It’s a disgrace that climate change is not higher up politicians’ agendas

Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

I was utterly disgusted at the sight of the Commons chamber practically empty for last Thursday’s debate on climate change. I wonder how many of the MPs absent for this debate – the first for two years on this crucial issue – were among those telling school students that they should have been in lessons, rather than marching for the climate, on 15 February? What sickening hypocrisy.

Mike Wright
Nuneaton

Chris Grayling gives hope to us all

A plea on behalf of Mr Grayling. Ever since I was young there has always been someone in public life who I have been able to rely on to take a position, on practically any issue, that is wrong-headed. It’s made the process of making my mind up much simpler.

The long list of holders of this post goes back to Gerald Nabarro and is currently in the safe hands of Mr Grayling. For example I had been uncertain whether HS2 would benefit the north or merely serve to spread the London commuter belt. Thanks to Mr G I can now safely conclude it is a gigantic waste of money that would be better spent enhancing the links between northern cities that, strangely, he seems intent on scaling back. Woodman spare that tree.

Pete Thackeray
Bristol

It is perfectly understandable that Theresa May should have “full confidence” in Chris Grayling.

She can be 100 per cent confident that he will make a mess of any portfolio she assigns him, which must make it easy to decide what to entrust him with.

The problem with most of her other ministers is that they are inconsistent: they are only incompetent some of the time.

D Maughan Brown
York

Why May’s deal is likely to pass

I’m afraid it is looking increasingly like Theresa May’s deal is going to get through the House of Commons. In the main this will be possible due to the support of Labour MPs representing pro-Brexit constituencies and a Damascene change of heart from the Tory ERG wing.

The Labour MPs claim that in the 2017 general election they promised to respect the outcome of the referendum. If the Labour party were arguing that parliament should unilaterally reject Brexit, then it would have a point. A second referendum would not be doing that, it would be simply asking the electorate whether it wishes to affirm its original decision. The inference is surely that these Labour MPs suspect that a second referendum will result in a majority against Brexit, which they might find hard to explain to their Brexit supporting constituents.

The same logic applies to the ERG Tories. Rees-Mogg and co appear to be willing to support a deal which must be anathema to them and which flies in the face of everything they have argued for in the past. They know, however, that any delay to Brexit increases the possibility of another referendum which they may well lose. To rephrase Theresa May, as far as they are concerned, any deal is better than no deal.

So there we have it. Whilst both groups are spouting the importance of keeping faith with the “will of the people”, in reality they are maintaining this position precisely because they know there is a very good chance that it is no longer the will of the people. In the meantime, the views of all those who have turned eighteen since June 2016 and any who might have changed their minds since the last time, are to be totally ignored. There surely can’t be many better examples of hypocrisy.

M T Harris
Grimsby

DUP dominance

What a great point we have come to – the whole country being held to ransom by a small group of MPs from Northern Ireland who don’t even represent the majority view of their own voters on the UK’s relationship with the EU.

Sandi Cook
Newnham

The Catholic Church is making amends

I write regarding the recent article from Geoffrey Robertson. Of course, the historic cover-up of abuse is a horrendous stain on the credibility of the church but strong action has been taken. In particular, robust, effective, independently audited procedures are in place in countries such as the UK and the US.

Despite Mr Robertson’s distasteful comments regarding Catholic priests, studies on child abuse repeatedly show them to abuse less proportionally than other groups. Professor Thomas Plante, the well-esteemed US psychologist, writes recently in Psychology Today that evidence shows priests abuse at a rate of 4 per cent as opposed to public school teachers at 5-7 per cent. Professor Plante also stated (in relation to the US) that “a zero-tolerance policy is now in effect such that any credible accusation of abuse is reported to law enforcement, the offending party is pulled from ministry”.

The Catholic Church has taken robust action but there is more to be done. However, using the sensitive issue of child abuse to make an ideological attack on the church is a form of irresponsible, sensationalised reporting.

Dermott O’Gorman
Wallington