RAF chief set to be new head of armed forces
Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton is thought to be in line to be the next Chief of Defence Staff.
The position is currently held by Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, who has been in the role since 2021.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton giving a reading during the annual Battle of Britain service at Westminster Abbey in September 2024 (Lucy North/PA)
According to his biography on the Government website, Sir Richard joined the RAF in 1989 as a university cadet, and served as deputy chief of the defence staff from 2019 to 2022.
The appointment comes as the Government has pledged to increase defence spending in the UK to 2.5% of gross domestic product on defence from April 2027, with a goal of increasing that to 3% over the next parliament, a timetable which could stretch to 2034.
The Ministry of Defence said: 'This is speculation. The appointment process is ongoing and any announcement will be made in the usual way.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
28 minutes ago
- ITV News
Creditors table £17bn plan for Thames Water but call for regulatory leniency
A group of Thames Water lenders have put forward plans for a multibillion-pound rescue deal of the troubled supplier that would see them pump in new cash but ask for leniency in how it is regulated. Creditors including US and UK investment firms – such as Aberdeen, Elliott Management and BlackRock – have submitted a plan to regulator Ofwat to overhaul £17 billion of Thames Water's debts, including investing another £3 billion in new equity and a further £2 billion of funding. It would also involve writing off 'several billion' pounds' worth of debt and a 'complete loss for existing shareholders' in what they claim would be the 'largest financial loss suffered by investors on an infrastructure asset in British history'. Under the proposals submitted to Ofwat, customer bills would not increase by more than the regulator has already approved over the next five years. But the creditors are asking for leniency on performance targets and compliance, and warned that without a 'regulatory reset' Thames Water's 'pollutions, asset health deterioration, and customer service levels are likely to worsen'. They are holding intensive talks with Ofwat in the hope of securing approval for their deal in early July. The plans come after US private equity giant KKR last week pulled out of a rescue deal to inject much-needed cash into Britain's biggest water supplier, which has 16 million customers and is sinking under £19 billion of debt. It threw the future of Thames Water into doubt once more and raised the threat of temporary nationalisation by the Government if a deal cannot be agreed. A spokesperson for the creditors said their turnaround plan was 'designed to fix the root causes of Thames Water's problems, restore its balance sheet, rebuild customer trust, and provide the financial investment and operational capabilities to fix the fundamentals of the business once and for all'. They added: 'The plan seeks to break from the patterns of the past by delivering customers' priorities and improved outcomes for the environment in the shortest possible timeframe. 'The creditors include some of the largest investors in UK water companies, as well as UK and global infrastructure more broadly, with a proven track record of corporate turnarounds and long-term stewardship. 'These investors have the funding and experience required to deliver a transformation of the company's performance which is intended to mark a departure from past failings, creating a 'new' Thames Water that works effectively alongside Government, regulators, and customers to deliver for the environment and economic growth.' The creditors are the bondholders who effectively own Thames Water after the High Court earlier this year approved a financial restructuring through a loan of up to £3 billion to ensure it can keep running until the summer of 2026. Other investment and pension firms in the group include Apollo Global Management, M&G and Silver Point Capital. As part of their plans, the creditors would appoint a new board at Thames Water to run the utility. They would commit to spending £20.5 billion over the next five years, as agreed under the current five-year plan with Ofwat. But they are calling for a 'pragmatic approach' to regulation – including 're-basing incentives and performance targets – and 'realistic levels of compliance'. 'Without the regulatory support requested, the creditors believe that customers will remain exposed to the risk of a continued 'doom loop' of underperformance and non-compliance,' according to the creditors. 'A clean slate that would see Thames Water and investors held to account to deliver an ambitious trajectory for the company's return to compliance,' they added. A spokeswoman for Ofwat said the regulator had been 'engaging regularly' with Thames over the funding plans. 'We have commenced a thorough review of the submission from the group of senior creditors,' Ofwat said. 'The submission includes their turnaround plans, approach to financial resilience and proposals for governance. 'Our focus is on assessing whether the plans are realistic, deliverable and will bring substantial benefits for customers and the environment.' Liberal Democrat MP Charlie Maynard, who has previously appealed against a £3 billion rescue deal for the utility, said: 'What will it take for the Government and the regulator to put a stop to this horror show Thames Water customers are forced to suffer through and pay for? 'Having created a mountain of debt, all at customers' expense, this latest plan for Thames Water would let them continue to pollute with impunity.'
The Herald Scotland
30 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Reeves signs off on £14bn to build new nuclear plant Sizewell C
Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said new nuclear power capacity was needed to deliver a 'golden age of clean energy abundance'. Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves is set to confirm £14.2 billion of investment in the new Sizewell C nuclear plant(Stefan Rousseau/PA) Trade unions welcomed the move, which the Treasury said would go towards creating 10,000 jobs, including 1,500 apprenticeships. But the head of a campaign group opposing the plant criticised the decision to commit the funding, saying it is still not clear what the total cost will be. Nuclear plants are seen as increasingly important electricity sources as the Government tries to decarbonise Britain's grid by 2030, replacing fossil fuels with green power. The last time Britain completed one was in 1987, which was the Sizewell B plant. Hinkley Point C, in Somerset, is under construction and is expected to produce enough power for about six million homes when it opens, but that may not be until 2031. The Energy Secretary said: 'We need new nuclear to deliver a golden age of clean energy abundance, because that is the only way to protect family finances, take back control of our energy, and tackle the climate crisis. 'This is the Government's clean energy mission in action – investing in lower bills and good jobs for energy security.' It will get the UK off the 'fossil fuel rollercoaster', he separately told The Guardian. 'We know that we're going to have to see electricity demand at least double by 2050. All the expert advice says nuclear has a really important role to play in the energy system. 'In any sensible reckoning, this is essential to get to our clean power and net zero ambitions.' The joint managing directors of Sizewell C, Julia Pyke and Nigel Cann, said: 'Today marks the start of an exciting new chapter for Sizewell C, the UK's first British-owned nuclear power plant in over 30 years.' At the peak of construction, Sizewell C is expected to provide 10,000 jobs and the company behind the project has already signed £330 million worth of contracts with local businesses. The plant, which will power the equivalent of six million homes, is planned to be operational in the 2030s. The Government is also due to confirm one of Europe's first small modular reactor programmes and will invest £2.5 billion over five years in fusion energy research as part of plans to boost the UK's nuclear industry. The GMB union said giving Sizewell C the go-ahead was 'momentous'. Ed Miliband said new nuclear power capacity was needed to deliver a 'golden age of clean energy abundance' (Kin Cheung/PA) Regional Secretary Warren Kenny said: 'Nuclear power is essential for clean, affordable, and reliable energy – without new nuclear, there can be no net zero. 'Sizewell C will provide thousands of good, skilled, unionised jobs and we look forward to working closely with the Government and Sizewell C to help secure a greener future for this country's energy sector.' Mike Clancy, general secretary of Prospect, said: 'Delivering this funding for Sizewell C is a vital step forward, this project is critical to securing the future of the nuclear industry in the UK. 'New nuclear is essential to achieving net zero, providing a baseload of clean and secure energy, as well as supporting good, unionised jobs. 'Further investment in SMRs and fusion research shows we are finally serious about developing a 21st-century nuclear industry. All funding must be backed up by a whole-industry plan to ensure we have the workforce and skills we need for these plans to succeed.' Alison Downes of Stop Sizewell C said ministers had not 'come clean' about the full cost of the project, which the group have previously estimated could be some £40 billion. 'There still appears to be no final investment decision for Sizewell C, but £14.2 billion in taxpayers' funding, a decision we condemn and firmly believe the government will come to regret. 'Where is the benefit for voters in ploughing more money into Sizewell C that could be spent on other priorities, and when the project will add to consumer bills and is guaranteed to be late and overspent just like Hinkley C? 'Ministers have still not come clean about Sizewell C's cost and, given negotiations with private investors are incomplete, they have signed away all leverage and will be forced to offer generous deals that undermine value for money. Starmer and Reeves have just signed up to HS2 mark 2.'
Powys County Times
34 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Labour rebel forces Commons vote amid fears of housebuilding reforms ‘wreckage'
Labour MPs have rebelled against the Government over its plans to override nature protections, amid fears its housebuilding reforms amount to a 'wreckage'. Housing minister Matthew Pennycook said developers will be able to pay into a new nature recovery fund to bolster conservation efforts, which he denied was a 'cash to trash model'. But North East Hertfordshire MP Chris Hinchliff forced a division on his amendment 69, which would compel developers to improve the conservation status of environmental features on their land before causing 'damage'. MPs voted to reject the amendment, with 180 in favour, 307 against, majority 127. Mother of the House Diane Abbott, Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) and Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) were among the 14 Labour MPs who rebelled against the Government. In addition to Mr Hinchliff, Labour's Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam), Richard Burgon (Leeds East), Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby), Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth), Clive Lewis (Norwich South), Rachael Maskell (York Central), Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East), Kate Osborne (Jarrow and Gateshead East), Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill), Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston), and Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) also voted in favour of the amendment. Mr Hinchliff told the Commons that the fund was a 'kernel of a good idea', but added: 'The weight of evidence against how it has been drafted is overwhelming.' The money will help Natural England set up new environmental delivery plans (EDPs), which Mr Hinchliff said should come with a timeline for their implementation. He said the proposal will give 'ministers the opportunity to rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation, ensuring environmental delivery plans serve their purpose without allowing developers to pay cash to destroy nature'. He added: 'It would ensure conservation takes place before damage, so endangered species aren't pushed close to extinction before replacement habitats are established, and it outlines that conservation must result in improvements to the specific feature harmed, protecting irreplaceable habitats like chalk streams.' Mr Hinchliff had also called for a residents' right of appeal against green-lit large developments, if they are not on sites which a council has set aside for building, and new town hall powers to block developers' plans, if they have failed to finish their previous projects. Mr Pennycook had earlier said the 'status quo' for the environment and development was not working, and instead proposed reforms which he described as a 'win-win' for both. He said: 'The Nature Restoration Fund will do exactly as its name suggests. It will restore, not harm nature. It is a smart planning reform designed to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery while improving the state of nature across the country.' He later told MPs: 'I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on. 'First, some have claimed that driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of the environment, the Government is creating a licence for developers to pay to pollute. A cash-to-trash model, as some have dubbed it. In reality, the nature and restoration fund will do the precise opposite. 'I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not, and need not, come at the expense of the environment. It is plainly nonsense to suggest the Nature Restoration Fund would allow developers to simply pay Government and then wantonly harm nature.' Mr Pennycook said the money would be given to Natural England, which is set to get powers to acquire land compulsorily to put its EDPs into practice. Labour MP for Poole Neil Duncan-Jordan, who acted as a teller for the ayes to enable the vote to take place, criticised the Government's rhetoric, and argued it was 'too simplistic to argue that this is a debate of builders versus blockers'. He said 'there's no amount of killing badgers or red tape bonfires which is going to fix' what he described as a 'developer-led model' of planning, when housebuilders 'drip feed developments into the system, prioritising properties which maximise profit and are far from affordable for local people'. The Conservatives accused the Government of 'greenwashing'. Conservative shadow housing minister Paul Holmes said: 'While developers may cheer the ability to pay into a Nature Restoration Fund instead of taking direct responsibility for mitigations, we should ask, is this really restoration, or is it greenwashing?' Mr Pennycook said the new laws were needed to 'speed up and streamline' Labour's housing target of 1.5 million homes, clean energy goals and aim to approve at least 150 'major economic infrastructure projects'. Several MPs had called for swift bricks – hollow bricks where small birds can make their nests – in new builds, in amendments drafted by Labour's Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) and Barry Gardiner (Brent West), and Liberal Democrat housing spokesman Gideon Amos. At the despatch box, Mr Pennycook said that 'changing national planning policy is the more effective route to securing swift bricks as a standard feature of the vast majority of new builds', through a regularly updated set of planning rules. 'We are specifically giving consideration to using a new suite of national policies for decision making to require swift bricks to be incorporated into new buildings unless there are compelling reasons which preclude their use, or which would make them ineffective,' the minister said. 'This would significantly strengthen the planning policy expectations already in place, meaning for example that we would expect to see at least one swift brick in all new brick-built houses.'
