considered. 'However, if police officers are to willingly take on complex and challenging investigations, they must have the confidence that any complaints made about their conduct will be competently investigated in a balanced and timely fashion. That was not the case here. 'Vital evidence was not considered despite it being readily available and repeatedly requested. 'I am grateful for all of the support that I have received, and I now look forward to resuming my career investigating and prosecuting serious criminals.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Keir Starmer grilled by schoolchildren on Messi v Ronaldo debate
Prime Minister Keir Starmer was grilled by schoolchildren during a visit on Thursday - with many keen to know his verdict on the Messi v Ronaldo debate. He visited a school in Essex as he declared the free school meal expansion as a 'down payment' on child poverty and was 'determined' to drive down child poverty and identify its root causes. As the Prime Minister sat with schoolchildren, one child asked him who his favourite footballer was. Mr Starmer, a keen Arsenal fan, said: 'My favourite player at the moment is Saka'. Another child asked who he thought was better: Messi or Ronaldo. After some hesitation, Mr Starmer replied: 'I'm going to go with Messi.'
