Latest news with #parliamentarians
ABC News
4 days ago
- Politics
- ABC News
Taiwan opposition parliamentarians survive major recall election
When Prime Minister Anthony Albanese visited China recently, there were questions about what role Australia would play if China and the US went to war over Taiwan. The island's defence capabilities have also been front-of-mind for some Taiwanese people and parliamentarians during a domestic political stoush that came to a head on Saturday. For several months now, civil society groups in Taiwan have been campaigning to unseat 24 parliamentarians they considered to be too pro-China. But their efforts to expel the politicians, using a recall motion, have failed. So, what does that mean for Taiwan? Taiwan, a democratic self-governing island of 23 million people, has a political system that allows voters to remove their elected representatives before the end of their term through a legal process known as a recall. But recalls are rare, and had never been used on this scale before. Grassroots organisations behind this unprecedented mass recall campaign wanted to unseat opposition party parliamentarians they viewed as pro-Beijing. The campaigners believed these parliamentarians had been using their majority to block the democratically aligned Taiwan president's agenda, impacting government budgets and crucially, defence programs, which consequently created risks for Taiwan's security. "The opposition lawmakers have paralysed the government's ability to start the process of enhancing defence reforms and capabilities that Taiwan desperately needs in order to deter China from continuing to enhance military pressure on Taiwan," said William Yang, International Crisis Group's senior analyst for North-East Asia. The opposition parliamentarians had denied these accusations. Beijing has repeatedly insisted that Taiwan will one day become a part of China, refusing to rule out the use of force to achieve that. US intelligence suggests China's President Xi Jinping wants his military ready for a potential invasion by 2027. All recall votes against the 24 opposition party members from the Kuomintang (KMT) were rejected, according to Taiwan's Central Election Commission. It means the current makeup of Taiwan's parliament will remain the same. "The result shows the majority of the Taiwanese people still prefer the outcome from the Taiwanese election delivered in 2024," explained Mr Yang. The opposition party will continue to have a majority in the legislature, and the ruling party, President Lai Ching-te's Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), will continue to control the executive branch of government. Mr Yang described the results as a "double-edged sword". "On the one hand, the opposition party could feel that they have the momentum behind them, so they will try to make a way to push the government to provide more leverage and concessions," he said. "But at the same time, the opposition could also feel the heat in the way that they will be more cautious when it comes to blocking or stopping the government's agenda so that they won't face similar recall measures in the future." KMT chairman Eric Chu thanked Taiwan's voters and called for President Lai to apologise and reflect on his governance. "One should not lose the elections and then call for malicious recalls. One should not seek one-party dominance and destroy democracy," he told a press briefing in Taipei. "Most importantly, the people of Taiwan chose stability and chose a government that gets things done, rather than political infighting." Wu Szu-yao, secretary general of the DPP's legislative caucus, said the party respected the voters' decision with pleasure, adding the result would only strengthen the DPP's "anti-communist and pro-Taiwan" stance. "This time we saw China was trying everything it could to intervene," she told reporters at party headquarters in Taipei, pointing to Chinese military pressure and a disinformation campaign. "We must be more vigilant against their possible malicious intentions toward Taiwan." The groups seeking the recalls said theirs was an "anti-communist" movement, accusing the KMT of selling out Taiwan by sending lawmakers to China, not supporting defence spending and bringing chaos to parliament. Voters like Mr Hsu told the ABC the recall campaign had created a divided society, and political polarisation in Taiwan had become "extreme." He hoped for a return to normalcy after the recall vote result. "I hope everyone on this island can live happily, with a thriving economy, instead of being caught up in constant infighting." Jennifer Chang said she hoped that both sides of the political spectrum could find some common ground. "I think everyone should speak out and listen more," she said. Ms Liang, 60, believed people in Taiwan were tolerant. "They're open to different opinions and treat each other with respect. That's something I really value about Taiwan." Reuters
Al Jazeera
5 days ago
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
France's decision to recognise Palestine ups pressure on UK's Starmer
France's decision to recognise Palestine ups pressure on UK's Starmer NewsFeed UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, under pressure to recognise a Palestinian state, said he would do so only as part of a wider peace deal. His Labour-led government is facing growing calls to recognise a Palestinian state after France said it will and a cross-party group of parliamentarians urged Starmer to act before it is too late. Video Duration 00 minutes 35 seconds 00:35 Video Duration 01 minutes 47 seconds 01:47 Video Duration 01 minutes 31 seconds 01:31 Video Duration 01 minutes 40 seconds 01:40 Video Duration 02 minutes 57 seconds 02:57 Video Duration 03 minutes 36 seconds 03:36 Video Duration 03 minutes 40 seconds 03:40
Zawya
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Zawya
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Southern African Development Community (SADC) Parliamentarians join forces to advance the Right to Food and agrifood systems transformation
Amid growing food insecurity and malnutrition across Southern Africa, parliamentarians are stepping up to drive legislative solutions. From 22 to 24 July 2025, parliamentarians from across the region - are gathering in Johannesburg, South Africa, for a high-level meeting and training organized by the SADC Parliamentary Forum (SADC PF) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The aim is to enhance legislative capacity, foster collaboration, and operationalize the newly formed SADC Parliamentary Alliance on Agrifood Systems, Food Security and Nutrition. This initiative comes at a pivotal time, as the region contends with overlapping shocks, from climate extremes to economic pressures, that continue to disrupt agrifood systems and widen inequality. It also builds momentum in the lead-up to the Third Global Parliamentary Summit against Hunger and Malnutrition, to be hosted in 2026 at the Pan-African Parliament headquarters in South Africa. The event also commemorates the 20th anniversary of the Right to Food Guidelines, reaffirming the importance of national legal frameworks in securing the fundamental right to adequate food for all. In a region where undernutrition and hunger remain persistent, the meeting offers an opportunity to align parliamentary action with regional and global frameworks such as the African Union's Agenda 2063, the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP), and SDG 2 – Zero Hunger. The Alliance is envisioned as a platform to foster cross-border cooperation, enabling parliamentarians to share good practices, advocate for sustainable food systems, and shape policy dialogue at national, regional, and global levels. FAO's technical role in strengthening legal foundations As the lead technical agency, FAO is supporting this process by providing legal expertise, delivering targeted training, and promoting the domestication of the Pan-African Parliament Model Law on Food Security and Nutrition. As part of a global initiative funded by the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Regional Identity of Germany, FAO is equipping parliamentarians to legislate, monitor, and advance the right to food across diverse national contexts. Beyond the training, FAO's support includes technical assistance to align national laws with the Model Law's provisions—ensuring countries have the legal tools needed to address food insecurity through inclusive and rights-based approaches. This is part of FAO's broader commitment to strengthening governance mechanisms and embedding food systems transformation within sustainable development priorities. Building on the establishment of the Alliance in December 2024, supported by FAO and the Spanish cooperation agency (AECID), the adoption of the Alliance's first work plan and the establishment of its governance structures mark the beginning of a long-term process. Realizing the right to food requires sustained political will, robust legal frameworks, and active parliamentary engagement to protect biodiversity, support traditional food systems, and ensure that no one is left behind. As the countdown to the 2026 Global Parliamentary Summit begins, FAO remains committed to supporting SADC parliamentarians in translating commitments into concrete, lasting impact. The road to Zero Hunger will require solid laws, inclusive institutions, and continued partnerships rooted in the shared vision of a food-secure future for all. Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Regional Office for Africa.
Telegraph
27-06-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
I've investigated public sector pensions for 25 years but I wasn't prepared for this
The NHS pension scheme is the largest unfunded public sector scheme in Britain, and harbours the largest overall pension scheme liability (public or private). You would think those facts would command a great deal of scrutiny as to where exactly the money comes from and goes to. I have been studying the public sector pension system for 25 years, and I thought I knew the answers to those questions. But, in a discovery I made a couple of weeks ago, it turns out I didn't know everything about the sources and uses of the NHS pension scheme funds – far from it. It now turns out that I have been mistaken about an annual flow of about £6.6bn. If I didn't know, that means almost no one outside the scheme itself would know; that parliamentarians also wouldn't have a clue and the general public will have absolutely no chance. With the level of secrecy and obfuscation that allows important financial information to be so well hidden, how can we trust our elected politicians and their civil servants to tell us accurately (or even know accurately) where our money is going? I will do my best to explain how I thought money flowed, and what turns out to be the reality. The NHS Pension Scheme covers England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate schemes. Sticking with the NHS scheme, in 2024-25, the financial year just ended in March, NHS employees paid an average of 9.8pc of pay in pensions contributions in a graduated scale ranging from 5.1pc to 13.5pc, so that the highest-paid employees paid the highest percentage. In 2024-25, the percentage that employers had to pay was raised from 20.6pc to 23.7pc – a 3.1 percentage point increase. This was the result of a valuation process that was started in 2020. To remind readers not familiar with the Government's unfunded pension system, these contributions, while actually paid in cash, are not invested as they would be in a normal pension fund, instead they go towards paying this year's pensions. Any surplus or deficit in the cash flow in the year is paid to, or received, from the Treasury, who is the scheme's guarantor. You might imagine that the NHS employers were the same thing as the Government (since the NHS is owned and run by the Government), but this is a very long way from the truth. In fact there were, at 31 March 2024, 7,823 participating NHS employers, of which 6,260 were GP practices, and 218 were NHS Trusts and Local Health Boards (the Welsh equivalent). GP practices are mostly private sector businesses, owned and run by GP partners. They get their income from the Government, and provide services largely free at the point of delivery to the patients registered with their practices, but they are free to spend state income as they choose (within guidelines). They can and do own the properties they work from. They can and do pay to become partners in practices and be paid when they leave or retire. GPs themselves are not employees of the NHS or of the Government, they are employees or partners of their practices. So it is a very unusual arrangement that, while not government employees, they are entitled to NHS pensions. This has been the case for many decades, so is not a revelation. In the arrangements that I had imagined to be the case until now, I believed that the Government paid its employers (mostly trusts and GPs) the money to both pay their employees and the employers' pensions contributions, so that the employer could then send the employer contributions back to the Government – in this case to the NHS Pension Fund, which is responsible for receiving contributions and paying the pensions as they arise. But it turns out I was wrong about that. We need a little history to understand the background. In the financial year 2019-20, as a result of a previous 'valuation' exercise, the NHS raised the employers' contribution from 14.3pc of pay to 20.6pc of pay. This was a large rise, and the other public sector schemes (for teachers, civil servants, armed forces) faced similar employer contribution rises. But as I now discover, NHS employers (remember there are 7,823 of them) did not face this rise as reported in the 2019-20 NHS Pension Accounts. They did not get extra money from the Government to pay this increased contribution rate, and indeed they did not pay it. So as far as all these myriad NHS employers are concerned, the employers' contribution stayed at 14.3pc of pay. This is not mentioned in the 2019-20 NHS Pension Accounts anywhere, nor in any subsequent NHS pension accounts. Apparently it was decided that as a 'transitional measure', the additional employers' contributions – in this case 6.3pc (20.6pc-14.3pc) of pay – would be paid 'centrally' by NHS England direct to the NHS pension fund. It is not clear who made this decision or why. But the upshot is that a mechanism that was supposed to (at least approximately) mirror the costs of providing pensions to the employers has been compromised. In 2024-25, the position has worsened. The transitional protection that was apparently, and covertly, given to NHS employers has become, de facto, permanent. In 2024-25, as I wrote above, employer contributions have increased again, this time to 23.7pc of pay. But the NHS has seen fit to maintain the 14.4pc contribution rate for all its employers, with now 9.4pc of pay being paid as 'employer contributions' not from the employer, but by NHS England. This is the £6.6bn I mentioned at the start of this column, and is nearly as much as all the employee pension contributions in 2024-25 – which will amount to about £6.9bn. There is so little information about this £6.6bn, it is, for example, not possible (or perhaps I haven't looked hard enough) to know whether this arrangement applies in Wales (part of the NHS Pension Scheme), or in Scotland or Northern Ireland, who have their own NHS pension schemes. It definitely does not apply to the Teachers' Pension Scheme, where all schools, including private schools, are facing a rise in employers' contribution to 28.6pc of pay. By now your head is probably bursting with that barrage of numbers I've just given you. But does all this 'missing' money matter? I think it matters a great deal. One of the great problems with Britain's gold-plated public sector pensions, now costing taxpayers at least £54bn a year, is that they are unfunded. This robs future generations for the benefit of today's public sector workers. The reporting around the funding of these schemes has also been so complex, artificial and obscure that no one knows what these pensions really cost or are worth. Until we face up to these problems, they are only going to get worse.
The National
10-06-2025
- Politics
- The National
UK MPs demand stronger sanctions against Israel
A group of 96 UK parliamentarians are demanding stronger economic action against Israel, following Britain's recent moves to impose sanctions on individual Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank and suspend new trade talks. In a letter to the Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Monday, the parliamentarians, including 72 MPs, expressed 'grave concern' over the 'relentless violence against Palestinians' across Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank. They welcomed the UK's recent measures but said that they 'fall short of what is needed'. They called on the government to 'move beyond sanctioning individual settlers but sanction state officials, including ministers, and introduce sanctions in respect of the state of Israel'. They also called for a ban on trade with illegal settlements and the suspension of the existing free trade agreement with Israel. 'Failure to act not only undermines the integrity of the agreement but also signals tolerance for grave breaches of international law,' the letter said. Mr Starmer recently changed his tone on Gaza, describing the humanitarian crisis as 'intolerable' and 'appalling'. Last week he told MPs the UK would 'keep looking at further action along with our allies, including sanctions', but that a priority was to 'get back to a ceasefire'. The letter said the UK's focus on aid reaching Gaza was too 'narrow' that did 'not address broader systemic violations' by Israel against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. The signatories came from across parties, and included Labour MPs Diane Abbott, Valerie Vaz, and Abtisam Mohamed, Conservative MP Kit Malthouse, Liberal Democrat MP Layla Moran, who has Palestinian heritage, and independents including Jeremy Corbyn and Shockat Adam. Barristers Helena Kennedy and John Hendy, and former Conservative minister Sayeeda Warsi, who all sit in the House of Lords, were also among the signatories. It comes as 300 Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office staff who raised concerns about the UK's policy on the Israel-Gaza war were told they could consider resigning. The staff letter was sent to Foreign Secretary David Lammy last month, according to the BBC. In it, officials questioned the UK's continued arms sales and what they called a "stark … disregard for international law" by Israel. They feared that the UK government could be viewed as 'complicit' in Israel's alleged breaches. The May 16 letter said: "In July 2024, staff expressed concern about Israel's violations of international humanitarian law and potential UK government complicity. In the intervening period, the reality of Israel's disregard for international law has become more stark." In its response, the Foreign Office said it had systems for staff to raise concerns and added that the government had "rigorously applied international law" in relation to the war in Gaza. Sir Oliver Robbins and Nick Dyer, the two most senior civil servants in the Foreign Office, drafted the reply, telling signatories: "[I]f your disagreement with any aspect of government policy or action is profound your ultimate recourse is to resign from the civil service. This is an honourable course.' It is believed to be at least the fourth time that civil servants have expressed their concerns to ministers since the war began in October 2023. The signatories are understood to represent a wide range of expertise across Foreign Office departments, embassies and missions, in London and overseas. The letters have reflected the scale of the civilian death toll in Gaza, Israel's restrictions on the supply of aid and Israeli settlement expansion and settler violence in the occupied West Bank, among other issues. Staff who are required to implement decisions also fear they could be liable in any future legal proceedings against the UK government. A Foreign Office spokesperson said: 'Since day one, this government has rigorously applied international law in relation to the war in Gaza. 'One of our first acts in government was to suspend export licences that could be used by the Israeli [military] in Gaza. 'We have successfully implemented the suspension decision and continue to refuse all relevant licence applications. 'We have suspended direct exports of F-35 parts for use by Israel, and we categorically do not export any bombs or ammunition which could be used in Gaza. 'We have also suspended negotiations on a free trade agreement, while supporting humanitarian efforts through the restoration of funding to UNRWA, and the commitment of over £230 million in assistance across the past two financial years.' They added: 'It is the job of civil servants to deliver on the policies of the government of the day and to provide professional, impartial advice as set out in the Civil Service Code. There are systems in place which allow them to raise concerns if they have them.'
