Latest news with #Strathclyde
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Spectator
Good Lords: the House is losing some of the best
Keir Starmer has not been the luckiest general. But, in one respect, he has bested Napoleon. The Duke of Wellington will shortly be purged from parliament, two centuries after Waterloo. Like his ancestor, Charles Wellesley has led a life of public service. For that, he will shortly receive the sack as part of the greatest purge of active lawmakers since Oliver Cromwell. All this so Starmer can make way for the likes of Tom Watson, Sue Gray and Richard Hermer. Among the hereditary peers are Olympians and entrepreneurs, artists and academics. Some are genuine blue bloods, others political animals. Senior Tories across both Houses lament the loss of Earl Howe and Lord Strathclyde, both of whom are described by colleagues as 'first-rate ministers'. Between them, the pair have clocked up 80 years in parliament. Strathclyde is the son of the last Tory MP to sit for a seat in Glasgow and is known across the House to be shrewd and gregarious. He led the Lords under David Cameron after beginning his career as a whip for Margaret Thatcher. Having helped carve a compromise which saved 92 hereditaries from Tony Blair, he will go down in history as the last one to sit at the cabinet table. Earl Howe succeeded him as the longest continuously serving Conservative frontbencher after Strathclyde quit the coalition in 2013; his life on the burgundy benches began when the Soviet Union still existed and he has since served six Conservative prime ministers. Howe worked at the Ministry of Defence, where he introduced the Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Act 2018. And his experience ranges from financial services to charity, including disability and epilepsy advocacy, the RNLI and the Chiltern Society. The parliamentarians I spoke to from both chambers talked of a decent and knowledgeable man. Not all relations between the Commons and the Lords are as harmonious. Wellington has gained a reputation as a thorn in the side of ministers. The Duke is married to Princess Antonia of Prussia and was chosen to carry Queen Mary's Crown at the King's coronation. He is also a former councillor and MEP. Although he entered the Lords as a Conservative in 2015, he broke ranks over Brexit, eventually becoming a crossbench peer. Wellington is a staunch environmentalist and has put down wrecking amendments to save green protections. He was expected to cause Labour trouble on their planning bill, and there are those in government who will be relieved to see the Duke go. Viscount Thurso is one of four Lib Dem hereditary peers. He has both a luxuriant beard and a serious lineage, being the grandson of Archie Sinclair, Winston Churchill's wartime Air Secretary. On the Labour benches sit Viscount Hanworth, a nuclear expert and statistics professor, and Viscount Stansgate, son of Tony Benn. Awkwardly, his brother Hilary Benn is a member of the government and is committed to his sibling's expulsion. While some hereditaries have followed the well-trodden path of the military, agriculture and finance, others prove that there is no mould. Lord Hampton is a photographer turned department head at a local state school. The Earl of Minto ran Paperchase. The Earl of Rosslyn started out patrolling the streets of Peckham for the Metropolitan Police. Lord Trefgarne was a pilot, and the Earl of Oxford and Asquith was a spy. Perhaps no one better illustrates the experience of the hereditaries than Lord Moynihan. He coxed Oxford to victory in the 1977 Boat Race and won a silver medal in the 1980Moscow Olympics, taking over the British Olympic Association in the run-up to the 2012 games. Moynihan was a political adviser to Francis Pym when he was foreign secretary, and he first entered parliament in 1983 not as a Lord but as the MP for Lewisham East. He served as minister for sport under Thatcher, supporting her through the Hillsborough disaster, before eventually joining the Lords in 1997. While Conservatives make up more than half of hereditary peers, Labour's purge will hit the crossbenchers hardest. Nearly one in five will be removed. Among them is their convenor, Lord Kinnoull. He is a chemist by training and a former barrister, who spent 25 years in insurance and chairs a wildlife conservation trust, promotes Scottish culture and tourism and runs a farm. He also sits on seven parliamentary committees and is regarded by colleagues as 'erudite, charming yet wily'. For some hereditaries, Labour's expulsion will mark the end of a parliamentary career that had only just begun. Lord Camoys, one of the youngest at 50, entered the Lords two years ago, following a career in finance and diplomacy – with postings in Afghanistan and Delhi and working in counter–terrorism. His latest venture – a £3.5 billion development for a film studios in Marlow – would create more than 4,000 new jobs. Sign-off on the project rests with the Housing Secretary, Angela Rayner. If Lord Camoys is unlucky, he may find he has not one but two careers cut short by this Labour government.
Glasgow Times
5 days ago
- Health
- Glasgow Times
University of Strathclyde discovery could boost imaging
Researchers from the University of Strathclyde found that two-photon processes, useful in studying Alzheimer's disease and other nervous system disorders, can become more efficient with quantum light at far higher levels than previously thought. Typically, these processes require high-intensity light, which can harm samples. Read more: 'No evidence' that data stolen in cyber attack, says Glasgow City Council Entangled photon pairs were suggested as a solution to this problem, but it was believed that the quantum enhancement only worked with very faint light. The new study by researchers in Scotland and Italy showed that quantum enhancement was successful at light intensity levels nearly 10 times higher. This could lead to new technology with stronger signals without losing quantum enhancement. The study was conducted by researchers from Strathclyde, the University of Glasgow, Università dell'Insubria in Como, and Istituto di Fotonica e Nanotecnologie del CNR in Milan. It was published in Science Advances. Dr Lucia Caspani, lead researcher in the project and visiting researcher at Strathclyde's Institute of Photonics, said: "We have been able to demonstrate that quantum effects can still provide an advantage well beyond the level of low intensity. "This could significantly expand the role of quantum light in applied technologies, notably within the field of biosensing. "Our research could lay the groundwork for the next generation of quantum-enhanced sensing approaches." Researchers examined two-photon processes and compared the results from quantum and classical light experiments with those of an experiment using classical, non-quantum light. The findings showed that two-photon processes driven by quantum light are more efficient than their classical counterparts, even at higher intensities where quantum enhancement was expected to fade.
The Herald Scotland
02-07-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Lords reform task force proposed amid moves to oust hereditary peers
The Cabinet minister made the suggestion as she sought to reassure peers that promised future Lords reform 'will not flounder', after the planned removal of hereditary peers. Responding, to concerns it would be 'a very good and highly-qualified talking shop', Lady Smith stressed it was important for the House to take a view and so press ahead with changes on its own or be used to pave the way for legislation if required. Although subject to discussion, Lady Smith hoped the committee could be set up within three months of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill being passed and its findings be considered within a year. The Lords leader outlined the proposal as peers prepared to vote on plans to oust bloodline members, which has faced heavy Tory criticism. The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which has already been through the Commons, will abolish the 92 seats reserved for members of the upper chamber who are there by right of birth. The Bill delivers on a promise in Labour's election manifesto and was promoted as the first step in a process of reform. Having held extensive meetings with peers, Lady Smith said: 'I think the House is seeking reassurance that the plans for the next stage of reforms will not flounder, and the Government is serious about its intention for further reforms. 'Can I say I've been greatly encouraged by support for two specific issues have been mentioned so many times … and that is on retirement and participation.' She added: 'We all value the role of this House as being self-governing, and I am keen that as a House, we take some ownership in moving forward on other issues. 'But reflecting on discussions and advice, I feel we need a formal and recognised process that is supported by the House. 'I've considered the mechanisms we could use, and I've concluded the best way forward would be to establish a dedicated select committee to look at the specific matters that members have indicated they're keen to make progress on. 'I am open to discussing other mechanisms, but that's the way forward I think may work the best. 'Obviously, I will discuss further with usual channels (party whips) before putting any such proposal to the house, but I would hope the House could probably set up such a committee within three months of the Bill gaining royal assent, and by this time next year, the House be able to consider the committee's findings.' Tory former Lords leader Lord Strathclyde said: 'What authority will this committee have? Would it be regarded by the Government as having authority? 'In other words, would its conclusions, or if it is passed by the House, would it be carried on by the Government, or would it be what I rather suspect, it will be a very good and highly-qualified talking shop, but it won't in the end, lead to anything because the Government will very easily be able to ignore it completely?' Responding, Lady Smith said: 'Well, I really hope that wouldn't be the case. 'There some things that may be able to be done by the House itself, but if the House comes to a conclusion on matters that need legislation, then I think there's an easier way to put through legislation if the House has taken a view. 'So, I'm very keen to have the House express a view.' 'But there may well be things that we can do without legislation. If that's the case, we can proceed. 'Where legislation is required … we have a manifesto commitment for legislation, and we determined to press ahead to these two issues.' Lady Smith acknowledged the manifesto proposal for members to retire at the end of the Parliament after they reached the age of 80 could create problems because it created a cliff-edge and see an exodus of peers. She said: 'If there are better suggestions, I would be happy to consider those.' She told peers: 'It would be purely on the issues of participation and retirement age. 'I'm quite keen to make progress on these issues, and I think by having what I call bite-sized chunks, I've always referred to these two issues as being stage two (of reform). 'There seems to be a consensus around the house that those are two issues the House wants to deal with, and that's why I've chosen those two specific issues because they were mentioned so often by members.'
The Guardian
30-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
UN expert urges criminalizing fossil fuel disinformation, banning lobbying
A leading UN expert is calling for criminal penalties against those peddling disinformation about the climate crisis and a total ban on fossil fuel industry lobbying and advertising, as part of a radical shake-up to safeguard human rights and curtail planetary catastrophe. Elisa Morgera, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change who presents her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday, argues that the US, UK, Canada, Australia and other wealthy fossil fuel nations are legally obliged under international law to fully phase out oil, gas and coal by 2030 – and compensate communities for harms caused. Fracking, oil sands and gas flaring should be banned, as should fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments and false tech solutions that will lock in future generations to polluting and increasingly costly oil, gas and coal. 'Despite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle … these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,' said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde. 'These countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing – biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities – caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.' Island nations, Indigenous and other vulnerable communities – who have benefited least from fossil fuels – now face the worst and compounding harms caused by the climate crisis and other environmental harms linked to their extraction, transport and use for energy, fuel, plastics and synthetic fertilizers. The report points to a mountain of evidence on the severe, far-reaching and cumulative damage caused by the fossil fuel industry – oil, gas, coal, fertilizers and plastics – on almost every human right including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information and livelihoods. Morgera makes the case for the 'defossilization' of our entire economies – in other words the eradication of fossil fuels from all sectors including politics, finance, food, media, tech and knowledge. The transition to clean energy is not enough to tackle the widespread and mounting harms caused by the fossil fuels, she argues. In order to comply with existing international human rights law, states are obliged to inform their citizens about the widespread harms caused by fossil fuels and that phasing out oil, gas and coal is the most effective way to fight the climate crisis. People also have the right to know how the industry – and its allies – has for 60 years systematically obstructed access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action by peddling disinformation and misinformation, attacks on climate scientists and activists, and by capturing democratic decision-making spaces including the annual UN climate negotiations. 'The fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,' said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report. States must ban fossil fuel ads and lobbying, criminalize greenwashing (misinformation and misrepresentation) by the fossil fuel industry, media and advertising firms, and enforce harsh penalties for attacks on climate advocates who are facing a rise in malicious lawsuits, online harassment and physical violence. Communities across the world are facing growing threats from sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, extreme heat, floods, and other climate-related impacts. This is on top of the deadly air pollution, water scarcity, biodiversity loss, and forced displacement of Indigenous and rural peoples associated with every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle. Meanwhile, fossil fuel and petrochemical companies have benefited from huge profits, taxpayer subsidies, tax avoidance schemes and undue protection under international investment law – without ever reducing energy poverty and economic inequalities. In 2023, oil and gas companies globally earned $2.4tn, while coal companies pocketed $2.5tn, according to the report. Removing fossil fuel subsidies, estimated to have topped $1.4tn for OECD members and 48 other countries in 2023, would alone reduce emissions by up to 10% by 2030. Redirecting these subsidies would help wealthy fossil fuel-producing states fulfill their legal obligations to aid developing countries to phase out fossil fuels – and provide financial and other remedies for the widespread human rights violations and environmental damage they have caused – and continue to cause. The compensation could also be funded by enforcing penalties for damages caused by fossil fuel companies, and cracking down on tax evasion and avoidance by the industry, as well as introducing wealth and windfall taxes. States could – and should – require the industry to finance climate adaptation, mitigation and loss and damage through climate superfunds or other mechanisms that are directly accessible to affected communities. Land unjustly appropriated for fossil fuel operations should be cleaned up, remediated and returned to Indigenous communities, people of African descent and peasants, if they want it back, or they should be fairly compensated, Morgera argues. The report lays out the human rights case for decisive and transformative political action to limit the pain and suffering from the climate crisis. The recommendations offer a glimpse at a world in which the basic rights of all people are prioritized above the profits and benefits enjoyed by a few, but will probably be dismissed by some as radical and untenable. 'Paradoxically what may seem radical or unrealistic – a transition to a renewable energy-based economy – is now cheaper and safer for our economics and a healthier option for our societies,' Morgera told the Guardian. 'The transition can also lead to significant savings of taxpayers' money that is currently going into responding to climate change impacts, saving health costs, and also recouping lost tax revenue from fossil fuel companies. This could be the single most impactful health contribution we could ever make. The transition seems radical and unrealistic because fossil fuel companies have been so good at making it seem so.' The best public interest journalism relies on first-hand accounts from people in the know. If you have something to share on this subject you can contact us confidentially using the following methods. Secure Messaging in the Guardian app The Guardian app has a tool to send tips about stories. Messages are end to end encrypted and concealed within the routine activity that every Guardian mobile app performs. This prevents an observer from knowing that you are communicating with us at all, let alone what is being said. If you don't already have the Guardian app, download it (iOS/Android) and go to the menu. Select 'Secure Messaging'. SecureDrop, instant messengers, email, telephone and post See our guide at for alternative methods and the pros and cons of each.
Yahoo
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
UN expert urges criminalizing fossil fuel disinformation, banning lobbying
A leading UN expert is calling for criminal penalties against those peddling disinformation about the climate crisis and a total ban on fossil fuel industry lobbying and advertising, as part of a radical shake-up to safeguard human rights and curtail planetary catastrophe. Elisa Morgera, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change who presents her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday, argues that the US, UK, Canada, Australia and other wealthy fossil fuel nations are legally obliged under international law to fully phase out oil, gas and coal by 2030 – and compensate communities for harms caused. Fracking, oil sands and gas flaring should be banned, as should fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments and false tech solutions that will lock in future generations to polluting and increasingly costly oil, gas and coal. 'Despite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle … these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,' said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde. 'These countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing – biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities – caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.' Island nations, Indigenous and other vulnerable communities – who have benefited least from fossil fuels – now face the worst and compounding harms caused by the climate crisis and other environmental harms linked to their extraction, transport and use for energy, fuel, plastics and synthetic fertilizers. The report points to a mountain of evidence on the severe, far-reaching and cumulative damage caused by the fossil fuel industry – oil, gas, coal, fertilizers and plastics – on almost every human right including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information and livelihoods. Morgera makes the case for the 'defossilization' of our entire economies – in other words the eradication of fossil fuels from all sectors including politics, finance, food, media, tech and knowledge. The transition to clean energy is not enough to tackle the widespread and mounting harms caused by the fossil fuels, she argues. In order to comply with existing international human rights law, states are obliged to inform their citizens about the widespread harms caused by fossil fuels and that phasing out oil, gas and coal is the most effective way to fight the climate crisis. People also have the right to know how the industry – and its allies – has for 60 years systematically obstructed access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action by peddling disinformation and misinformation, attacks on climate scientists and activists, and by capturing democratic decision-making spaces including the annual UN climate negotiations. 'The fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,' said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report. States must ban fossil fuel ads and lobbying, criminalize greenwashing (misinformation and misrepresentation) by the fossil fuel industry, media and advertising firms, and enforce harsh penalties for attacks on climate advocates who are facing a rise in malicious lawsuits, online harassment and physical violence. Communities across the world are facing growing threats from sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, extreme heat, floods, and other climate-related impacts. This is on top of the deadly air pollution, water scarcity, biodiversity loss, and forced displacement of Indigenous and rural peoples associated with every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle. Meanwhile, fossil fuel and petrochemical companies have benefited from huge profits, taxpayer subsidies, tax avoidance schemes and undue protection under international investment law – without ever reducing energy poverty and economic inequalities. In 2023, oil and gas companies globally earned $2.4tn, while coal companies pocketed $2.5tn, according to the report. Removing fossil fuel subsidies, estimated to have topped $1.4tn for OECD members and 48 other countries in 2023, would alone reduce emissions by up to 10% by 2030. Redirecting these subsidies would help wealthy fossil fuel-producing states fulfill their legal obligations to aid developing countries to phase out fossil fuels – and provide financial and other remedies for the widespread human rights violations and environmental damage they have caused – and continue to cause. The compensation could also be funded by enforcing penalties for damages caused by fossil fuel companies, and cracking down on tax evasion and avoidance by the industry, as well as introducing wealth and windfall taxes. States could – and should – require the industry to finance climate adaptation, mitigation and loss and damage through climate superfunds or other mechanisms that are directly accessible to affected communities. Related: World's climate fight needs fundamental reform, UN expert says: 'Some states are not acting in good faith' Land unjustly appropriated for fossil fuel operations should be cleaned up, remediated and returned to Indigenous communities, people of African descent and peasants, if they want it back, or they should be fairly compensated, Morgera argues. The report lays out the human rights case for decisive and transformative political action to limit the pain and suffering from the climate crisis. The recommendations offer a glimpse at a world in which the basic rights of all people are prioritized above the profits and benefits enjoyed by a few, but will probably be dismissed by some as radical and untenable. 'Paradoxically what may seem radical or unrealistic – a transition to a renewable energy-based economy – is now cheaper and safer for our economics and a healthier option for our societies,' Morgera told the Guardian. 'The transition can also lead to significant savings of taxpayers' money that is currently going into responding to climate change impacts, saving health costs, and also recouping lost tax revenue from fossil fuel companies. This could be the single most impactful health contribution we could ever make. The transition seems radical and unrealistic because fossil fuel companies have been so good at making it seem so.'
