Markus Andrews

Senior Conservatives are urging Boris Johnson to launch a rapid independent inquiry into the 20-year mission in Afghanistan amid growing controversy over the government’s strategy for withdrawing from the region.Seven days after the fall of the country’s capital to the Taliban insurgency, with scenes of chaos unfolding at Kabul international airport, one influential Tory MP warned: “We can’t pretend we have nothing to learn.”Earlier this week, during an emergency debate in the Commons, the prime minister dismissed a call from the chair of the Defence Committee, Tobias Ellwood, for a “formal independent inquiry” into the UK’s conduct in Afghanistan.However, a growing number of Conservatives believe an inquiry should be held in order to examine mistakes and for the government to learn lessons – piling pressure on Mr Johnson to act.Former cabinet minister David Davis told The Independent there had been a “litany of disasters” over the past two decades in Afghanistan, saying: “Should there be an inquiry? Yes, there should.”He said there was “bound” to be an internal government investigation, but suggested there was “scope for review not just of the military element, but the whole strategic handling of this – from beginning to end”.Tom Tugendhat, who was applauded by MPs for the emotive speech he gave during Wednesday’s debate, told The Independent he backed demands for an inquiry.“Tobias [Ellwood] is right,” he said. “We need an inquiry into an operation whose impact will continue to be felt around the world. We can’t pretend we have nothing to learn.”Rory Stewart, who served as a minister in Theresa May’s government, said he had been pushing for an inquiry for eight years, insisting it had been “incredibly clear” an inquiry was needed “for a very long time”.He suggested it should examine the combat operations between 2005 and 2014, the decision to withdraw from the region, and “what on earth” that decision suggests about Britain’s foreign policy – particularly in relation to the United States.“The real thing that needs to be looked at is the absolutely astonishing, surreal, unnecessary decision to leave when there was no reason at why we couldn’t have stayed,” he stressed.Despite being challenged on the matter by Mr Ellwood in the Commons on Wednesday, Mr Johnson said there had been an “extensive defence review” in regard to the combat mission in Afghanistan that effectively ended in 2014, adding: “I believe that most of the key questions have already been extensively gone into.”Hours later, the prime minister’s official spokesperson told reporters: “There will be lessons to learn from this, and that is what we will do, but the prime minister has set out our reasoning for not having an independent review in the house.”However, Mr Ellwood, who has served in Afghanistan, criticised the government’s approach, stressing that it was “completely wrong” to attempt to “push things into the past and hope that we move on” as he reiterated his call for an inquiry.“We cannot just draw a line and move forward,” he told The Independent. “That would be absolutely wrong and would be an insult to all those people who served there and the families of those who didn’t return.”The former minister at the Ministry of Defence said the inquiry would “absolutely not” be another Chilcot inquiry, which was estimated to cost more than £13m and did not produce its conclusions on the Iraq war for seven years.“What you want is a maximum six-month inquiry, essentially to provide an overall study so that genuine lessons can be learned,” he said. “How does a mammoth, hi-tech military alliance get defeated by a very low-level insurgency armed with nothing but AK-47s and landmines?“You would not want this to drag on. But we owe it to those who have served. We owe it to our wider understanding of western intervention as the world gets increasingly more dangerous. Where does this leave us as a diminished capability, recognising that our adversaries will take advantage of our failure?”Alistair Burt, a former Conservative minister for the Middle East who stood down at the 2019 election, also said he agreed with calls for “an inquiry or some form of independent analysis of what has happened in Afghanistan and where we all go next”.He suggested two separate inquiries, with the first examining Afghanistan, “bringing analysis up to date in light of events, what happened and why”, and a second on the repercussions “for the west in light of a darkening world”.“What do we stand for, how do we defend ourselves, how we support like-minded people elsewhere, what the impact of these events is on our relationship with the US, with Nato and the EU – as well as with those who share different values – and where this all leaves us; and above all to set out what we actually intend to do and with whom. I suggest the latter inquiry is led by Rory Stewart,” said Mr Ellwood.At present, the Labour front bench has not joined calls for an inquiry, with a source telling The Independent: “While calls for an inquiry are understandable and inevitable, the focus of the government must 100 per cent be on the crisis going on now. There will and should be time made to learn the lessons of how we got here.”The Liberal Democrat leader, Ed Davey, said the inquiry must be launched immediately with a “similar remit” to the Chilcot inquiry into the 2003 Iraq invasion, “but with a much speedier timetable”.“After twenty years of conflict and so much sacrifice on the part of brave service personnel, it is absolutely vital that lessons are learned. Where mistakes have been made, they must be identified so that they cannot occur again,” he said.“There are countless questions to be answered about this long war – from the decisions of successive political leaders, to the culpability of the Conservative government in the recent, disastrous withdrawal.” More

Parliament’s security committee could reportedly request a secret analysis from the intelligence community over the rapid fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban insurgency.It comes amid chaotic scenes at Hamid Karzai international airport, with the UK government facing “formidable” challenges in the evacuation and airlift of British nationals and Afghans granted visas from the region.According to sources quoted inThe Guardian, the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), which meets in private and can demand documents from the security services, is “extremely likely” to request to see an assessment on Afghanistan.The parliamentary body is responsible for overseeing the UK’s joint intelligence committee — covering the policies and operations of key agencies such as MI5, MI6 and GCHQ.The move could put to the test ministers’ assertions that the swift takeover of the Afghan capital, Kabul, last weekend was not foreseen, including Dominic Raab’s suggestion this week that “no one” saw it coming.The foreign secretary claimed governments across the world were “surprised” and “caught off-guard” by the scale and pace of the Taliban’s advance and the downfall of the Afghan government and its forces.Highlighting the issue of intelligence earlier this week during an emergency Commons debate, former prime minister Theresa May asked Boris Johnson: “Was our intelligence really so poor? Was our understanding of the Afghan government so weak? Was our knowledge of the position on the ground so inadequate?”However, The Guardian added that a decision on any probe by the ISC is not expected until its nine MPs convene in October and that it does not have the remit to investigate ongoing operations.Chair of the committee, Julian Lewis, told an emergency Commons debate on Afghanistan, held on Wednesday, that he was “not in a position” to comment on the activities that the intelligence committee “might or might not agree to do”.His comments came in response to a question from the Tory MP Mark Harper, who asked whether the Intelligence and Security Committee had any plans to investigate “intelligence failures” in the country. Mr Lewis added that the question was “pertinent”.Ex-Tory MP Dominic Grieve, a former chair of the ISC committee, reiterated his call on Saturday for the current membership to investigate whether there was an “intelligence failure” that led to the chaotic withdrawal of allied troops from Afghanistan.Mr Grieve told Sky News: “I think you only have to look at the scenes we are seeing today [at Kabul airport] – I can’t imagine this was what was wished for or intended by either the United States government or the government of the United Kingdom.“The question is, why was that miscalculation made – and the Intelligence and Security Committee is in a position to review that, certainly from a United Kingdom angle and probably also from the angle of the United States.“Whether it will be able to publish that material after it has reviewed it is another matter, but it certainly has power to ask for it in respect to both the secret intelligence service, MI6, and also defence intelligence.”The ISC has been contacted by The Independent for comment. More

Councils across England have called for more support after a “harrowing” rise in child deaths and serious cases of harm linked to abuse or neglect of children since the first Covid lockdown.The number of serious incidents involving children that were reported by authorities have risen by almost a fifth over the past year, according to the Local Government Association (LGA).There were 536 serious incident notifications in England between April 2020 and March 2021 – an increase of 19 per cent on the previous year.The LGA said the rise is a “huge cause for concern” and it is extremely concerned about children’s safety – with families under increased pressure during the past 18 months of the pandemic.Children’s services regulator Ofsted has previously warned that a “toxic mix” of poverty, isolation and mental illness had led to an alarming rise in infants being harmed during lockdown.Local authorities must notify the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel of the death or serious harm of a child in their area, if they know or suspect they have been abused or neglected.Councils are also required to inform the education secretary and Ofsted if a looked-after child dies, regardless of whether they suspect abuse or neglect.Local authorities reported 223 deaths and 284 instances of serious harm in the past year, while 29 incidents were categorised as “other”. More than a third (36 per cent) of the notifications related to children under one.Council leaders said there was an urgent need for more investment in children’s social care in the government’s forthcoming spending review.Councillor Anntoinette Bramble, chair of the LGA’s children and young people board, said: “Supporting and protecting vulnerable children is one of the most important roles played by councils … so this rise in serious incident notifications is particularly harrowing and a huge cause for concern.”The Labour councillor added: “The pandemic has put extra pressure on families, particularly those living in difficult circumstances, which can fuel harmful acts of abuse or neglect on children.”“Councils have been working hard with their partners to identify this and provide the help children need, but it is vital that children’s social care services are funded to meet this need.”Ofsted’s chief inspector Amanda Spielman warned last November that vulnerable infants were at greater risk of harm during the pandemic amid increased tension in families.She said a “toxic mix” of poverty, isolation and mental illness were behind the alarming rise in incidents disturbing 20 per cent rise in babies being killed or harmed in the months after the first lockdown.The LGA is calling for a new strategy across government departments to protect children’s safety. “It is only by working together that we can effectively safeguard our most vulnerable young people,” said Ms Bramble. More

Boris Johnson has said he would work with the Taliban insurgency if necessary to “find a solution” for Afghanistan, as the government navigates “formidable” challenges in evacuating people from Kabul.The prime minister also sought to defend Dominic Raab, the under-fire foreign secretary who has faced a litany of questions over his handling of the crisis, insisting he “absolutely” had confidence in the cabinet minister.Following a fourth emergency session of Cobra, Mr Johnson said he wanted to assure people that “political and diplomatic efforts to find a solution for Afghanistan” will continue, including “working with the Taliban, of course, if necessary”.It comes as leading human rights charity Amnesty International claimed militants had tortured and killed several members of an ethnic minority group – raising concerns of a return to its repressive regime of the late 1990s.Witnesses told Amnesty that the Taliban had carried out a massacre of the Hazara minority in early July in Ghanzi — about 60 miles southwest of Kabul, where the rapid evacuation of foreign nationals is currently underway.The brutality of the killings was “a reminder of the Taliban’s past record and a horrifying indicator of what Taliban rule may bring”, said Agnes Callamard, the head of the rights group.A separate group that provides intelligence to the UN also suggested the Taliban was going door-to-door searching for people who worked for Nato forces or the previous Afghan government.The reports contradict claims made by the group – via a press conference earlier this week – that the Taliban had changed since it was last in power, and would not seek “revenge” against former opponents.Pressed on whether he believed suggestions from the Taliban spokespeople that it will be more moderate in the future, Mr Johnson reiterated on Friday: “I think it’s very important that we take people at face value.”He added: “We hope they mean what they say. But again, as I said in the House of Commons, and I think that this is the position of everybody from the president of the United States, president Macron of France, Angela Merkel, everybody that I talked to – everybody is agreed that we will judge them on their actions, and that is the important thing.”In his address to the Commons on Wednesday during an emergency debate on the deteriorating situation, Mr Johnson also stressed it would be a “mistake” for any country to recognise “any new regime in Kabul prematurely or bilaterally”.“Instead, those countries that care about Afghanistan’s future should work towards common conditions about the conduct of the new regime before deciding, together, whether to recognise it and on what terms,” he added.Speaking last month Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, also suggested the government would engage with the Taliban if it seized control, but warned: “Just like other governments around the world, if they behave in a way that is seriously against human rights, we will review that relationship.”In an update on the evacuation, Mr Johnson told reporters on Friday evening the logistical challenges surrounding the evacuation were “formidable”, but said there had been a “stabilisation” at the Hamid Karzai international airport in the Afghan capital.On Thursday, Mr Johnson said around 1,000 people were airlifted out of the country, with another 1,000 anticipated throughout today.“A lot of those, obviously, UK-eligible persons coming back to this country, and a lot of them are people coming back under the Afghanistan Resettlement and Assistance Programme, the ARAP, and those are the people, the interpreters, others, to whom we owe debts of gratitude and honour.”Insisting that Britain’s commitment to Afghanistan was “lasting”, he also stressed: “It’s a mistake to think the end of this month or the beginning of September as being a cut-off point for our involvement and our willingness to help”.Quizzed on whether he had confidence in the foreign secretary Mr Raab after reports emerged that he failed to make a key call to his Afghan counterpart while on holiday on the Greek island of Crete, Mr Johnson defied mounting calls for his resignation, saying: “Absolutely.“I can tell you that the whole of the government has been working virtually around the clock, hitting the phones to do what we can to sort it out, to deal with the situation that has been long in gestation, and to make sure that we get as many people as back as possible”. He added: “It’s worth repeating that at the end of a 20-year cycle of engagement there is a huge record to be proud of in Afghanistan.“It bears repeating that the UK armed forces, UK diplomats, aid workers, did help to change the lives of literally millions of people in Afghanistan, to help educate millions of women and young girls who would otherwise not have been educated, and to stop terrorism from coming into this country.” More

Seven Russians have been sanctioned by the UK following the poisoning of Alexei Navalny. The Kremlin’s foremost domestic critic fell ill on a flight to Moscow last year and was subsequently found to have been poisoned with what experts concluded was the nerve agent novichok. Mr Navalny, 45, was arrested on 17 January after returning from Germany, where he spent months recovering from the attack. He is in prison in Russia on charges of embezzlement. The Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office announced on Friday that seven individuals, said to be members of the Russian Federal Security Service, would be subject to travel bans and asset freezes. Government officials believe those sanctioned were “directly responsible” for planning or carrying out the attack on Mr Navalny on 20 August last year. Foreign secretary Dominic Raab said: “Since the horrific poisoning of Alexei Navalny took place a year ago, the UK has been at the forefront of the international response against this appalling act.“Through our chemical weapons sanctions regime and at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, we are sending a clear message that any use of chemical weapons by the Russian state violates international law and a transparent criminal investigation must be held. We urge Russia to declare its full stock of novichok nerve agents.”Mr Navalny, a consistent thorn in the side of president Vladimir Putin, blames the Kremlin for targeting him with novichok – the same nerve agent used in the Salisbury poisonings in 2018, for which the Russian intelligence services have also been blamed. The anti-corruption investigator has millions of Russian followers on social media and frequently attends protests against Mr Putin’s government, though he has been unable to challenge the president at the ballot box. Earlier on Friday, Mr Navalny marked the anniversary of the novichok attack by urging global leaders to devote more attention to combating corruption and to target tycoons close to Mr Putin.The UK and US also issued a joint statement in which they reaffirmed their condemnation of the “assassination attempt” on Mr Navalny. The statement added: “We welcome sanctions actions made by international partners and will continue to co-ordinate with international partners on further measures.“Today the UK and the US join in taking further action against the individuals directly responsible for carrying out the poisoning of Mr Navalny.“As we did after Russia’s use of a chemical weapon against the Skripals in the United Kingdom in March 2018, we continue to underline that there must be accountability and no impunity for those that use chemical weapons.” More

The SNP and the Scottish Greens have confirmed a power-sharing deal in the Scottish parliament, cementing the pro-independence majority in Holyrood.The confidence and supply agreement brings the Greens into government for the first time anywhere in the UK. The deal, which stops short of a formal coalition, is the result of months of intense negotiations after the SNP fell one seat short of an overall majority in the Scottish elections in May.Speaking at Bute House after the details of deal were published, Nicola Sturgeon described the agreement as an “undoubtedly … historic moment”. She said: “It recognises that business as usual is not good enough in the times we are living through.“It grasps that out of great challenge, a better world and a better Scotland is capable of being born, but it understands that achieving it will take boldness, courage and a will to do things differently.”It is the first time the SNP has shared power in the Scottish parliament during the party’s 14 year-stretch in government.Scottish Green co-leader Patrick Harvie also hailed the moment as “historic”, saying that it “couldn’t come at a more important time” and would place two green ministers “into the heart of government advocating for climate”.Two Green MSPs will become ministers under the deal after Ms Sturgeon consults with the party’s co-leaders.The agreement includes a commitment to hold a second Scottish independence referendum after the Covid pandemic is over and within the next five years. The deal outlines that if the Covid crisis has passed, the parties intend to have a referendum within the first half of the five-year parliamentary session.The Greens have agreed to sign up to most of SNP policy, but areas of policy disagreement between the two pro-independence parties remain. Some of the topics outside the remit of the deal include membership of NATO in the case of independence, the legal status and regulation of sex work, aviation policy and policy on fee-paying schools.The deal also includes a commitment to introduce a Bill to reform the Gender Recognition Act to the Scottish parliament during the first year of the parliamentary session. The piece of legislation would seek to “simplify” the process for a transgender person to legally change their gender in order to “reducing the trauma associated” with it.Under the terms of the new arrangement, Green MSPs would support the Scottish government on confidence votes, as well as in annual budgets if there is “appropriate funding for the shared policy programme”.The deal must be confirmed by Scottish Green members on 28 August, which is three days before Ms Sturgeon is planned to address MSPs on her programme for government.The Greens became Scotland’s fourth largest party after winning eight seats in the May election, when the SNP won 64 seats.The SNP has been in power since 2007, and Ms Sturgeon has been Scotland’s first minister since late 2014, after Alex Salmond stepped down after losing the independence referendum. More

Michael Gove has been accused of falsely claiming that a personal protective equipment (PPE) contract linked to a Conservative peer went through “eight stages” of checks, after the government admitted the vetting process did not happen.Cabinet Office minister previously told parliament that “every single procurement decision went through an eight-stage process” following Labour claims of cronyism over Covid contracts.But the government has now conceded that a £22.6m contract to supply goggles, masks and gowns was awarded to Bunzl Healthcare before a more vigorous eight-stage vetting process was put in place.Tory peer Lord Feldman lobbied for the contract last March while acting as a government adviser on PPE – whilst also being paid by Bunzl as a client of his lobbying firm.Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, told The Independent: “Ministers have finally admitted what we all know to be true – if you’re the mate or a client of an influential Tory then the rules don’t apply and you get to the front of the queue for taxpayers’ money.”Both Mr Gove and junior Cabinet Office minister Julia Lopez claimed in parliament that all offers of PPE at the height of the Covid crisis went through “eight stages” of checks.Ms Rayner said: “Michael Gove and Julia Lopez have clearly misled parliament. They need to correct the record and explain why they haven’t been telling the truth, and then publish the details of every other contract that was awarded to their mates outside of the eight-stage process.”The Labour deputy said the government still had to “explain why a lobbyist was serving as an adviser to the government, seemingly helping his clients get access to public money”.Emails obtained by the Good Law Project campaign group showed that Lord Feldman discussed the possibility of PPE contract being awarded to Bunzl with a government official last March, shortly before the company received a £22.6m deal.The peer – a former co-chair of the Conservative Party – was working in an unpaid role advising junior health minister Lord Bethell at the time, and Bunzl was a client of his lobbying and PR firm Tulchan.Ms Rayner had asked the government to explain whether the contract awarded to Bunzl was approved through the government’s eight-stage process designed to assess and approve PPE offers.In a written response, the junior health minister Jo Churchill admitted Bunzl was one of 71 PPE suppliers who had not undergone the eight-stage vetting process in the early weeks of the pandemic.The minister pointed to a National Audit Office assessment which estimated the value of all the contacts handed out by the end of April 2020 – before the vigorous vetting process was introduced – amounted to £1.5bn.Ms Rayner has previously uncovered the fact that the eight-step process was not used in the case of Ayanda Capital, awarded £252m of deals for PPE supplies. Nor was it followed in the case of PestFix, given a contract to supply PPE worth £350m.Lord Feldman previously defended his actions over the Bunzl contract, telling the Financial Times: “When I agreed to help at the start of the first lockdown, it was clearly a time of significant national crisis.”He added: “My sole motivation was to try to support the government and the NHS in protecting medical staff and saving the lives of patients.”The Independent has contacted the Cabinet Office for comment. More

Boris Johnson’s government must start its new resettlement scheme for people in Afghanistan “immediately” to save lives at risk from the Taliban, senior MPs have warned.Leading Conservative and Labour figures have urged ministers to use the programme for people trying to flee the country, after the prime minister said 5,000 Afghans would be given a home in the UK in the year ahead.Labour’s Yvette Cooper, chair of the home affairs committee, and the Tory Party’s Tobias Ellwood, chair of the defence select committee, said it should be implemented on “an interim basis in order to help people at risk right now”.In a letter to the home secretary Priti Patel, Ms Cooper and Mr Ellwood said the Home Office should use the support network established by Britain’s local authorities for the recent Syrian resettlement scheme to start welcoming refugees.Organisations involved in refugee resettlement say there is still “confusion” in the way the scheme has been presented because the process has typically taken place only once people have fled their country of origin.The Law Society of England and Wales said clarification is needed on the kind of clearance needed for people at risk under Taliban rule – urging the Home Office to be flexible so people can come directly from Afghanistan.“A growing number of solicitors are being contacted about people whose lives are in danger in Afghanistan and who have no viable or safe way to apply for or exercise potential rights to travel to the UK,” said the society’s president Stephanie Boyce.“Anyone who wants to apply for entry to the UK from Afghanistan has to get to Pakistan or India to provide biometrics before their application will be considered. This creates a near impenetrable barrier to seeking sanctuary and urgently needs to be rethought.”The select committee chiefs said Ms Patel should help make sure “people who are at immediate risk” inside Afghanistan should be able to access the resettlement scheme.Councils from across the UK have come forward to say they will welcome these refugees into their local communities – disputing claims from the home secretary that it would not be possible to resettle larger numbers.Ms Patel said earlier this week that the UK could not accommodate its long-term target of 20,000 Afghan refugees “all in one go” after criticism of the limited short-term commitment of 5,000 refugees.The senior MPs also urged the government to broaden the scope of the Afghan relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) – the ongoing effort to relocate interpreters and others who helped the British mission in Afghanistan – saying it was still “too narrow”.They called on Ms Patel to provide more resources to support the issuing of visas so those trying to leave Afghanistan do not face administrative delays which would be “unforgivable at this dangerous time”.Ms Cooper and Mr Ellwood said the Home Office should follow the US example and broaden the scheme to include people who have worked with UK-based charities and UK-funded projects.“Many UK agencies and organisations have staff and contract workers who were visibly associated with the UK and who are being pursued into hiding by Taliban forces,” they wrote. “We have a responsibility towards them.”Refugee charities have said the short-term commitment to resettle 5,000 Afghan citizens was “too little” to meet the scale of the immediate crisis. Safe Passage International said the government should try to resettle at least 20,000 in the months ahead.The Independent has backed calls from MPs and charities for Downing Street to expand its plan to resettle Afghans at risk of losing their lives in the Taliban takeover.Our Refugees Welcome campaign is calling for the government to offer sanctuary to as many Afghans as possible, and for local authorities and charities devoted to their welfare to be given the strongest of support. More