Ban on new petrol and diesel cars in UK from 2030 under PMs green plan

New cars and vans powered wholly by petrol and diesel will not be sold in the UK from 2030, prime minister Boris Johnson has said.

But some hybrids would still be allowed, Mr Johnson confirmed.

It is part of what the prime minister calls a “green industrial revolution” to tackle climate change and create jobs in industries such as nuclear.

Critics of the plan say the £4bn allocated is far too small for the scale of the challenge.

The total amount of new money announced in the package is a 25th of the projected £100bn cost of high-speed rail, HS2.

The government says it is part of a broader £12bn package of public investment that is expected to draw in much more private sector funding.

A Downing Street source said it would send a clear signal to investors where to put their money for the future.

The plan includes provision for a large nuclear plant – likely to be at Sizewell in Suffolk – and for advanced small nuclear reactors, which it is hoped, will create an estimated 10,000 jobs at Rolls-Royce and other firms.

The government hopes that as many as 250,000 jobs will be created overall – especially in the north of England and in Wales, with 60,000 in offshore wind.

The clean energy revolution will also creep into some people’s homes.

The government will bring forward, to 2023, the date by which new homes will need to be cosy without using gas heating.

It will aim to install 600,000 heat pumps a year by 2028 – these are low-energy electrical devices for warming homes.

And it has extended the Green Homes Grant for home insulation for a year after the first tranche was massively over-subscribed.

Clean hydrogen will be blended into the natural gas supply to reduce overall emissions from gas, and the government is seeking a town to volunteer for a trial of 100% hydrogen for heat, industry and cooking.

The hydrogen – attracting a subsidy of up to £500m – will be produced in places such as north-east England, partly by energy from offshore wind.

The government wants to breathe new life into de-industrialised areas by teaming hydrogen production with the manufacture of wind turbines, and with four clusters of firms using carbon capture and storage.

This is when emissions from chimneys are captured and forced into rocks underground. The hope is to transform depressed areas into high-tech hubs. This will get subsidy of an extra £200m.

Another key point of the plan is a £1.3bn investment in electric vehicle (EV) charging points. Grants for EV buyers will stretch to £582m to help people make the transition.

There is also nearly £500m for battery manufacture in the Midlands and north-east England.

In the greener-than-thou race on the roads, the UK is now in second place after Norway, with its fossil fuel vehicle abolition date of 2025.

UK car makers have warned about the scale of the challenge, but the government believes that forcing technological change can give firms a competitive edge.

Mr Johnson said he hoped his policies would create and support up to 250,000 UK jobs. Experts said the £4bn would go a long way if it were spent on labour-intensive insulation, but not far if ploughed into expensive, mechanised carbon capture.

The prime minister said: “My 10-point plan will create, support and protect hundreds of thousands of green jobs, whilst making strides towards net zero by 2050.

“Our green industrial revolution will be powered by the wind turbines of Scotland and the North East, propelled by the electric vehicles made in the Midlands and advanced by the latest technologies developed in Wales, so we can look ahead to a more prosperous, greener future.”

The prime minister made it clear that his plans aim to create jobs and address climate change at the same time. This time next year he will host an international climate summit in Glasgow, known as COP.

The COP26 UN summit, which was postponed 12 months because of the pandemic, is seen as the most important round of talks to tackle climate change since the Paris Agreement in 2015.

The plans are aimed to put the UK on track to meet its goal of net zero emissions by 2050.

Shadow business secretary Ed Miliband criticised the plan, saying that the funding “in this long-awaited” announcement doesn’t “remotely meet the scale of what is needed” to tackle the unemployment emergency and climate emergency.

“Only a fraction of the funding announced today is new. We don’t need rebadged funding pots and reheated pledges, but an ambitious plan that meets the scale of the task we are facing and – crucially – creates jobs now,” the Labour MP said.

He said Labour wanted the government to bring forward £30bn of capital investment over the next 18 months and invest it in low-carbon sectors to support 400,000 additional jobs.

“Make no mistake,” he said, “this announcement from the government falls well short of what is required.”

The Green Party called for a transformation of the entire economy to reduce emissions, including scrapping the £27bn road building programme, which will actually increase emissions.

Mike Hulme, professor of Human Geography at the University of Cambridge, said critics shouldn’t “nit-pick about precise details” of the plan as it was “far more important is to endorse the direction of travel that has been set for the next decade”.

He said: “The significance of this plan lies in the fact that this is a Conservative government committing substantial amounts of public money to secure medium and long-term welfare and environmental goals.”

Tanya Steele from WWF-UK said the government had “fired the starting gun on the action we need to see”.

She added: “We now need the chancellor to live up to the ambition expressed today through a spending review that tests every line of public spending to ensure it’s compatible with meeting our climate goals.”

Follow Roger on Twitter.

Ban on new petrol and diesel cars in UK from 2030 under the PMs green plan

New cars and vans powered wholly by petrol and diesel will not be sold in the UK from 2030, prime minister Boris Johnson has said.

But some hybrids would still be allowed, Mr Johnson confirmed.

It is part of what the prime minister calls a “green industrial revolution” to tackle climate change and create jobs in industries such as nuclear.

Critics of the plan say the £4bn allocated is far too small for the scale of the challenge.

The total amount of new money announced in the package is a 25th of the projected £100bn cost of high-speed rail, HS2.

The government says it is part of a broader £12bn package of public investment that is expected to draw in much more private sector funding.

A Downing Street source said it would send a clear signal to investors where to put their money for the future.

The plan includes provision for a large nuclear plant – likely to be at Sizewell in Suffolk – and for advanced small nuclear reactors, which it is hoped, will create an estimated 10,000 jobs at Rolls-Royce and other firms.

The government hopes that as many as 250,000 jobs will be created overall – especially in the north of England and in Wales, with 60,000 in offshore wind.

The clean energy revolution will also creep into some people’s homes.

The government will bring forward, to 2023, the date by which new homes will need to be cosy without using gas heating.

It will aim to install 600,000 heat pumps a year by 2028 – these are low-energy electrical devices for warming homes.

And it has extended the Green Homes Grant for home insulation for a year after the first tranche was massively over-subscribed.

Clean hydrogen will be blended into the natural gas supply to reduce overall emissions from gas, and the government is seeking a town to volunteer for a trial of 100% hydrogen for heat, industry and cooking.

The hydrogen – attracting a subsidy of up to £500m – will be produced in places such as north-east England, partly by energy from offshore wind.

The government wants to breathe new life into de-industrialised areas by teaming hydrogen production with the manufacture of wind turbines, and with four clusters of firms using carbon capture and storage.

This is when emissions from chimneys are captured and forced into rocks underground. The hope is to transform depressed areas into high-tech hubs. This will get subsidy of an extra £200m.

Another key point of the plan is a £1.3bn investment in electric vehicle (EV) charging points. Grants for EV buyers will stretch to £582m to help people make the transition.

There is also nearly £500m for battery manufacture in the Midlands and north-east England.

In the greener-than-thou race on the roads, the UK is now in second place after Norway, with its fossil fuel vehicle abolition date of 2025.

UK car makers have warned about the scale of the challenge, but the government believes that forcing technological change can give firms a competitive edge.

Mr Johnson said he hoped his policies would create and support up to 250,000 UK jobs. Experts said the £4bn would go a long way if it were spent on labour-intensive insulation, but not far if ploughed into expensive, mechanised carbon capture.

The prime minister said: “My 10-point plan will create, support and protect hundreds of thousands of green jobs, whilst making strides towards net zero by 2050.

“Our green industrial revolution will be powered by the wind turbines of Scotland and the North East, propelled by the electric vehicles made in the Midlands and advanced by the latest technologies developed in Wales, so we can look ahead to a more prosperous, greener future.”

The prime minister made it clear that his plans aim to create jobs and address climate change at the same time. This time next year he will host an international climate summit in Glasgow, known as COP.

The COP26 UN summit, which was postponed 12 months because of the pandemic, is seen as the most important round of talks to tackle climate change since the Paris Agreement in 2015.

The plans are aimed to put the UK on track to meet its goal of net zero emissions by 2050.

Shadow business secretary Ed Miliband criticised the plan, saying that the funding “in this long-awaited” announcement doesn’t “remotely meet the scale of what is needed” to tackle the unemployment emergency and climate emergency.

“Only a fraction of the funding announced today is new. We don’t need rebadged funding pots and reheated pledges, but an ambitious plan that meets the scale of the task we are facing and – crucially – creates jobs now,” the Labour MP said.

He said Labour wanted the government to bring forward £30bn of capital investment over the next 18 months and invest it in low-carbon sectors to support 400,000 additional jobs.

“Make no mistake,” he said, “this announcement from the government falls well short of what is required.”

The Green Party called for a transformation of the entire economy to reduce emissions, including scrapping the £27bn road building programme, which will actually increase emissions.

Mike Hulme, professor of Human Geography at the University of Cambridge, said critics shouldn’t “nit-pick about precise details” of the plan as it was “far more important is to endorse the direction of travel that has been set for the next decade”.

He said: “The significance of this plan lies in the fact that this is a Conservative government committing substantial amounts of public money to secure medium and long-term welfare and environmental goals.”

Tanya Steele from WWF-UK said the government had “fired the starting gun on the action we need to see”.

She added: “We now need the chancellor to live up to the ambition expressed today through a spending review that tests every line of public spending to ensure it’s compatible with meeting our climate goals.”

Follow Roger on Twitter.

Jeremy Corbyn: Labour readmits ex-leader after anti-Semitism row

Labour has readmitted former leader Jeremy Corbyn following his suspension last month, the BBC understands.

He was suspended over his reaction to a report on anti-Semitism within the party, when he said the scale of the problem had been “overstated”.

It is not yet clear whether Mr Corbyn will face further sanctions, following a meeting of Labour’s ruling body.

New leader Sir Keir Starmer has spoken out against anyone who describes anti-Semitism in Labour as “exaggerated”.

But the decision to suspend Mr Corbyn was taken by the party’s general secretary David Evans, although Sir Keir endorsed it.

It followed the publication of a report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which found Labour had breached the Equalities Act over its handling of complaints of anti-Semitism during Mr Corbyn’s time in charge.

The ex-leader reacted by saying that his opponents had “dramatically overstated” the scale of anti-Semitism within the party for political reasons.

A Labour spokesman said Mr Corbyn had been suspended “for a failure to retract” his words.

A panel made up of members from the party’s National Executive Committee met on Tuesday to decide whether to take further disciplinary action or to lift his suspension.

Following his reinstatement, Mr Corbyn said: “I’m grateful to the many thousands of Labour Party members, trade unionists and supporters in Britain and around the world, who have offered their solidarity.

“I hope this matter is resolved as quickly as possible, so that the party can work together to root out anti-Semitism and unite to oppose and defeat this deeply damaging Conservative government.”

But the Jewish Labour Movement called the decision to reinstate Mr Corbyn “extraordinary”, adding: “After his failure of leadership to tackle anti-Semitism, so clearly set out in the EHRC’s report, any reasonable and fair-minded observer would see Jeremy Corbyn’s statement today as insincere and wholly inadequate.”

After the EHRC report was published Sir Keir, who replaced Mr Corbyn as Labour leader in April, said it had brought “a day of shame” for the party.

The co-chairman of the Conservative Party, MP Amanda Milling, has written to Sir Keir, saying: “You have claimed that Labour is ‘under new leadership’, but now is the moment to prove it – Mr Corbyn should be expelled permanently.”

Little Mix: Jesy Nelson takes break for medical reasons

Little Mix singer Jesy Nelson is to take an “extended” break from the pop group for “private medical reasons”, their publicist has said.

A statement didn’t give any further details about the 29-year-old’s condition.

It comes after Nelson recently missed the final of the girl group’s BBC One talent show, and their hosting of the MTV European Music Awards.

Little Mix’s latest album entered the UK chart at number two on Friday.

All six of the studio albums they have released since forming on The X Factor in 2011 have gone into the top five, and they have had four UK number one singles.

In a statement, the group’s publicist said: “Jesy is having extended time off from Little Mix for private medical reasons.

“We will not be issuing any further comment currently and ask media to please respect her privacy at this time.”

Nelson’s bandmates Leigh-Anne Pinnock, Perrie Edwards and Jade Thirlwall were seen without her on the final of Little Mix: The Search on 7 November, and on the MTV EMAs the following night.

Last year, Nelson received widespread praise for discussing her mental health battle on the BBC Three documentary Jesy Nelson: Odd One Out. The documentary, which won a National Television Award, addressed body image and the impact of online bullying.

Jeremy Corbyn: Suspended former leader reinstated by Labour

Labour has reinstated former leader Jeremy Corbyn following his suspension last month, the BBC understands.

He was suspended over his reaction to a report on anti-Semitism within the party, when he said the scale of the problem had been “overstated”.

It is not yet clear whether Mr Corbyn will face further sanctions, following a meeting of Labour’s ruling body.

New leader Sir Keir Starmer has spoken out against anyone who describes anti-Semitism in Labour as “exaggerated”.

But the decision to suspend Mr Corbyn was taken by the party’s general secretary David Evans.

A panel made up of members from the party’s National Executive Committee met on Tuesday to decide whether to take further disciplinary action or to lift his suspension.

Why the PMs devolution disaster comments matter

Sunday 1 October 2017 in Manchester.

Prime Minister Theresa May stands beside Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson at a fringe meeting at the Conservative conference.

Moments later, Mrs May held Ms Davidson’s hand aloft and, in a rare display of euphoria, shouted into a microphone: “Together we saved the union”.

Things have changed since then.

In 2017, the Scottish Tories had just had their best general election result in years.

Mrs May and Ms Davidson were close – and on the same page when it came to tactics over independence.

Ms Davidson was invited to cabinet meetings to talk about the issue.

Fast forward to now and the relationship between Scottish and UK Tories is strained.

In recent months, the Scottish Tories have been trying to distance themselves from Boris Johnson – and the new Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross has launched some thinly-veiled attacks on senior Tories in London, accusing them of defeatism and disinterest when it comes to the union.

Many, he has warned, want a UK government focussed on England.

Mr Ross has cast doubt on whether the PM is an asset to his party in Scotland.

That relationship will not have been helped by the prime minister telling MPs privately that devolution had been a disaster.

No 10 has insisted he is a fan of devolution – he was London mayor, of course – but not when it’s “used by separatists and nationalists to break up the UK”.

But Mr Ross was forced to come out and say the PM doesn’t believe devolution is a problem and to urge against “distractions”.

There are many in Whitehall who find devolution tricky.

There are more still who believe Nicola Sturgeon has communicated well during the pandemic – and that’s increased support for independence.

There are some in Tory circles who remain sceptical about devolution and think it has given nationalism a platform.

But very few in the public eye would argue against the Scottish Parliament.

And the timing of this row is far from ideal for Conservatives in Scotland.

In six months, there will be another crucial Holyrood election.

The SNP look set for a landslide win – based on a number of polls – and will use that victory to demand another independence referendum.

As we’ve reported before, the UK government strategy is to argue Scotland is served well by having two governments, talking up more of what the UK government does, particularly through the Treasury – in essence, that devolution works.

But the SNP Scottish government have argued for months that the UK government wants to interfere in devolved issues – they call the Internal Market Bill a “power grab” which will undermine devolution, for example.

And now, for the next few months, they are likely to point to Mr Johnson’s words as an example that Whitehall doesn’t like devolved governments having power.

Independence supporters will also point to 2014 – where Holyrood was promised extensive powers if Scotland rejected independence.

It has had more powers since, but Mr Johnson also said last night that he didn’t see the case for further devolution, just at a time when some are saying exactly that could help stop the rise in support for independence.

So, this creates an awkward debate for Scottish Tories which they’d rather not be having.

As one told me this morning: “It certainly doesn’t help”.

But it also shows just how bitterly divided unionists are.

Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats are absolutely furious with Mr Johnson’s comments and have been the most outspoken critics today.

The Lib Dem MP Alistair Carmichael, who was Scottish Secretary in the coalition years at the time of the 2014 referendum, told me for BBC Radio 4’s World at One: “Boris Johnson is now, I think, probably the greatest threat to the continuation of the United Kingdom – much bigger than Nicola Sturgeon or Alex Salmond could ever hope to be.”

He added: “Let’s not pretend this is anything other than a bad moment for those of us who want to remain part of a United Kingdom”.

This matters because if there is another independence referendum, it’s almost impossible, as things stand, to see Labour and Lib Dem politicians working with Conservative unionists like they did in 2014.

The unionist case is split between those who think the answer is more powers and those who don’t.

The SNP has its troubles too.

There are divisions in the party and it’s record in government is coming under scrutiny ahead of May’s vote. More on that soon.

But it is riding high in the polls and the Conservatives – and other unionists – desperately need to crawl back some ground.

Unforced errors do not help – especially from the prime minister.

Amazon launches online pharmacy service

Amazon has launched its own online pharmacy that will allow customers to buy prescription medicines.

Amazon Prime members are eligible for free two-day delivery and discounts of up to 80% on generic medicines and 40% on prescribed brand-name drugs.

Customers need to provide some basic health information, such as whether they are pregnant, as well as date of birth, gender and insurance details.

Some questioned the wisdom of giving health data to a tech corporation.

Amazon Pharmacy vice-president TJ Parker said it was hoping to transform an industry that “can be inconvenient and confusing”.

“We work hard behind the scenes to handle complications seamlessly so anyone who needs a prescription can understand their options, place their order at the lowest available price and have their medication delivered quickly,” he said.

Doctors can send prescriptions directly to Amazon Pharmacy, currently available in the US only, or patients can request a transfer from their existing retailer.

Amazon, which acquired online pharmacy Pillpack for $753m (£568) in 2018, said health data would remain separate and distinct from that on its retail site and no information would be shared with advertisers without permission.

But former Amazon executive James Thomson previously told BBC News he could imagine Amazon offering gym equipment, specific groceries or other products based on the health data of a particular customer.

“When those types of things start to happen, I believe it will become much more apparent that we have a major major data problem here,” he said.

Facebook and Twitter grilled over US election actions

Facebook and Twitter’s chief executives are being cross-examined by US senators for the second time in three weeks.

The two were summoned to answer questions about how their platforms had limited distribution of a controversial article about Joe Biden’s son published ahead of the US election.

But they are also being challenged over their handling of posts by President Trump and others who have contested the vote’s result.

The tech firms face new regulations.

In particular, President-elect Biden has suggested that protections they currently enjoy under a law known as Section 230 should be “revoked”.

It says the platforms are generally not responsible for illegal or offensive things users post on them.

Mr Biden has said this allows them to spread “falsehoods they know to be false”.

Republicans have also voiced concern about the law. They claim it lets social media companies take decisions about what to leave up and take down without being transparent about why, making bias possible.

“When you have companies that have the power of governments, have more power than traditional media outlets, something has to give,” said the Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter’s Jack Dorsey both addressed the issue in their opening remarks.

Mr Dorsey urged the politicians to work with Twitter to avoid changes that might cause “the proliferation of frivolous lawsuits, and severe limitations on our collective responsibility to address harmful content”.

Mr Zuckerberg added that any update must preserve “the freedom for people to express themselves and for entrepreneurs to build new things”.

The two tech CEOs also defended their record in handling the 2020 election.

But Mr Dorsey acknowledged that Twitter’s decision to block links to the New York Post article about Hunter Biden had been “wrong”, and that its failure to subsequently restore the newspaper’s own tweets about the story had required a further policy change.

“I hope this… demonstrates our ability to take feedback, admit mistakes and make all changes transparently to the public,” he said

Mr Zuckerberg avoided direct reference to the matter.

However, he used the opportunity to challenge recent claims by Democrats that Facebook had been slow in removing posts that promoted insurrection and violence.

“We strengthened our enforcement against militias and conspiracy networks like QAnon to prevent them from using our network to organise violence or civil unrest,” Mr Zuckerberg said.

The two tech leaders have been challenged over some of their recent decisions.

The Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal wanted to know why Facebook had not banned Steve Bannon.

President Trump’s former top advisor recently called for the beheadings of disease expert Dr Anthony Fauci and the FBI director Christopher Wray in a video he posted to both Twitter and Facebook.

Twitter threw him off its service, but Facebook only froze Mr Bannon’s page.

Mr Zuckerberg said Mr Bannon “did violate our policies” but had not clocked up enough strikes to permanently lose access.

And when the senator called for a rethink, Mr Zuckerberg responded: “That’s not what our policies would suggest we should do.”

Mr Zuckerberg went on to dispute reports that Facebook had forgiven infractions by both of Donald Trump’s sons and the news site Breitbart, among others, in order to avoid accusations of bias from conservatives.

“Those reports mischaracterise the actions that we’ve taken,” he said.

The Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein followed up with questions to both executives over their responses to President Trump’s posts about election fraud, which lacked factual basis.

She asked Twitter’s chief whether he thought adding labels but allowing the tweets to remain visible went far enough.

Mr Dorsey responded that he believed providing “context” and “connecting people to the larger conversation” was the right path to follow.

Senator Feinstein went on to ask Mr Zuckerberg if he felt enough had been done to prevent people delegitimising the election’s result given that hashtags for Steal The Vote and Voter Fraud had garnered more than 300,000 interactions on its platforms in the hours after Mr Trump falsely declared victory.

“I believe we have taken some very significant steps in this area,” Mr Zuckerberg responded, pointing to information it had placed at the top of the screens of US-based Facebook and Instagram users.

“I think that we really went quite far in terms of helping to distribute reliable and accurate information about the results.”

The Republican Senator Ted Cruz took a different tack, asking why Twitter was “putting purported warnings on virtually any statement about voter fraud”.

When Mr Dorsey repeated his earlier point about linking people to conversations, Mr Cruz pushed back.

“No you’re not. You’re putting up a page that says ‘voter fraud of any kind is exceedingly rare in the United States’. That’s not linking to a broader conversation. That’s taking a disputed policy position.”

Mr Cruz added that Twitter only had the right to take such a position if it accepted it was a publisher, which would mean losing the right to Section 230’s protections.

And he challenged both firms to disclose how many times they had blocked Republican and Democratic candidates for office in the 2016, 2018 and 2020 elections to reveal any discrepancy.

Neither tech chief would give a firm commitment to do so.

Meanwhile, the Republican Senator Michael Lee brought up Twitter’s suspension of an account belonging to Mark Morgan, the commissioner of US Customs and Border Protection.

The action was taken after Mr Morgan tweeted that the wall on the border with Mexico had helped stop “gang members, murderers, sexual predators and drugs from entering our country”.

“What exactly is hateful about [that]?” asked Senator Lee.

Mr Dorsey acknowledged that the action had been taken in error.

“There was a mistake and it was due to the fact that we had heightened awareness around government accounts,” he explained.

The Senator responded: “I understand that mistakes happen, but what we’re going to see today is that mistakes happen… almost entirely on one side of the political aisle rather than the other.”

Senator Lindsey Graham also questioned both men about whether their organisations had any evidence of their platforms being addictive.

“From what I’ve seen so far, it’s inconclusive, and most of the research suggests that the vast majority of people do not perceive or experience these services as addictive [but] there should be controls given to people to help them manage their experience better,” said Mr Zuckerberg.

Mr Dorsey said: “Like anything else, these tools can be addictive and we should be aware of that, acknowledge it and make sure that we are making our customers aware of better patterns of usage.”

Isabel Marant: Designer apologises for Mexican appropriation

French fashion designer Isabel Marant has apologised after the Mexican government accused her of appropriating traditional indigenous patterns.

Mexican Culture Minister Alejandra Frausto Guerrero said she used the styles without acknowledgment.

One cape appears to use a pattern unique to the Purepecha community of northwestern Michoacan state. It is on the label’s site for €490 (£440; $582).

Ms Marant said the accusations had saddened her “enormously”.

The designer said she had wanted “to promote a craft and pay tribute to the aesthetic to which it is linked”.

“If the Isabel Marant house and the designer have disrespected the Purepecha community… they implore you, and the country you represent, to accept their most sincere apologies,” she said.

Future designs would “pay tribute to our sources of inspiration”, she added.

In a response, Ms Frausto Guerrero said: “When a tribute is made to a certain culture, that culture should be included, because although it may be an ancestral culture, it is alive.”

“The communities should decide whether to accept it. You have the chance to be an ally in the defence of the cultural heritage of peoples and communities, recognising the great value of this knowledge that we must respect,” she said.

This is not the first time Ms Marant has found herself in hot water in Mexico.

In 2015, a blouse she designed was singled out by the community of Santa Maria Tlahuitoltepec, which said it was very similar to their traditional outfit.

In the past, Ms Marant has called her designs “tribal without being too literal”.

The minister invited Ms Marant to Mexico to meet the communities.

The Mexican government has called out other major brands for plagiarising indigenous designs in the past.

In July, Zara pulled a line in Mexico after it was accused of cultural appropriation over a purse which looked exactly like one Mexicans use to carry groceries – but for a much higher price. Similar complaints have been made against clothing chain Mango.

There have been calls in Mexico for copyright laws to be tightened to protect indigenous designs.

1 2 3 6