Markus Andrews

The Home Office has shut down part of the UK’s visa and immigration system in order to divert resources to its ”chaotic“ and bureaucratic scheme for Ukraine refugees.Priority and super-priority visas for study, work and family purposes from countries other than Ukraine have been temporarily closed to applicants, with standard visas also experiencing delays.Most European countries have waived visas and offered open access for Ukrainians fleeing the Russian invasion – but the UK is still insisting they fill in lengthy forms and undergo copious visa checks.Yet the Home Office is struggling to process its own bureaucracy, with just 2,700 visas issued as of this week for Ukrainians under the Home for Ukraine scheme despite 28,000 applications having been made. Now The Independent has learned that the government has pulled staff out of other immigration functions and closed some entirely in order to divert resources to deal with its overcomplicated Ukraine programme.The temporary shutdown of priority visas will make it difficult for people to come to the UK for last-minute purposes, with waits on standard visas expected to be at least six weeks. A Home Office minister this week apologised to people trying to visit the UK “for any inconvenience” the policy would cause.“UK Visas and Immigration [UKVI] is currently prioritising applications made under the Ukraine Family Scheme, following its launch and in response to the humanitarian crisis arising from the invasion of Ukraine,” immigration minister Kevin Foster said in a written parliamentary answer.“As a result, UKVI have temporarily suspended paid for priority and super priority services for new study, work, and family applications.“Customers with standard applications in study, work, and family routes may experience some delays in the processing of their application. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.”Immigration experts warned that the government’s approach to the Ukraine crisis was clearly unsuitable for the task at hand, and suggested the UK should follow Europe’s lead in waiving visas. “Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the only appropriate response has been and remains to waive visas,” Zoe Bantleman, legal director of the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, told The Independent.“From the outset, we, along with other specialist organisations, have called for the waiving of all red tape, of the visa application process, and of enrolment of biometrics overseas. “The UK’s current response is wholly inadequate in comparison to the practical, responsible, and humane approaches taken by other European countries, including Ireland, to provide efficient and effective safe routes. The level of bureaucracy is clearly unsuitable to meet the demands of this situation.”She added: “The answer is not to suspend priority processing for other applications, or rush staff to enrol biometrics.”Ms Bantleman said the change could be easily made by deleting the word ‘Ukraine’ from the list of nationalities required to have visitor clearance to enter the UK.“The UK would stand with Ukraine, and treat Ukrainians in the same way as it treats nationals of nearly 100 other countries,” she said.“Once they arrive at the border, biometrics of Ukrainians could be taken and they could be granted leave outside the rules and a full application could be processed once they are safely in the UK, as was done for residents of Hong Kong.”As of 29 March, 22,800 visas have been issued under the Ukraine Family Scheme out of 31,200 applications, with the Homes for Ukraine scheme issuing 2,700 visas out of 28,300 applications. In total 59,500 applications have been made across both schemes, with around 25,500 visas issued – meaning less than half of applicants have been approved.The government has said it hopes to process 15,000 applications a week within the next few weeks in a bid to clear the backlog.Satbir Singh, chief executive of the Joint Committee for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) said: “The British public clearly want to see refugees supported and protected, but this government seem totally unable to match that public compassion with action. “Their characteristically chaotic and hostile Home Office is failing Ukrainians, just as it has failed Afghans, and so many fleeing danger before them.“When you’re running for your life, you pack your bags at a moment’s notice, you leave your home in the middle of the night. You’re not thinking about loading mortgage contracts or marriage certificates into the family car – you can’t wait months and months for a visa.“Instead of recognising that reality, and doing all they can to accommodate people, this government is pushing an anti-refugee bill through parliament which will criminalise and turn away people fleeing conflict. We can’t let government go ahead with these disastrous plans – we need an asylum system that welcomes Ukrainians and other refugees, however they’ve had to flee.”Under the Homes for Ukraine scheme individuals, charities, community groups, and businesses are allowed to sponsor visas for refugees coming from Ukraine as long as they provide them with a rent-free place to stay. More than 150,000 households have offered accommodation and hosts get £350 a month tax-free for opening their homes. The family scheme meanwhile allows Ukrainians to join certain family members already living in the UK.The Independent has a proud history of campaigning for the rights of the most vulnerable, and we first ran our Refugees Welcome campaign during the war in Syria in 2015. Now, as we renew our campaign and launch this petition in the wake of the unfolding Ukrainian crisis, we are calling on the government to go further and faster to ensure help is delivered. To find out more about our Refugees Welcome campaign, click here. To sign the petition click here. If you would like to donate then please click here for our GoFundMe page More

Planning rules for onshore wind farms could be eased in next week’s government strategy paper on the UK’s future energy supply, after Boris Johnson expressed frustration at the lengthy delays faced by projects.The prime minister is understood to have been “horrified” after being told by industry figures at a meeting on Thursday that onshore wind turbines could be erected in a day but need as long as 10 years to get planning approval.Industry sources present at the meeting told The Independent that the PM made no commitments on the issue but their hopes for change were buoyed by his evident enthusiasm for wind power and desire to find solutions which could deliver a swift boost to homegrown energy. He did not rule any sources in or out, they said.Business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng is pushing for regulations in England to be relaxed, which give so much weight to local opposition as to act as an effective moratorium on development since their introduction in 2015.He shares the belief of the UK renewables industry that onshore wind offers the quickest and cheapest route to enabling Britain to rein in skyrocketing energy bills, escape reliance on Russian oil and gas and hit net-zero targets. He has drafted targets to increase onshore wind capacity from 15 to 30 GW, alongside hikes from 14 to 50GW in solar energy, 11 to 50GW from offshore wind and 7 to 16GW from nuclear. Thousands more onshore wind turbines would be required to meet that target.Without change, windfarm developments over the coming decades will be confined to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where planning rules are less restrictive. Sticking with existing planning regulations would also prevent the upgrade of the earliest English wind farms in areas like Cornwall, dating back to the 1990s, which could generate four to five times as much power if refitted with modern turbines.Trade body RenewableUK’s chief executive Dan McGrail told The Independent: “Onshore wind is the UK’s cheapest source of new power, so it has a crucial role to play in reducing electricity bills, because we can build shovel-ready projects faster than any other source of energy. “Most of these will be in Scotland and Wales where the wind speeds are highest, but we also have a great opportunity to enable new onshore wind projects to go ahead in parts of England where there’s public support. “This will boost the UK’s energy security by reducing our reliance on volatile international gas prices which are hurting consumers. We’re working closely with government to maximise our renewable energy capacity across a range of clean technologies, creating tens of thousands of jobs, attracting billions in investment and providing practical solutions to climate change so that we can reach net zero as quickly as possible.”  Mr Johnson’s vocal support for offshore wind in evidence to MPs on Wednesday fuelled concerns that he was siding with ministers, including chief whip Chris Heaton-Harris and Brexit minister Jacob Rees-Mogg, who regard the erection of turbines in the English shires as politically unacceptable.But after his meeting with industry leaders on Thursday, sources said there was now a “working assumption” that onshore will feature in the new strategy.Downing Street said that the PM told the meeting he had an “insatiable desire to further maximise supply” of wind-generated power and discussed what more could be done to ensure that onshore arrays with local support can be “built in good time”.It is understood that final decisions remain to be made on how high to set the bar for local opposition to block a project, and what incentives – such as discounted or free power – can be offered to encourage communities to accept developments.At the heart of the long-delayed strategy – initially promised “in a few days” by the PM a month ago – will be a dramatic increase in nuclear power and further investment in offshore wind.Mr Johnson is understood to want 25 per cent of the country’s energy provided by nuclear by 2050, and has said that new-style mini-reactors could be in place by the end of this decade.But renewable energy providers are lobbying him to use the opportunity to clear away policy blockages which stand in the way of a speedy expansion of alternative green power sources.The Association for Renewable Energy and Clean Technology (REA) said that measures to ease connection to the electricity grid for green power suppliers and the introduction of industrial fuel switching tariffs could see an explosion in projects over the next two years.They are calling for annual auctions for energy supply contracts to be simplified and made six-monthly to enable the rapid implementation of small-scale green projects.Around 600 onshore wind and solar projects across the UK have planning permission in place and could be up and running within 18 months if contracts are made available – enough to entirely replace Britain’s consumption of oil from Russia.And around 1m hectares of warehouse roof surface could be covered with solar panels with changes to support mechanisms to guarantee a price for the electricity generated over the longer term.“The government must be bold with their energy security strategy,” said REA chief executive Dr Nina Skorupska.“This is a crucial moment – over the coming months the UK must rapidly move away from fossil fuels onto renewables otherwise we could continue to suffer from volatile energy prices.“Our sector is clear: we stand ready for a mass rollout of small, medium and large-scale renewable developments if the government are proactive in removing barriers and providing other catalysts. We could more than double the number of planned projects in the next two years and the number of jobs created would also increase by around two-thirds – the government must seize these immense opportunities.”New polling suggests that ministers’ fear of a “Nimby” reaction to windfarm developments may be overblown.An overwhelming 72 per cent said they would support new wind farms in their local area if the development was coupled with a guarantee of cheap or free energy, in a survey by Redfield and Wilton Strategies for Politico Playbook.By contrast, just 38 per cent said they would back a nuclear power station near their home under the same conditions.More than half (52 per cent) said they would support more permits for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea.But government minister Kit Malthouse made clear that offshore wind will continue to be favoured ahead of onshore in the new strategy, telling Times Radio: “We’ve got very extensive, if not massive, offshore wind developments coming on track at the moment.“Onshore, I think it’s fair to say that we think there’s less possibility, not least because we are anxious to protect much of our countryside, where people feel strongly that the landscape should be protected, but we have huge capacity coming on stream offshore and we should pursue that as hard and as fast as we can.” More

Indian IT firm Infosys , in which Rishi Sunak’s wife owns shares worth hundreds of milllions of pounds, is to close its operations Russia following pressure over its continued presence in the country amid Vladimir Putin’s war on Ukraine.The company is to halt its business in Moscow, where it is thought to have nearly 100 employees, The Independent understands.Mr Sunak has faced repeated questioning over his family links to the firm, which was founded by the chancellor’s father-in-law and in which his wife, Akshata Murthy owns a 0.91 per cent stake reportedly worth nearly £700m.Earlier on Friday Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer urged Mr Sunak to “come clean” over whether his family had benefitted from any Russia-related interests since Moscow’s invasion.Lesia Vasylenko, a Ukrainian MP, said this week that profits made by company operating in Russia should be viewed as “bloody money”.Infosys declined to comment on the closure of its Moscow operations but sources told the BBC that the company was finding replacement roles abroad for its staff in Russia.In a statement earlier this week, the firm said it had fewer than 100 members of staff in Moscow who service global clients based in Russia.“We do not have any active business relationships with local Russian enterprises,” the company’s statement said.Founded in 1981 by Narayana Murthy and six other engineers, Infosys is now one of India’s largest companies, employing some 267,000 people across more than 50 countries. Having previously served as chief executive, Mr Murthy stepped down from the board in 2012 to take the position of chairman emeritus.Speaking to BBC Newscast on Thursday, Mr Sunak said he felt “nothing but enormous pride and admiration for everything that” his father in law has achieved and that “no amount of attempted smearing is going to make me change that”.The chancellor – who has previously told British firms to “think very carefully” about making any investments potentially beneficial to Mr Putin’s regime – hit out at the questioning he has faced in recent days, calling it “very upsetting and, I think, wrong for people to try and come at my wife”.Mr Sunak compared the criticism of his wife to the Will Smith Oscars scandal, saying: “At least I didn’t get up and slap anybody, which is good.”But on Friday, Sir Keir suggested it was “a fundamental question of principle” whether Mr Sunak’s household was “benefitting from money made in Russia when the government has put in place sanctions”.“That is in the public interest for us to have an answer to — I’m not attacking their family, I don’t agree with that way of politics,” the Labour leader told Sky News.“But I do want to know if the chancellor’s household is benefiting from money from a company that’s investing in Russia when the government is saying quite rightly that nobody should be doing that”.He added: “I would have thought the chancellor would actually want to come clean on this and say ‘actually I can be very, very clear that my household doesn’t benefit from any money that’s come in any way from Russia during this invasion of Ukraine.“It’s a simple question, I think he should just answer it. It would actually help his wife if he just answered the question”.A spokesperson for the chancellor told The Independent that Ms Murthy is “one of thousands of minority shareholders” in Infosys, adding: “It is a public company and neither her nor any member of her family have any involvement in the operational decisions of the company.” More

Culture secretary Nadine Dorries has gone ahead with the appointment of the government’s favoured candidate to run the UK’s charity watchdog, despite a parliamentary committee refusing to endorse the choice.In a report published on Thursday, the Commons Culture Committee blasted the government’s selection process for the new chair of the Charity Commission and said the choice of barrister Orlando Fraser was “unimaginative”.Mr Fraser’s appointment followed farcical events in December, when the government’s preferred candidate Martin Thomas – reported to be a long-time friend of Boris Johnson – resigned after just a week in the job over allegations of inappropriate behaviour in a previous post.Withholding its approval for Mr Fraser’s appointment, the cross-party Culture Committee said in its report that Ms Dorries should have initiated an entirely new selection process at that point, rather than picking another candidate from the existing shortlist.The “slapdash” failure to rerun the process raised “serious concerns” about the selection process and the lack of diversity in the shortlist, the committee said.Following Ms Dorries’ decision to press ahead with the appointment, the committee’s Conservative chair Julian Knight told The Independent: “Our point still stands.“Although Orlando seems to be a perfectly capable candidate in many respects, we are not confident that he is the best candidate that could have been put before us, due to the flaws in the process.”Mr Knight said that the “fiasco” of Mr Thomas’s brief stint at the helm of the commission should have jolted Ms Dorries’ department into widening its search for a better candidate from a more diverse field.Instead, the Culture Department had “squandered its second chance”, he said, adding: “Unless it changes tack, trust in the process will continue to be damaged and we risk missing out on getting the most qualified people from all backgrounds for these very important jobs.”Mr Fraser, who takes up his three-year appointment on 25 April, is a commercial barrister who was appointed QC in 2014.He served on the board of the Charity Commission from 2013 to 2017 and has also worked on the Civil Justice Council and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations’ Advisory Council.His new role comes with a £62,500 salary for “up to” two and a half days a week.Ms Dorries also announced the appointment of former BBC chair Michael Grade to head broadcasting and telecoms regulator Ofcom on a £142,500 annual salary for 3 days’ work a week, despite the committee’s concerns at his lack of knowledge of the social media platforms he will have to oversee.After Lord Grade admitted in his pre-appointment hearing this week that he does not use social media, the committee backed his candidacy but warned he would need “support and advice” to keep him up to speed with the online world.The appointment process for the job was delayed for months after Mr Johnson’s first choice, former Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre, was first rejected by a recruitment panel and then withdrew from a rerun selection. More

The purchase of the UK’s biggest microchip producer by a Chinese-controlled company has been cleared to go ahead by a review which found no reason for ministers to intervene on national security grounds.The final decision on the £63m takeover of Newport Wafer Fab by Nexperia rests with business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, who has not yet given his approval. Sources told The Independent he might still use his powers under the National Security and Investment Act to block the sale.But the development has sparked alarm among senior Conservative MPs who fear Beijing being handed control of strategic national assets.The review by national security adviser Stephen Lovegrove was ordered by Boris Johnson last year after concerns were raised over the sale of the Welsh semiconductor manufacturer, whose chips are an essential component of electronic devices.News of the takeover by Nexperia, a Dutch subsidiary of the Chinese technology company Wingtech, sparked calls for Kwarteng to intervene last spring.The former head of the National Cyber Security Centre, Ciaran Martin, said the takeover presented a bigger threat to the UK than Huawei’s involvement in 5G.And former Australian PM Tony Abbott, who is a UK government trade adviser, said that the sale “would not go ahead were it happening in Australia”.An initial review by the deputy national security adviser found last year that there was no case for intervention, as Newport Wafer Fab uses technology already available to China.But Lovegrove was asked to conduct a further assessment of whether the sale should be blocked under the National Security and Investment Act , which last year introduced new powers for ministers to intervene in foreign takeovers of companies central to the national interest.His decision that there is no need to act dismayed MPs concerned about increasing Chinese control of UK assets.Tom Tugendhat, the chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, told the Politico website: “It’s not clear why we haven’t used our new powers under the National Security and Investment Act to fully review the takeover of one of our leading compound semiconductor companies.“This is an area where China is sinking billions to compete. The government has no clear strategy to protect what’s left of our semiconductor industry.”And former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith said the decision was “ridiculous.”“Kwasi Kwarteng needs to stand up for access to key technologies in the West which China is determined to get control over,” he said.“If the government goes down this road, it will become yet another step in the pathetic process of appeasing China who right now is supporting Russia and plans to pose a direct and deliberate threat to the West’s access to microchips and other key components for electronic equipment.”A government spokesperson said: “The government is considering the case and no decisions have been made.” More

The parent company of P&O Ferries is receiving £550m from the shrunken UK aid budget to expand ports in Africa despite its on-the-spot sacking of 800 workers, sparking fresh anger in parliament.MPs are demanding an explanation for the huge funding sum – accusing the government of putting commercial investments ahead of “tackling extreme poverty”, as many other aid projects are axed.It is also an “inappropriate” use of aid cash because DP World, the Dubai-based parent firm, could find a private partner to develop the ports, the chair of the Commons international development committee is alleging.“It pains me to think of what more that £500m could achieve for global health, women’s education or tackling extreme poverty,” Sarah Champion said.Navendu Mishra, a committee member, attacked the sum being “pumped into a disreputable employer” when the 800 workers were “treated in a disgraceful way”.In the wake of the P&O scandal, ministers pledged to review all DP World contracts, but the committee was told it was too late to stop the £550m being handed over.Furthermore, the head of the finance arm behind a growing slice of UK aid spending vowed to make the same investment again, regardless of the P&O mass sackings, hailing its “enormous” potential.The controversy comes after the government admitted it cannot prosecute P&O, despite its confession that it deliberately broke UK law and despite Boris Johnson vowing the firm would be “taken to court”.It also lifts the lid on the activities of the aid finance arm, called CDC Group, which has been accused previously of backing “projects with only the most tenuous relation to poverty reduction”.A coalition of charities has attacked its looming name change to British International Investment (BII), arguing it lays bare a new focus “solely on private sector investment and profit making”.“Increased funding for BII will lead to damaging reductions in other grant-based areas of UK aid spending, already cut by over £4bn this year,” said a protest letter signed by Christian Aid and Global Justice Now.CDC Group is taking a minority stake in a $1.7bn (£1.29bn) joint venture with DP World, investing an initial $320m and a further $400m into the ports in Egypt, Senegal and Somaliland – worth £550m in total.Even as the aid budget shrinks, the group’s share of it has risen to around £780m, as part of a shift to building “economic partnerships”, the foreign secretary Liz Truss has said.Ms Champion criticised the funding for ports expansion because DP World could “find other investors”, adding: “Our aid should be used as a last resort.“The UK government is condemning the actions of DP World whilst its development finance arm is using hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to support a joint venture with them.“It needs to send a clear and consistent message that these sorts of employment practices are unacceptable – and businesses that use them certainly will not be supported wherever they operate in the world.”But a defiant Nick O’Donohoe, CDC’s chief executive – asked if the group would make the same investment, with the knowledge of P&O’s sackings – told the committee: “Yes.”Calling the benefits “enormous”, he said: “The impact case is an overwhelming one here, the difference that this will make to people’s lives in these countries.”Mr O’Donohoe argued it would have been “very difficult” for the firm to find other private cash, adding: “There are not a lot of commercial investors who are prepared to invest in Somaliland.”And he insisted DP World must follow international social and environmental standards set by the World Bank, telling the MPs: “They are contractually obliged to follow that.”But, sitting alongside him, Caroline Read, the Foreign Office’s director of economic cooperation, was unable to spell out how the firm would be held to account.Asked how anyone could “believe what DP World said when they are quite comfortable to break British law”, she admitted the government could only “assume they will live up to those standards”.Ministers have also refused to stop the firm running the London Gateway freeport – an investment described as “exciting” by transport secretary Grant Shapps when he met DP World chiefs in Dubai late last year. More

Rishi Sunak’s spring statement has been labelled “cloud cuckoo land” by the former Conservative deputy prime minister Michael Heseltine.Lord Heseltine also predicted a “very difficult period” over the next 12 months for Boris Johnson’s govenrment amid the ongoing police probe over parties in No 10 and the worsening cost-of-living crisis.The peer’s remarks comes amid intense criticism of the chancellor’s help to the most vulnerable at the spring statement last week, with surging energy costs and inflation diminishing people’s spending power.According to the latest analysis, five million households will be forced to spend at least 10 per cent of their budget on energy bills after Friday’s price cap — even after Mr Sunak’s recent interventions are taken into account.Lord Heseltine, who said there were “no plans” for more productive investment, also said talk of tax cuts and cutting public spending was “simply not real”.But asked on LBC radio by presenter Andrew Marr for his thoughts on the chancellor’s spring statement, which did not land with “universal enthusiasm”, Lord Heseltine replied: “No and nor can it, it’s cloud cuckoo land.“As the chancellor has said that public finances are in a difficult situation, the debt is rising and inflation is likely to force up interests are so, all this talk about tax cuts and cutting public expenditure and all this sort of thing is simply not real in the present circumstances.He added: “What is needed is a strategic plan to battle our way through by increasing the scale of the economy and economic activity and more productive investment. But there are no plans expect in a limited number of places.”During the spring statement, Mr Sunak vowed to cut the basic rate of income tax from 20 to 19 pence in the pound before the end of the current Parliament, in 2024.“It would clearly be irresponsible to meet this ambition this year — and yet I refuse to let that ambition wither and drift,” he told MPs at the time.“By 2024, the OBR currently expects inflation to be back under control, debt falling sustainably, and the economy growing. Our fiscal rules are met with a clear safety margin. More

The first Partygate fines handed out by police relate to a leaving do for a Cabinet Office official in June 2020, according to reports.Staff who attended the bash are understood to have received £50 fixed penalty notices by email.The Metropolitan Police confirmed on Tuesday that they have referred an initial tranche of 20 Partygate cases for fixed penalties.But police refused to reveal who was being fined or give details of the breaches of coronavirus laws involved.But ITV political editor Robert Peston today said that at least some of the fines stem from an event at the Cabinet Office on 18 June 2020, believed to have been held to mark the departure of Downing Street official Hannah Young to take up the role of deputy consul general in New York.There was no immediate response from Downing Street, which has said it will not confirm the identity of anyone fined as a result of the Operation Hillman inquiry, with the exception of Boris Johnson or civil service head Simon Case.The Metropolitan Police are investigating 12 events in Downing Street and Whitehall in which laws imposed to prevent the spread of Covid-19 are alleged to have been breached in 2020 and 2021. Fines issued so far are thought to relate to cases where the breach was not disputed. Having taken evidence in questionnaires from more than 100 ministers, officials and advisers – including Mr Johnson and chancellor Rishi Sunak – officers are now conducting interviews with some of those involved.The prime minister himself has not yet been called for interview. He has refused to acknowledge that the fines already issued constitute proof of law-breaking at No 10 under his watch, insisting that he will not comment until the inquiry concludes. More