Author: PA Media

Rishi Sunak has said it was not just taxpayer money that enticed Tata to announce a new £4 billion battery factory in the UK which will create thousands of jobs.

After months of negotiations, Tata Son, the company behind Tata Group, said it had selected the UK for its next big battery investment.

The Indian conglomerate is widely reported to have chosen Somerset but refused to confirm the location.

It is planned to be one of Europe’s largest battery cell manufacturing sites when production starts in 2026, employing 4,000 people directly.

Each year around 40 gigawatt hours (GWh) of battery cells will be produced at the site, enough to meet half of what Britain needs to produce annually by 2030, according to one estimate.

Tata had reportedly been eyeing two sites that could house its new European battery factory, with the other in Spain. It was not immediately clear why it chose Britain.

The Government confirmed it stepped in with subsidies to help Tata choose the UK site, but ministers and spokespeople repeatedly refused to give details.

Prime Minister Mr Sunak said: “When I was chancellor, I set up the automotive transformation fund, which was always there to provide targeted investment in strategic industries where we thought it would make sense.

“But what is crucial about an investment like this is it’s not just going to be about that, it’s going to be about the quality of the workforce that we have here, the quality of our infrastructure, the road and rail connections, the approach to regulation, the competitiveness of our tax regime, which we have changed to make it more attractive for businesses to invest.”

Downing Street would not be drawn on whether support from the Government was worth £500 million or even as much as £1 billion.

“Some of this stuff is commercially sensitive, it’s not in the UK’s interests to get into all the detail when negotiating with companies,” the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said.

He promised, as did Energy Security Secretary Grant Shapps, that the figures would come out at a later date.

Talking to Sky, Mr Shapps said: “The exact numbers on this will come out in the normal way. Because of the commercial sensitivities, they have to be released in the usual way.”

Asked on BBC Breakfast about a Financial Times report that the Government was providing £1.5 billion in subsidies, Mr Shapps said: “That doesn’t sound right to me.”

The Government’s support to “enable this investment” was acknowledged by Tata Sons chairman Natarajan Chandrasekaran.

Tata refused to reveal the exact location it had chosen, but it has been heavily linked to Bridgwater in Somerset.

Because it is eight miles from the Hinkley nuclear power plant, the electricity grid in the area is likely to be already strong enough to handle the increased demand the factory will bring.

Gigafactories need access to a lot of electricity and big cables. For instance Britishvolt, a start-up that went bust earlier this year, chose the location of an old coal power plant in the North East of England.

On Thursday, voters in the Somerton and Frome constituency are to vote in a by-election to select a replacement for its former MP, David Warburton.

Asked if it was unusual to announce such a decision so close to polling day, the Prime Minister’s spokesperson said: “We would take any relevant advice in regards to by-elections in how we are making these announcements, as we have done with this.”

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak told reporters during a visit to Warwickshire: “Today’s announcement is a fantastic vote of confidence in the UK.

“Across the world, international businesses are showing that they are confident in the UK economy. They’re putting money behind that confidence and that is going to create real jobs and opportunity here at home.”

Mr Shapps said the investment will create 4,000 jobs directly and thousands more indirectly, such as in supply chains.

Tata did not say how many jobs it expects to create.

“This will produce a gigafactory that can produce about half the UK’s electric vehicles batteries,” Mr Shapps told Sky News.

“It has been nine months in negotiations, I’ve been involved with it throughout, including going to India.”

Earlier this year, Britishvolt went out of business.

Despite having little experience in the sector, it had promised to build the UK’s first gigafactory, but could not raise enough money to push ahead.

Vauxhall maker Stellantis said in May that it would struggle to make electric cars in the UK without changes to the Brexit deal.

It said it is vital to “reinforce the competitiveness of the UK by establishing battery production”.

West of England Labour mayor Dan Norris said: “After so many false starts, this is fantastic news for the West of England.

“However, the lack of a coherent industrial strategy means this historically rail-connected site will only be accessible by road. That’s a mistake.”

An incoming border system feared to cause major delays for UK holidaymakers at Dover was designed “without any consideration” for cross-Channel travel, MPs heard.

John Keefe, chief corporate and public affairs officer at Getlink, which operates the Channel Tunnel, said it will be difficult to process passengers in cars and coaches once the European Union’s Entry/Exit System (EES) is introduced.

The launch of the scheme has been repeatedly delayed and there is speculation it will not come into force until after the Paris Olympics in summer 2024.

The system is expected to involve travellers from non-EU countries such as the UK having their fingerprints scanned and a photograph taken to register them on a database the first time they enter a member state.

There are concerns this will cause long queues for train and ferry passengers travelling from Dover as border checks for people entering the EU are carried out there before they embark on their cross-Channel journeys.

This is in contrast to flights, which will involve passengers’ details being taken at destination airports.

The Port of Dover already suffers from long queues at peak periods due to French border officials carrying out enhanced post-Brexit checks.

Giving evidence to the Commons’ European Scrutiny Committee, Mr Keefe said: “This scheme was designed for airports, quite simply without any consideration for the nature of transport that happens across the Channel.

“For a one ticket, one seat, one person approach in a large indoor environment where there is space to put both kiosks for the data capture and also additional space for border officials, it’s easy.

“Where it struggles is when cars drive through large open spaces – car parks – in all weathers, in all lights, at all times of the day or night.

“The data capture has to look at individuals who are deep inside a vehicle. That then becomes very complicated.

“The scheme is not designed for the purpose it’s being addressed to. It’s designed for comfortable airports in EU territory.”

Port of Dover chief executive Doug Bannister, who has previously warned EES could increase the time it takes to process a car from around 90 seconds to 10 minutes, described EES as a “critical” issue which could affect “the health of the nation”.

He told the committee: “Half of our freight traffic is destined north of London. It is impossible to imagine levelling up the country if the Short Straits is not working well.

“This new regulation that’s coming in has got a potential large strategic impact on the health and prosperity of the nation.

“That’s why we feel it is so important.”

Mr Bannister added that in the past six months “demonstrable progress” has been made by Government officials showing a “willingness to engage” with France and the EU Commission in an attempt to minimise disruption from EES.

Drivers are being warned over severe road congestion this weekend as nearly 13 million leisure trips are expected across the UK.

The RAC said it estimates 12.6 million people will embark on day trips or holidays by car between Friday and Monday, causing “bumper-to-bumper traffic”.

The majority of schools in England and Wales break up for summer on Friday.

That is set to be the worst day for congestion as holidaymakers compete for road space with commuters.

Transport analysis company Inrix predicted that traffic hotspots will include the M5 south from near Bristol (Junction 15) to Bridgwater (Junction 23), which is a popular route for holidaymakers travelling to the South West.

Another motorway stretch likely to experience hold-ups is the M25 clockwise between Junction 10 for the A3 to Kingston and Junction 6 for the A22 to East Grinstead.

Drivers wanting to avoid long queues are advised not to travel on major roads between late morning and early evening from Thursday to Sunday.

RAC spokesman Rod Dennis said: “There’s no doubting the UK remains an ever-popular holiday destination with millions of drivers expected to take to the roads at the end of this week as schools in England and Wales close for summer.

“With the West Country leading the pack when it comes to the most popular part of the country to visit, it means routes heading south and west are likely to encounter some of the longest queues.

“Anyone using the M5 southbound from Bristol should anticipate bumper-to-bumper traffic, with those travelling outside peak periods most likely to have a better journey.

“We’re seeing an enormous increase in breakdowns this year as drivers dependent on their vehicles for leisure and work contend with cripplingly high prices, leading to some scrimping on car maintenance as a result.

“It’s for this reason we’re urging drivers to take action to avoid a summer surge of breakdowns.

“No driver should set off before a long journey without carrying out a few basic checks to ensure their cars have got the right levels of oil and coolant, as well as making sure all tyres have plenty of tread and are properly inflated.”

People who drive their car for work are being short-changed because the Government has not updated mileage rates for more than a decade, according to a report.

Analysis by motoring research charity the RAC Foundation found employees should be entitled to around 63p per mile tax-free when driving their own cars during work.

The rate, which is set by the Treasury, has been frozen at 45p per mile since 2011 despite large increases in motoring bills and inflation since then.

Someone covering 5,000 miles a year in their own car working for an employer that uses the tax-free rate only receives £2,250.

They would get an additional £900 under a rate of 63p per mile.

The study was conducted for a report by Unison into the impact of the rate freeze on frontline public service workers such as NHS, social care, police and local government employees.

The trade union said one in five workers in that category are required to drive for their job.

It found that some staff are using up annual leave or calling in sick because they have run out of fuel and cannot afford to fill up their vehicles.

Some social care employees have been forced to sell their cars to cover other payments, meaning they make fewer visits as using public transport increases travel times, according to the report.

The RAC Foundation analysis was based on Office for National Statistics figures showing the cost of motoring was 41% higher in April compared with the same month in 2011.

Cost rises affecting drivers over that period include tax and insurance (up 183%), maintenance (up 48%), vehicle prices (up 16%) and fuel (up 12%).

RAC Foundation director Steve Gooding said: “We know that some of our most important workers – those employed in health and social services, and in supporting roles – are being left out of pocket by the failure of ministers to sanction an uplift in the amount per mile they can receive tax-free for getting around to do their job.

“These aren’t board members and well-paid executives in new saloons, but key workers in five to 10-year-old cars who can ill afford to be subsidising the rest of us for the cost of carrying out their critical roles.

“Tax cuts might be off the Prime Minister’s agenda for the time being but, surely, fair tax treatment for these key workers should be a significant concern for the Chancellor in the face of a recognised cost-of-living squeeze.

“We think the Treasury should commit to an urgent review of the mileage rate and not leave it another decade before revisiting it again.”

Unison general secretary Christina McAnea said: “Mileage rates are woefully out of date. No-one should pay a penalty effectively for doing their job, least of all those providing vital services.

“Petrol prices have skyrocketed. Care workers, nurses and other frontline employees can barely make their incomes stretch to cover the basics, let alone the costs of using their vehicles for work.

“The Government must tackle low pay now, not threaten to hold public sector wages down. Essential staff shouldn’t be out of pocket for going to work.

“A failure to act now risks worsening the already dire staffing crisis.”

Employers can pay their staff whatever they want when reimbursing them for driving for work in their own cars, but many use the 45p per mile rate to avoid tax implications.

A Treasury spokesperson said: “Whilst employers can reimburse at a higher level, the Approved Mileage Allowance Payments aim to reflect the average costs of running a vehicle, which in turn helps keep the administrative burden low and reimbursing simple.

“As we work to bring down inflation, we have also taken decisive action worth £94 billion to support drivers with the cost of living, which is worth £3,300 on average per household over this year and last and includes a two year 5p fuel duty cut worth £200 for drivers.”

Drop-off fees for drivers have increased at more than a third of major UK airports in the past year, according to new research.

Eight of the 21 airports analysed have raised or introduced charges for dropping off passengers since August 2022, an RAC investigation found.

Drivers should “brace themselves” for record high fees, the motoring services company said.

The biggest upswing in existing so-called kiss and fly charges – which are typically levied for dropping off someone as close to a terminal as possible – are at Southampton and Belfast International airports.

The former has raised its fee from £4 to £6 for 20 minutes, while the latter has hiked its price from £1 to £3 for 10 minutes.

Belfast City Airport previously allowed drivers to drop passengers near its terminal for free, but this now costs £3 for 10 minutes.

Aberdeen, Birmingham, Glasgow, Leeds Bradford and Liverpool John Lennon airports have each added £1 to their fees.

Despite not raising its price this year, Stansted airport continues to top the table for the most expensive drop-off cost.

The Essex airport’s initial fee is £7 for 15 minutes.

Heathrow, the UK’s busiest airport, has frozen its fee of £5 with no time limit.

Passengers being dropped off at airports by taxis and private hire vehicles generally have the fees added to their fares.

Cardiff, Inverness and London City were the only airports analysed which allow free drop-offs outside terminals.

Many airports offer free options for dropping passengers off in mid or long-stay car parks connected to terminals by buses.

RAC head of roads policy Nicholas Lyes said motorists being hit by annual hikes in airport charges has become “an annual ritual”.

He went on: “Drivers should brace themselves for jaw-dropping prices when they drop their loved ones off at the terminal.

“Thankfully the proportion of airports hiking fees this year is lower than last year, but that will be little consolation as charges across the board have never been so high.

“What’s perhaps more frustrating is that many travellers will call on their friends or family to take them to the airport because of persistent industrial action on the rail network meaning that for many, being dropped off at the airport by car is the only reliable way to make their flight on time.

“Doing your research ahead of travelling has never been more important.

“Many airports offer a free or reduced-rate drop-off area away from the terminal in long-stay car parks where travellers can hop on a shuttle bus connection, saving their driver incurring more expensive charges nearer the departures building.

“Drivers tempted to drop loved ones on the roads inside the boundaries of the airport should beware as many enforce no-stopping areas with cameras which could lead to hefty penalty charges.”

Jo Rhodes, deputy editor of consumer magazine Which? Travel, said: “Travellers will be painfully aware of the spiralling costs of dropping a loved one at the airport.

“These latest figures come as a stark reminder that holiday budgets are being stretched at every turn, with higher hotel and flight prices already making a getaway unaffordable for many.”

A judge has warned about the dangers of driving at “excessive and unreasonable” speed after concluding that a hospital doctor who was in collision with a 12-year-old girl on a pedestrian crossing was going too fast despite being under a 30mph limit.

Deputy High Court Judge Dexter Dias heard that consultant physician Shanthi Chandran was driving her BMW i3 Range Extender at 28 mph in a 30-mph zone when the accident happened on a “dark and rainy Monday morning” on the Buckingham Road in Oxfordshire in January 2018.

He was also told that the child, who suffered a serious head injury, had stepped on to the crossing when the light was green for traffic.

But he concluded that Dr Chandran, who was on her way to work in Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, was driving at an “excessive, unsafe and unreasonable” speed and had failed to pay “sufficient attention to hazards and other road users”.

The judge said there was a “common misconception” that it was “reasonable and competent” to drive “just below the speed limit”.

He said that “may not be”.

The girl’s mother had sued Dr Chandran for damages – on the girl’s behalf.

Judge Dias outlined his conclusions in a ruling published on Wednesday after considering evidence at a High Court hearing in London in April.

He said the child, who had been left with “cognitive and psychiatric problems”, could not be identified in media reports.

The judge ruled that Dr Chandran was in breach of her “duty of care” towards the child and was 60% liable for the incident.

He said the child had stepped on to a pedestrian crossing when the light was green for traffic and was 40% liable.

“While this case is not about a fatality, it shows yet again how dangerous it is to drive at excessive and unreasonable speed,” said Judge Dias in a written ruling.

“There is a common misconception that if one is driving just below the speed limit, this is sufficient to be a reasonable and competent driver.

“It may not be.

“The maximum speed limit is not a target or an infallibly safe measure.

“It is an absolute upper limit, only justified if conditions and the road situation are sufficiently good to permit it.

“This, essentially, was the error that Dr Chandran fell into.”

She alleged that the “incident” was caused by Dr Chandran’s negligence.

Lawyers representing her argued that Dr Chandran was “driving too fast” given the “prevailing conditions”.

They argued that if Dr Chandran had been driving at a “safe and reasonable speed”, the collision would not have happened.

Dr Chandran denied negligence and causation and argued that the incident was caused by the girl stepping out into the road when the “traffic light was green for vehicles to proceed”.

She said she was driving at 28 mph, which was below the 30mph speed limit, and “appropriate for the conditions” and maintained that the “liability” lay fully with the girl.

The judge heard that Dr Chandran had not been “reported by the police for any criminal offences”.

He said he had been asked to make decisions about liability – he has not made any ruling about the size of any damages award.

A High Court challenge by five Conservative-led councils against Mayor of London Sadiq Khan’s intention to expand the capital’s ultra low emission zone (Ulez) will be heard on Tuesday.

The outer-London boroughs of Bexley, Bromley, Harrow and Hillingdon along with Surrey County Council launched legal action in February over the proposed extension of Ulez beyond the North and South Circular roads.

A judge at the High Court gave the councils the go ahead to bring the legal challenge in April, saying parts of the local authorities’ challenge were “arguable”.

If it goes ahead, Ulez will see drivers in outer London pay a £12.50 daily fee from August 29 if their vehicles do not meet the required emissions standards.

The new borders will reach Buckinghamshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent and Surrey.

Councils involved in the legal challenge believe “relevant statutory requirements” were not complied with, expected compliance rates in outer London were not considered and the proposed scrappage scheme was not consulted on.

They also claimed the overall consultation process was not properly conducted and that there was a failure to carry out a cost-benefit analysis of the plan.

The High Court has allowed the case to proceed on two grounds – the legal basis for the scheme and scrappage.

A spokesperson for the mayor said at the time: “The mayor is pleased to see the court has refused permission for the majority of the grounds.

“We will continue to robustly defend his life-saving decision to expand the Ulez and continue with preparations without delay.

“It is a shame that some local authorities have chosen to attempt this costly and misguided legal challenge instead of focusing on the health of those they represent.

“Around 4,000 Londoners die prematurely every year due to air pollution.

“This is a health emergency and the mayor is not prepared to stand by and do nothing while Londoners are growing up with stunted lungs and are more at risk of heart disease, cancer and dementia due to our toxic air.”

The hearing, before Mr Justice Swift, is due to start at 10am on Tuesday and the judge is expected to give his ruling at a later date.

The press watchdog has upheld a complaint that a Jeremy Clarkson opinion column in The Sun was sexist towards the Duchess of Sussex, describing some of the comments about her as “pejorative and prejudicial”.

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) also rejected complaints that the piece – in which Clarkson wrote he had dreamed of Meghan being paraded naked through British towns and publicly shamed – was inaccurate, harassed the duchess and included discriminatory references to her on the grounds of race.

The newspaper will have to publish a summary of the findings against it on the same page as the column usually appears, along with a notice flagging the statement on the front page of Saturday’s edition and on its website.

In a statement, the newspaper said it accepts “that with free expression comes responsibility”, adding it has a “proud history of campaigning for women”.

The Fawcett Society gender equality charity, which complained to Ipso, said the ruling is a “landmark decision” about a “vile and offensive” column.

The ruling is the first time a complaint to Ipso about discrimination relating to someone’s sex has been upheld, the regulator said.

Ipso found the article made references to the duchess’s sex, including a claim that she exercised power over the Duke of Sussex because of her sexuality.

It said this was “a reference to stereotypes about women using their sexuality to exert influence” and “implied that it was the duchess’s sexuality – rather than any other attribute or accomplishment – which was the source of her power”.

The regulator also found the article’s use of comparison to Scotland’s former first minister Nicola Sturgeon and serial killer Rose West was because the three are female.

In the article, Clarkson wrote: “I hate her (Meghan). Not like I hate Nicola Sturgeon or Rose West. I hate her on a cellular level.”

Ipso also said Clarkson framed Meghan’s position as a “specifically female negative role model” when he referred to her influence on “younger people, especially girls”, and described his “dream” of her being publicly shamed in the streets of Britain as a form of “humiliation and degradation”.

It said: “Ipso considered that any of these references, individually, might not represent a breach of the code.

“However, to argue that a woman is in a position of influence due to ‘vivid bedroom promises’, to compare the hatred of an individual to other women only, and to reference a fictional scene of public humiliation given to a sexually manipulative woman, read as a whole, amounted to a breach of clause 12 (which relates to discrimination).”

“Ipso therefore found that the column included a number of references which, taken together, amounted to a pejorative and prejudicial reference to the Duchess of Sussex’s sex in breach of the Editors’ Code.”

Ipso said it also “considered in detail” the complaints relating to the duchess’s race but concluded the elements cited “did not provide a basis to establish that there was a pejorative reference to race”.

It also said publication of one article was “not sufficient” to support a breach of harassment and it did not breach the accuracy clause.

The regulator launched the investigation following complaints from the Fawcett Society and the Wilde Foundation, a charity which supports women and girls who have been victims of abuse.

The duchess did not complain to Ipso or make any representations. The regulator said the duchess was given the chance to comment, but “she indicated that she did not have any opposition to Ipso considering a complaint from the representative groups”.

The article, which was published on page 17 of the newspaper on December 17 2022, became Ipso’s most complained-about article, receiving more than 25,100 complaints.

Former Top Gear host Clarkson later apologised for the piece, describing his language as “disgraceful” and said he was “profoundly sorry”. The Sun also apologised and said it regretted the publication of the column, which was removed online.

The Duke of Sussex branded the article about his wife “horrific, hurtful and cruel”, adding what Clarkson had written would encourage people around the world to believe it is an acceptable way to treat women.

Ipso chairman Lord Faulks said the article was a “serious breach” of the Editors’ Code of Practice, notably clause 12 in relation to discrimination, and they found the imagery used to be “humiliating and degrading” towards Meghan.

“Ipso’s purpose is to protect the public and freedom of expression by upholding high editorial standards”, he added in a statement.

“In this case, The Sun failed to meet these standards.”

Ipso chief executive Charlotte Dewar said: “The Editors’ Code of Practice protects the right of commentators to challenge, to shock, be satirical and entertain, but it states that the press must avoid discriminatory references towards an individual.”

Fawcett Society chief executive Jemima Olchawski said it had “made history with our complaints against The Sun for its publication of Jeremy Clarkson’s vile and offensive column about the Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle.

“All women are harmed if any woman is the target of sexist reporting and media misogyny is not acceptable.

“This landmark decision is a real opportunity for our media to catch up with what women have known for years – misogyny and hate are not acceptable and they can no longer be dressed up as satire or banter.”

Labour MP Harriet Harman, incoming chairwoman of the Fawcett Society, said: “Women are no longer prepared to endure the sexism that generations of women have been subjected to. Fawcett will be vigilant about sexism in the media and challenge it wherever it appears. This is a big step forward for women in the battle against sexism in the media.”

In a statement, The Sun said: “After Jeremy Clarkson’s column was published in December, both The Sun and Jeremy Clarkson apologised. We said we regretted publishing the article and removed it from our website.

“The Sun accepts that with free expression comes responsibility.

“Half of The Sun’s readers are women and we have a very long and proud history of campaigning for women, which has changed the lives of many.

“The Sun is committed to its work campaigning to strengthen legislation on domestic abuse, helping to provide beds in refuges and empowering survivors of abuse to seek help. Our most recent campaign, Baby Bank on Us, is raising money to help women struggling with the alarming costs of living and a newborn baby.

“Ipso has ruled that The Sun published a column about the Duchess of Sussex which contained a pejorative and prejudicial reference to the duchess’s sex. The committee did not uphold separate elements of the complaint that the article was inaccurate, harassed the Duchess of Sussex, and included discriminatory references to her on the ground of race.

“The Sun is today publishing the summary of Ipso’s findings.”

Drivers paid nearly £1 billion more for fuel at supermarkets last year due to increased margins, an investigation has found.

Watchdog the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said average supermarket fuel margins rose by 6p per litre between 2019 and 2022.

That led to an estimated combined additional cost of “around £900 million” for customers of Asda, Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons, a report stated.

The inquiry also found that an increase in margins on diesel across all fuel retailers cost drivers an extra 13p per litre during the first five months of this year.

The CMA recommended that the Government introduces legislation requiring retailers to provide up-to-date pricing information available in an accessible format.

This would allow drivers to compare pump prices at different sites through apps or satnavs.

The watchdog also called for a new fuel price monitoring body to be created to hold the industry to account.

Supermarket giant Asda was fined £60,000 by the CMA for failing to provide relevant information in a timely manner.

CMA chief executive Sarah Cardell said: “Competition at the pump is not working as well as it should be and something needs to change swiftly to address this.

“Drivers buying fuel at supermarkets in 2022 have paid around 6p per litre more than they would have done otherwise due to the four major supermarkets increasing their margins.

“This will have had a greater impact on vulnerable people, particularly those in areas with less choice of fuel stations.

“We need to reignite competition among fuel retailers.”

The UK Government appears less likely to meet its net zero targets since it became more transparent on its plans, its climate advisers have said.

Lord Deben said he was sad that his last progress report as chair of the Climate Change Committee (CCC) “is not a report that suggests satisfactory progress”.

It is the 15th such report from the CCC, which has been tracking the Government’s decarbonisation efforts since the introduction of the Climate Change Act 2008.

Last year, a High Court judge ruled that the Government must provide greater transparency on its net zero plans but now the CCC said that as a result, it has less confidence in the UK reaching milestone targets for 2030.

UK greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by 46% from 1990 levels, mainly because of the removal of coal from electricity generation.

The Government has pledged to reduce emissions by 68% by 2030 but the CCC said the pace of scale-up action is “worryingly slow”.

Four areas in particular have the climate advisers concerned – industry, transport, buildings and fuel supply.

They said the pace of decarbonisation in these sectors over the next seven years has to quadruple what it has been over the previous eight.

Chris Stark, the CCC’s chief executive, said: “There are no secrets for net zero any longer, we know how to do it.

“Right across the board we have well-worked-through strategies for how to cut carbon emissions to zero in most areas and for those sectors that we can’t get to absolute zero, we have enough capacity in the natural world and through more engineered solutions to take carbon out of the atmosphere.

“Those things take time. They need to put policies in place now that would steer us towards that future. That’s what we’re not seeing at the pace that’s required.”

The Government claimed to be a world leader in net zero despite the CCC saying it is throwing that position away by supporting the development of new oil, gas and coal at home while telling other countries to stop.

It also celebrated decarbonising electricity, the one area the CCC said has moved at the correct pace so far, but did not address any of the specific issues raised in the CCC’s report, such as how to realistically decarbonise industry, transport and buildings.

A Government spokesperson said: “The UK is cutting emissions faster than any other G7 country and attracted billions of investment into renewables, which now account for 40% of our electricity.

“In the last year alone, we have confirmed the first state backing of a nuclear project in over 30 years and invested billions to kick-start new industries like carbon capture and floating offshore wind.”

Mr Stark said the Government could do much more to encourage the adoption of low-carbon technologies such as heat pumps, as the UK currently ranks 21st in Europe for the number of heat pumps installed.

There could also be more incentives for people to change to electric vans and more charge points, with a change in pricing to avoid entrenching further inequality.

Mr Stark said: “We’re reinforcing a general unfairness here if we don’t act on this with policy.

“Those who are rich enough to have that company car Tesla and the driveway and can charge it overnight have the cheapest car travel now by some margin.

“Those of the population that don’t have those benefits do not have that opportunity in front of them and face higher costs when they drive their car.”

The UK’s climate is warming along with the global average and last year saw 40C for the first time on record – grassfires destroyed dozens of properties and there were more than 3,000 excess deaths during the heatwaves.

Despite this, the Government is wasting time by shying away from taking difficult decisions, such as allowing new homes to be built that will need retrofitting, Lord Deben said.

He added: “The fact is that if you lead then there are bound to be people who would prefer you not to have made those decisions.

“And what we’re seeing at the moment is not only in Government, but in opposition, people being unwilling to lead lest some people don’t like the decisions that are being made.

“But these decisions have to be made and there will be some people who disagree with them. And it is no good hoping that it will all go away. In the end, you have to make those decisions.”