Markus Andrews

The UK’s proposal to send migrants who arrive in Britain unlawfully to Rwanda is “unacceptable” and a breach of international law, the UN’s refugee agency said.The Government announced this week it plans to provide failed asylum seekers, including those crossing the Channel in small boats, with a one-way ticket to Rwanda, where they will have the right to apply to live in the African country.Gillian Triggs, an assistant secretary-general at the UNHCR, said the agency “strongly condemns outsourcing the primary responsibility to consider the refugee status”, as laid out in the scheme put forward by Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Home Secretary Priti Patel.Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s World At One programme, the former president of the Australian Human Rights Commission said the policy was a “troubling development”, particularly in the light of countries taking in millions of Ukrainian refugees displaced by the conflict in eastern Europe.Put to her that Australia had effectively deployed a similar tactic to cut migration numbers, Ms Triggs said: “My point is, just as the Australian policy is an egregious breach of international law and refugee law and human rights law, so too is this proposal by the United Kingdom Government.“It is very unusual, very few states have tried this, and the purpose is primarily deterrent – and it can be effective, I don’t think we’re denying that.“But what we’re saying at the UN refugee agency is that there are much more legally effective ways of achieving the same outcome.”She said attempting to “shift responsibility” for asylum seekers arriving in Britain was “really unacceptable”.Ms Triggs pointed out that Israel had attempted to send Eritrean and Sudanese refugees to Rwanda, but that they “simply left the country and started the process all over again”.“In other words, it is not actually a long-term deterrent,” she added.Tom Pursglove, minister for justice and tackling illegal migration, said on Friday that the policy was “in line” with the UK’s legal obligations.However, he accepted that it would be “difficult” to implement the plan to remove asylum seekers to Rwanda, with the Government braced for legal challenges.He told Times Radio: “I think what is also really important to make (clear) in dealing with that issue is that, at all times, we act in accordance with our international obligations, the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) and the refugee convention.“We are absolutely confident that our policies are in line with that and entirely compliant, which by extension would mean that those legal challenges would be without merit.“But it will be difficult, there will be challenges.”Mr Pursglove also suggested during broadcast interviews that other countries in Europe were considering emulating the UK’s Rwandan policy, which he described as a “world first”.He said there was a “moral imperative” to crush the business model of human traffickers and avoid a tragedy like that seen in November, when a dinghy sank in the English Channel, drowning dozens of migrants heading to Britain.“The point I would make is that what is cruel and inhumane is allowing evil criminal gangs to take advantage of people, to take their money, to put them in small boats, often with force, including women and children, to put them in the Channel with all the risks that that presents to human life,” he told ITV’s Good Morning Britain.“We simply cannot allow that to happen, which is why we’ve introduced the new plan for immigration to stop these illegal journeys.”The minister also argued that in the “longer term” the scheme would save Britain money, with almost £5 million per day currently spent on accommodating those arriving in the country.Former Tory international development secretary Andrew Mitchell questioned that, saying calculations had been made that suggested it would be cheaper to put those arriving in Britain up at The Ritz hotel in London’s Mayfair for a year. More

Just five cabinet ministers are prepared to confirm publicly that they and their families do not benefit from the use of tax havens or non-dom status.Ministers’ financial affairs have come under scrutiny after The Independent revealed that Rishi Sunak’s wife had used non-dom status to lower her UK tax burden and documents suggested the chancellor was listed as a beneficiary of trusts held in tax havens. Health secretary Sajid Javid revealed that he had held non-dom tax status before becoming a politician.But, when questioned by The Independent, only five of the 22 members of Boris Johnson’s cabinet were willing to say that they did not have links to tax havens and that they had not used non-dom tax breaks.Labour said ministers needed to be more transparent over their financial interests.“We need to know what arrangements members of the cabinet have made for themselves. And if there were such arrangements, how were they justified, and how much tax was saved?” said Pat McFadden, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury.“This is not a mechanism open to our constituents, who are facing the biggest squeeze on their incomes in decades, made worse by the chancellor’s decision to impose increases in income taxes this year.“The very least the public has a right to is full information on how many Conservative ministers imposing these rises have had non-dom status, or used any other mechanisms, including tax havens, which reduce their tax liability in the UK.”Non-dom status and tax havens are both entirely legal, but their use by ministers has been called into question at a time when the government has decided to impose the heaviest tax burden on British families since the 1940s. Still, some cabinet ministers have decided to offer the public a greater degree of transparency. Business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, defence secretary Ben Wallace, and transport secretary Grant Shapps, along with their immediate families, do not use tax havens to minimise their tax bills, sources close to them told The Independent.Nor have they used non-dom status – a controversial system that has been in existence for hundreds of years and allows wealthy individuals to avoid paying UK tax on their overseas income.Education secretary Nadim Zahawi and his wife do not currently use non-dom status, according to sources. However, it is unclear whether they have historically used or continue to use tax havens. Meanwhile, George Eustice, the environment secretary, said in a broadcast interview that he would never seek non-dom status.Separately, a government spokesperson said: “All MPs and sitting peers are automatically deemed to be resident in the UK for tax purposes, by law. In line with the ministerial code, all ministers provide information about their tax affairs to the Cabinet Office and independent adviser on ministerial interests.”Questions over the financial affairs of the UK’s most powerful politicians have arisen after The Independent revealed that Mr Sunak, the chancellor, had not made the beneficial tax status of his wife, Akshata Murty, public.Last week, The Independent also reported allegations that Mr Sunak had been named in 2020 as a beneficiary of tax haven trusts set up to manage interests of Ms Murty’s family, something a spokesperson said the couple do not recognise. The same spokesperson did not respond when asked if Mr Sunak had separately set up his own trust in a tax haven.In an attempt to draw a line under the controversy, Mr Sunak requested over the weekend that Lord Geidt, the prime minister’s independent adviser on ministerial interests, review all his declarations since entering government in 2018. No 10 said an inquiry would be carried out by Lord Geidt on Monday, but insisted Mr Johnson had “full confidence” in the chancellor.Ministers are required to declare their spouses’ interests, as enshrined in the code they sign up to when they take office. The decision about whether or not this information is made public by being listed in the ministerial register of interests is less clear cut.The rules allow for ministers to put their shareholdings and some other financial interests into a blind trust. This is the position adopted by the chancellor. However, there is no legal or technical definition of what constitutes a blind trust or its management.Several serving cabinet members have built successful careers in the financial services industry, including Mr Sunak, who before entering politics worked at investment company Theleme Partners, which is registered in the Cayman Islands – a tax haven – and prior to that The Children’s Investment Fund Management, which is also registered there.Some investment companies choose to base themselves in tax havens as it makes it easier to avoid so-called double taxation – the idea being that serving a suite of global investors is easier if each just pays one set of taxes in their own jurisdiction, as and when they get paid profits by an offshore investment fund.There are other reasons, however, why funds or individuals choose to use tax havens. These can include the considerable tax benefits that come from using offshore trusts, such as avoiding inheritance or capital gains tax, as well as the significant secrecy granted by many tax haven jurisdictions.Last Sunday, Mr Javid, also a former financial services professional, shared a statement confirming that he had held non-dom status, and that, prior to entering parliament in 2010, he had created an overseas trust, which is now dissolved. A spokesperson declined to say where this trust was based, but The Independent understands it was not in the Cayman Islands, where some of his other financial interests were based.“It’s clear that Sajid Javid has serious questions to answer about his past tax status and how it was justified,” Labour’s Mr McFadden said.While working as a banker, Mr Javid was linked to Dark Blue Investments, an employee benefit trust in which staff were paid share bonuses via trusts to avoid tax. The supreme court ruled that tax ought to be paid on these bonuses.Experts have queried Mr Javid’s use of non-dom status, given that he was born in the UK and therefore would have had to declare that he did not intend to live in the country in the long term.Jacob Rees-Mogg, Brexit opportunities minister, has listed his share in Somerset Capital Management Limited, an investment firm that has operations in the Cayman Islands, in the register of MPs’ interests.A spokesperson for Alok Sharma could not be reached for comment. More

The Home Office has declined to comment on whether objections were raised by the department’s top civil servant over a multi-million-pound proposal to send asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing.It comes after the plan — unveiled by Boris Johnson and Priti Patel on Thursday — provoked a fierce response from charities and claims it could cost taxpayers between £20,000 and £30,000 for each individual sent to the central African country.No 10’s director of policy said last night it is hoped the new scheme, which comes with an initial payment to the Rwandan government of £120 million, will be operational in “weeks, or a small number of months”.While welcomed by some Tory MPs, two former cabinet ministers, David Davis and Andrew Mitchell, have raised concerns about the proposal, with the latter blasting it as “immoral”, “impractical”, and involving “astronomic” costs.Questions have also been raised by ITV News over whether Ms Patel, the home secretary, instructed the department to press ahead — using a “ministerial direction” — despite an objection being raised by the permanent secretary.According to the Institute for Government (IfG), the top civil servant in a department has a duty to seek a ministerial direction if they think a proposal breaches criteria, including on legal powers and value for money.Research by the think-tank shows there have only been 46 ministerial directions issued, and made public, since the 2010 general election.Asked whether any ministerial direction had been issued over the policy to process asylum seekers in Rwanda, the Home Office, however, declined to comment.Speaking to The Independent, the senior Conservative backbencher David Davis said that while he had a “mild amount of sympathy” with the government’s position, “we all know how brilliant the home Office is at managing subtle and complex task”.“I fear that this going to unravel quite quickly, but we’ll see,” he added.“If you look on the government advice website as to what you should do when you go to Rwanda, there’s a whole series of stuff about Malaria… if someone catches Malaria the government will be on the end of a lawsuit. I’d be suing them for millions if they made me catch Malaria. Simple things like that. More

Boris Johnson promises to ‘set record straight’ on Partygate fine in parliament next weekBoris Johnson’s government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda will save the UK money in the “long term”, a minister has insisted after reports suggested it would cost an “eyewatering” £30,000 per person.Responding to criticism from fellow Tory MP Andrew Mitchell, who said it would be “cheaper to place asylum seekers in the Ritz”, minister Tom Pursglove defended the proposals, which critics have branded “inhumane” and “unworkable”.He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “As we move forward, we will continue to make contributions to Rwanda as they process the cases, in a manner that is similar to the amount of money we are spending on this currently here in the UK.“But longer term, by getting this under control, it should help us to save money. We are spending £5m per day accommodating individuals who are crossing in hotels. That is not sustainable and is not acceptable and we have to get that under control.”Show latest update

1650032717Home Office declines to say whether objections were raised by top civil servant over Rwanda asylum policyIt comes after the plan — unveiled by Boris Johnson and Priti Patel on Thursday — provoked a fierce response from charities and claims it could cost taxpayers between £20,000 and £30,000 for each individual sent to the central African country.Ashley Cowburn and May Bulman report: Matt Mathers15 April 2022 15:251650029704Asylum plan is ‘inhumane and will cost ‘billions during cost of living crisis’The government’s Rwanda plan is “humane” and will cost UK taxpayers “billions” during the cost of living “crisis”, a Labour MP has said. Fleur Anderson, who represents Putney in London, also said the plan was a “blatant attempt by the PM to distract from Partygate”.Matt Mathers15 April 2022 14:351650028222ICYMI: What is Rwanda’s record on human rights?The “offshoring” arrangement with Rwanda, a country 4,300 miles away, will earn the African nation £120m under the initial deal, although its record on human rights has already been raised as a major cause for concern.Joe Sommerlad reports: Matt Mathers15 April 2022 14:101650026735Jeremy Clarkson’s beekeepers raising money to send 4x4s to UkraineThe first 4×4 bought as part of a fundraising effort for Ukraine backed by Jeremy Clarkson has been delivered ahead of its journey to the war-torn country next week.Viktor Zaichenko, 48, originally from Ukraine, and his wife Lucy, 55, are the beekeepers at Jeremy Clarkson’s Diddly Squat farm in Oxfordshire.The pair are raising money to send 4x4s to Ukraine, with the help of Clarkson and his partner Lisa Hogan.They plan to send the off-road vehicles to help areas of Ukraine cut off from aid.Speaking to the PA news agency, Mrs Zaichenko said: “We just want to get trucks out there which help people.“It will rescue people, it will get them into hospitals, it will get them to safety.”Matt Mathers15 April 2022 13:451650025478Sturgeon questions Ross’s ability to ‘stand up’ to governmentFirst minister Nicola Sturgeon has questioned Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross’ willingness to stand up to the prime minister after his support for sending some asylum seekers to Rwanda.Home secretary Priti Patel signed a deal with the African country on Thursday, claiming the asylum system is “collapsing under a combination of real humanitarian crises and evil people smugglers”.Speaking to the PA news agency on Friday, Mr Ross said the policy would help to deter people traffickers.But Nicola Sturgeon hit out at the Tory leader’s support, telling journalists: “Douglas Ross earlier this year for what seems like five minutes tried to pretend that he had an independence of thought from Boris Johnson and the UK government, but any illusions about that I think had been completely shattered by him.“If he can’t even find it within himself to stand up and speak out against a policy as disgusting as this then I’m not sure what he will be able to stand up to Boris Johnson or the UK government on.”Matt Mathers15 April 2022 13:241650024043Boris Johnson’s Rwanda plan to ‘solve’ immigration won’t work – this is whyThese people have crossed continents and risked everything they own and cherish – including their own lives – to get to Britain, writes Sean O’Grady/Read Sean’s full piece here: Matt Mathers15 April 2022 13:001650023143Wakefield by-election: Labour gears up for make-or-break battle in former heartlandThis city will be the first constituency to vote since Partygate scandal, writes Colin Drury.Read Colin’s full piece hereMatt Mathers15 April 2022 12:451650020710ICYMI: Boris Johnson’s speech on asylum: what he said – and what he meantOur chief political commentator John Rentoul reads between the lines of the prime minister’s speech in Kent this morning:Matt Mathers15 April 2022 12:051650019352Does anyone else feel like we’re living in an episode of The Thick Of It?As hilarious as it is to see actors mock our elected officials, it really isn’t so funny when you see these scenarios play out in real life, Emma Clarke writes.Read Emma’s full piece here: Matt Mathers15 April 2022 11:421650017479At Easter we must reflect on the truth that politics cannot save us – even ‘Christian’ politicsChristianity has long been used as a political weapon in global powerplay, writes Tim Farron MP.Read Tim’s full piece below: Matt Mathers15 April 2022 11:11 More

Boris Johnson’s multi-million pound deal to send asylum seekers to Rwanda while their claims are processed has been condemned as “immoral”, “impractical”, and will involve “astronomic” costs.The remarks from Andrew Mitchell — a Tory MP and former cabinet minister— came after the prime minister unveiled the plan, which could see thousands of people flown over 4,000 miles to the African country.No 10’s direct of policy, Andrew Griffith, said last night it is hoped the new scheme, which comes with an initial payment to the Rwandan government of £120 million, will be operational in “weeks, or a small number of months”.But the plans have been met with fierce opposition from charities and campaign groups who have urged ministers to abandon the “shamefully cruel” proposals, while the government also braces for human rights legal challenges in the courts.Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Mr Mitchell said he recognised that ministers were attempting to tackle “what is a terrible problem” after 28,000 people came to the UK “illicitly” in 2021.“The government is quite rightly trying to break the smugglers’ sordid and deathly model, and so I am absolutely behind them in doing that,” he said.However, the former international development secretary added: “The problem with the scheme that they have announced is that I don’t think it will work.“It is impractical, it is being condemned by churches and civil society, it is immoral and, above all for conservative advocates, it is incredible expensive.“The costs are eye-watering. You’re going to send people 6,000 miles into central Africa – it looked when it was discussed in Parliament before that it would actually be cheaper to put each asylum seeker in the Ritz hotel in London.”He added: “The government must tell Parliament precisly what they estimate these costs will be because they will be astronomic”.The UK government minister responsible for tackling illegal migration, Tom Pursglove, defended the plans on Friday, but refused to reveal any criteria for those who would be relocated to Rwanda, saying it would play into the hands of “criminal gangs”.“The fundemental test in all of this is that we will only be relocating people to Rwanda if it is safe for them to be transfered in that way,” he said. Pressed on whether those fleeing persecution, including Uighur Muslims or Aghans who worked for the UK, would be sent to Rwanda, he replied: “I’m not going to get into the specific criteria. I’m not going to talk nationality by nationality. “What I can say is this country has a proud record of providing safe and legal routes, providing sanctuary for people.” More

Keir Starmer says Rwanda asylum plan will cost taxpayers ‘billions of pounds’Rory Stewart has slammed the announcement that asylum seekers will be sent to Rwanda as “very strange and very disturbing”, adding he does not believe anyone will actually be sent there.“I don’t like what they are doing in Rwanda, I think they are offshoring a British problem and they’re trying to put it out of sight and out of mind,” the former Africa minister said.“It’s very strange and very disturbing.“I was in Rwanda two weeks ago. There are many things that are positive, as you know, about Rwanda. It’s come out of a genocide, it’s gone through an extraordinary process of national healing, but it’s also an authoritarian state.”Elsewhere, prime minister Boris Johnson today said the partnership with Rwanda will be “fully compliant with our international legal obligations”, while insisting it is “one of the safest countries in the world”.“But nevertheless, we expect this will be challenged in the courts,” Mr Johnson added, as he hit out at what he called a “formidable army of politically motivated lawyers”.Show latest update

1649861105Voter registration applications jump ahead of local electionsApplications to vote in elections taking place across the UK next month have jumped ahead of Thursday’s deadline.Local elections are taking place in all four nations of the UK on 5 MayA total of 28,273 applications were made on Tuesday, government figures show.This is double the daily average for the year so far and the highest for a single day since last autumn.Craig Westwood, director of communications at the Electoral Commission, said: “There is only a matter of hours left to register to vote ahead of the May elections.”If you want to make sure your voice is heard and you’re not already registered, it’s really important that you go online and register now at gov.uk/registertovote.”It only takes five minutes – so the next time you are waiting for the kettle to boil you can register to vote. All you need is your name, date of birth and national insurance number.”Full report: Matt Mathers13 April 2022 15:451649862529Any ‘breach’ of ministerial code a matter for PM’s independent adviser, Labour MP saysAny potential breach of the ministerial code is a matter for Boris Johnson’s independent adviser Lord Geidt, Chris Bryant has said.Opposition parties are claiming the PM broke the code by “lying” to parliament about the Partygate scandal.The Labour MP for Rhondda in Wales, who chairs the Commons committee on standards, said the committee has no power to sanction the PM over his Covid law breaking.Lord Geidt is the government’s independent adviser on ministers’ interests, who was appointed by, and reports to, the PM.Writing on Twitter, Bryant suggested that the only feasible way Mr Johnson could be removed is if Tory MPs call a no confidence vote in him.He said he suspected that at least 80 Tories want Johnson gone “but won’t yet vote for that.”Full thread below: Matt Mathers13 April 2022 16:081649868912Partygate: Blow to Boris Johnson as justice minister quits over his failure to resign after Covid fineJustice minister Lord Wolfson has resigned from the government, saying he could not back Boris Johnson’s response to his fine for breaking Covid laws.The resignation deals a massive blow to the prime minister’s hopes that he had drawn a line under the fines with a public apology on Tuesday.It came shortly afterTory backbencher Nigel Mills broke ranks to say that Mr Johnson’s position was “untenable” after police handed him a £50 fixed penalty for attending a lockdown-breaching birthday party in No 10 in June 2020, making him the first sitting PM to be found to have broken the law.Andrew Woodcock has more:Eleanor Sly13 April 2022 17:551649870115Justice minister posts resignation letter on social mediaThe Justice Minister has quit over UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s failure to resign after having received a fine for breaking the Covid lockdown. David Wolfson published his letter of resignation to the PM on Twitter.Eleanor Sly13 April 2022 18:151649871315Economists warn government using inflation as ‘cover’ to cash in on graduates and studentsThe government is using inflation as “cover” to take more money from graduates and students, a respected economic think-tank has said.The Institute for Fiscal Studies warned on Thursday that a freeze to the repayment threshold and large real-term cuts in maintenance loans could cause “genuine hardship”.Inflation has hit highs not seen since the early 1990s but the government has decided not to increase the size of student maintenance loans or increase the repayment threshold to match.Jon Stone has more:Eleanor Sly13 April 2022 18:351649872941Government announces conditional allocations for the UK Shared Prosperity FundThe UK government has announced conditional allocations for the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, saying it has matched previous EU funding but with less bureaucracy and more local control.The fund will provide £2.6 billion by 2025, and the with the government calling “a central pillar” of its “levelling up” agenda.Conditional allocations will be available for each area of the UK and local authorities will be able to put forward investment plan submissions from June to receive the money.The Scottish government, however, said that the fund fell short of what was expected to replace EU structural funds.The fund includes £559 million for Multiply, a UK-wide adult numeracy programme, to offer maths courses for adults with no or low maths skills, including a digital learning platform.England will receive £1.588 billion, Wales £585 million, Scotland £212 million, Northern Ireland £127 million, with the remaining £129 million being allocated for the central system needed for Multiply.Eleanor Sly13 April 2022 19:021649874315How many parties did Boris Johnson attend and which are the Met Police investigating?Boris Johnson, his wife Carrie Johnson and chancellor Rishi Sunak are among the latest tranche of government staff members to be handed fixed penalty notice fines by the Metropolitan Police for breaking their own rules to stage parties at Downing Street and Whitehall during the Covid-19 pandemic, placing the PM under renewed pressure to resign.Both the prime minister and chancellor have apologised and paid their fines, with Mr Johnson saying: “In all frankness at that time it did not occur to me that this might have been a breach of the rules. Of course, the police have found otherwise and I fully respect the outcome of their investigation.”But he brushed off widespread calls for his resignation, saying: “I believe it’s my job to get on and deliver for the people of this country. That’s what I’m going to do.”Read more:Eleanor Sly13 April 2022 19:251649875215What do the British public think about the prospect of changing PM?Eleanor Sly13 April 2022 19:401649875695Former secretary of state for justice ‘not surprised’ by justice minister resignationThe former secretary of state for justice, David Gauke, said that he is “not surprised” by the resignation of Lord Wolfson as a justice minister.Speaking to BBC Radio 4, he said: “[I’m] not altogether surprised, I think it’s a particularly uncomfortable issue for anybody in the Ministry of Justice or for that matter the law officers.“Or at least it should be an uncomfortable situation, because you can’t have those who are making the law breaking the law. Particularly if it’s happened on repeated occasions.“Of course we’ve only had one fixed penalty notice for the prime minister so far, but frankly expectations are that there will be more. It is a very difficult situation … if you have particular responsibility for the rule of law, if you see rule makers breaking it.”Eleanor Sly13 April 2022 19:481649876023Ex-Tory MP condemned for ‘callous’ tweet to man over PM’s Partygate fineFormer Tory minister Edwina Currie has been criticised after getting into a Twitter spat over Boris Johnson’s Partygate police fine.On a busy morning, which saw Ms Currie defend the prime minister on both social media and ITV’s Good Morning Britain, the one-time MP took to Twitter on Wednesday to reply to a post by the television presenter Rylan Clark.She told Mr Clark to “get real” and said “no, it isn’t” after he posted about the news that Mr Johnson had become the first sitting UK prime minister found to have broken the law.Mr Johnson, along with his wife, Carrie, and the chancellor Rishi Sunak were all fined by the Metropolitan Police on Tuesday in relation to a surprise birthday event held for the prime minister in No 10’s Cabinet Room during lockdown. All have apologised and paid their fixed penalty notices.“He’s officially broke the law. That’s it ain’t it?” Mr Clark wrote, alluding to widespread sentiment that Mr Johnson should resign over the embarrasing mishap. More

Former Conservative MP Imran Ahmad Khan has announced he is standing down as MP for Wakefield following his conviction for a child sex assault offence.His resignation triggers an explosive by-election in the West Yorkshire seat, which was one of the traditional Labour strongholds in the so-called Red Wall, which fell to Boris Johnson’s Tories in the 2019 general election.The contest will be a crucial test of Sir Keir Starmer’s ability to win back the Red Wall and of the extent to which the prime minister’s appeal has been tarnished by his police fine over a lockdown-breaching party in 10 Downing Street.Khan, 48, was thrown out of the Conservative Party after being found guilty at Southwark Crown Court on Monday of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy more than a decade before going into politics.He has said he is appealing the verdict and that it “would not ordinarily be appropriate to resign” while legal proceedings are ongoing.But in a statement today, he said it was “intolerable” for his constituents to go for months or years until the legal process concludes “without an MP who can amplify their voice in parliament”. He said the move would allow him to “focus entirely on clearing my name”.Khan said that it had been a “shock” to be “characterised as a sexual predator, outcast and worse” over the three days since his conviction.Describing the offence of which he was found guilty as “touching a leg above clothing with sexual intent”, Khan – who is a Muslim and gay – said that he wanted to apologise to his family and community “for the humiliation this has caused them”.And he added: “Questions surrounding sexuality in my community are not trivial and learning from the press about my orientation, drinking and past behaviour before I became an MP has not been easy.”With a Tory majority of 3,358 at the 2019 election, Wakefield is one of the Red Wall constituencies that Starmer must win back if he is to take control in Downing Street, ranking 38th in Labour’s target seat list for the election expected in 2024.Overturning Khan’s victory requires a swing of 3.73 per cent – roughly a third of the turnaround Labour would need to achieve across the country to win an overall majority in the House of Commons.Labour since 1932, it was held until the last election by Mary Creagh, a member of Ed Miliband’s shadow cabinet from 2010-15.A Labour spokesperson said: “The people of Wakefield have been badly let down by the Conservatives.“Only Labour has a plan to tackle the cost-of-living crisis, and give the people of Wakefield the security, prosperity and respect they deserve.”Jurors found Khan was guilty after hearing that he forced a teenage boy to drink gin and tonic, dragged him upstairs, pushed him on to a bed and asked him to watch pornography before touching his leg near the genital area at a house in Staffordshire in January 2008.The victim made a complaint to police days after the election in 2019. The court heard Khan insist that his actions had no sexual intent and that he had been trying to be “kind and helpful” to the boy, who appeared to want to discuss his sexuality.Judge Mr Justice Baker said he would sentence the disgraced MP at a later date, telling him: “All sentencing options, including immediate custody, are being considered by the court.”A jail sentence of more than a year would have led to automatic expulsion from parliament, while a shorter prison term would have exposed him to a recall petition. More

Ukrainian claims to have struck Russia’s flagship in the Black Sea with anti-ship missiles are “credible”, western officials have said.There are conflicting accounts of how a massive explosion on the Moskva occurred, with Russia claiming that the cruiser was seriously damaged by a fire which spread to its ammunition store, while Kyiv insists it was successfully targeted by two Neptune missiles.The facts are yet to be independently verified, but one Western official said that Moscow’s version of events was “difficult to believe”, while the Ukrainian claim appeared “credible”.If true, Moscow’s account of a fire causing an explosion in the ammunition store of a warship would represent “an incredibly inept piece of control by the Russian military”, said the official.But whatever the truth behind the explosion, the loss of the Moskva – the warship told to “go f*** yourself” by Ukrainian troops on Snake Island at the outset of the invasion 50 days ago – would be a “massive blow” to the credibility of the Russian military, they added.With a range of 170 nautical miles, the Ukrainian-developed Neptune missile would have been capable of striking the Soviet-era ship from a position near the coastal city of Odessa.Anti-ship missiles promised to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky by Boris Johnson during last week’s visit to Kyiv are understood not to have arrived yet, meaning there is no question of UK munitions being responsible for the strike.If Ukraine’s missiles were indeed the cause of the explosion, it would demonstrate the “determination, initiative and ingenuity” of the eastern European country’s troops and their ability “to be able to project their force and to really contest the situation with Russian forces”, said the official.While the Moskva played a major role in Russia’s air defence in the Black Sea, its loss “doesn’t necessarily undermine their capability fatally”, as other vessels will be able to take over its duties, said Western officials.But they added: “It’s an enormous loss regardless of how it’s happened. Whether it’s as a consequence of ineptitude on board or an attack by Ukrainian forces, it’s a massive blow for Russian credibility“Either they’ve been vulnerable to an attack by Ukrainians, and that questions their competence, or they’ve had a fire on board a capital ship, which has resulted in the detonation of its magazine, where its ammunition is stored, and that is just another bit of incompetence.“So there’s something around the blow to the Russian sense of pride in their military. And this is meant to be a military that’s modernised itself over the last decade.”The picture of incompetence surrounding the Moskva was of a piece with Russia’s military performance in Ukraine as a whole, where Vladimir Putin has been forced to withdraw troops sent on what was intended to be a “thunder road” drive to take capital Kyiv within days in late February, said officials.Ukrainian claims of 19,700 Russian troops killed may be overblown, but it was clear that “incredible numbers” have died and that morale in the ranks is “at the bottom end of the scale”.The Russian president’s efforts to transfer the battered remains of the Kyiv battle groups to the east of Ukraine for a fresh assault on the Donbas region were being hampered by “torrential” rain which has rendered off-road manoeuvres all but impossible.Meanwhile, the Russian air force appears to be “terrified” of operating over Ukrainian positions after taking numerous casualties. More