Deleting WhatsApps in the middle of the Covid crisis is unforgivable

Martin Reynolds’s vague opinion on the reason why he deleted WhatsApp messages relating to the Covid-19 crisis beggars belief.

It seems apparent that the information contained in messages exchanged between these people was of considerable public interest. This cannot be allowed to pass as a private secretary just “tidying up” to protect an incompetent prime minister and his aides. This goes beyond party politics.

These are matters of national interest, not just private exchanges between political pals. The information contained would undoubtedly have served to better explain the events of that time, the motivations and reasoning of major actors. Their actions had very serious consequences for us all.

Reynolds, bereft of recollection, conjectures that he may have done so in fear of politically damaging leaks. Whatever the motivation, the deletions were a conscious act that has now compromised a very important inquiry and by implication the value of its conclusions.

Reynolds’s conduct in deleting records of exchanges of information between the prime minister and other senior government figures in a period of national crisis is a matter requiring something more than censure. Such things should not be allowed to occur in government without consequence.

David Nelmes

Newport

So, if even his ministers found former prime minister Boris Johnson to be “weak and ineffective”, what does this say about the government’s overall Covid-19 strategy?

Boris Johnson appears to have ignored scientific advice from the most qualified people and, as a result, more lives were lost.

It’s clear that Johnson should have locked down much earlier. Instead, he allowed football matches and race meetings to go ahead, thus spreading the virus. He even allowed partying with cheese and wine in the Downing Street garden.

MPs were seen openly travelling on public transport. Even Dominic Cummings ignored travel advice.

In my opinion, Boris Johnson’s government was a law-breaking joke. We must ensure that the man is kept far away from any form of ministerial office in the future.

Geoffrey Brooking

Havant

The prime minister himself must not go unscathed regarding the debacle of the pandemic. Was he not part of the cabinet that was supposed to make collective decisions for the health and safety of the public? Was he not charged for breaking the law for his part in the Partygate scenario? These are just many of the failures and weaknesses that show that this prime minister is no better than his predecessor and that a general election can’t come soon enough.

Paul Atkins

Burntwood

It is a scandal that the home secretary Suella Braverman is attempting to paint the huge demonstrations held across the UK in solidarity with Palestine as “hate marches”.

She is gaslighting on an industrial scale.

Braverman is notorious for the hate she has shown towards asylum-seekers and refugees and for the inhumanity of her policies against them. She even admits that she “dreams” of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda.

She has consistently refused to moderate her language against refugees choosing instead to further dehumanise these people as a “hurricane” unleashed on the UK and ridiculed showing solidarity with asylum seekers as a “luxury belief”.

Those of us who stand with the oppressed people of Gaza – and our numbers include many Jewish people – will take no lectures from Braverman on “hate”.

Sasha Simic

London

As Parliament returns from its conference recess, planners, local authorities and businesses are watching and waiting for ministers to set out further details of how new biodiversity net gain (BNG) rules will work from January.

The regime was supposed to begin in just five days but the government announced a delay in September, pushing implementation into the New Year. Defra now plans to publish regulations and guidance to cover exactly how BNG should be measured as well as a series of templates to help developers show how they will meet the requirement when they submit a planning application.

Coming into law through the Environment Act 2021, the legal requirement for BNG will see a new level of integration between environmental protection and development. Just as Section 106 has traditionally been used to ensure homes come with appropriate infrastructure, BNG will ensure they are built with an eye to the natural environment on which their inhabitants depend.

The process begins with a baseline assessment of existing biodiversity at a given site before development starts and will see a requirement to avoid impacts, create new habitats, or enhance natural ecosystems, onsite or offsite, as a standard part of the construction process. In a case where this is unattainable, as part of a last resort, statutory biodiversity credits must be purchased from the government. All such actions must create a biodiversity net gain of 10 per cent or more to comply with the law.

In addition, BNG requires long-term management from developers to ensure biodiversity enhancements are not “one-day wonders”. Local authorities will monitor to ensure enhanced biodiversity is maintained for the long-term.

Meeting BNG requirements will also mean greater investment in green infrastructure, which in turn helps to tackle climate change and enhance resilience to its most extreme effects. For example, woodlands, parks and rivers reduce the impacts and severity of droughts and floods, while green roofs, street trees and other vegetated surfaces provide localised shading and cooling effects.

Having delayed the advent of BNG requirements once, there really can be no further postponement beyond January. The legal requirement for BNG is groundbreaking and ambitious. However, this novelty means significant work will still be required to ensure its success once the law comes into effect. This includes a broad range of undertakings including everything from third-party services to government guidance and local authority capacity and systems. Every day we wait for these measures to come into force, the more serious the nature crisis becomes.

After all, the United Kingdom is one of the most nature-depleted countries in Europe. Our island has lost almost half of its natural richness in the last 50 years. Indeed, studies have shown that the UK has lost more of its natural biodiversity than any other G7 country.

The great advantage of BNG is that it will see an end to the insidious competition between development and nature. Whereas urbanisation between 1990 and 2015 led to a loss of 1.9 million acres of grasslands, development in the next decade will support rather than destroy the environment.

Trudy Harrison, the biodiversity minister, says that the delay to BNG will help “smooth the transition” to these crucial regulations coming into force and encourages developers and planning authorities to use the additional time to prepare. Every day at Biodiversify, we are helping the development community do just that, but most of those involved are now ready and waiting. It is Defra that must keep up.

Dr Samuel Sinclair

Co-founder and director of Biodiversify