Markus Andrews

Scotland’s newest MP told how she hopes to be a role model for other minorities after being elected to Westminster.New SNP MP Anum Qaisar-Javed also pledged she would “fight for independence” after being elected to represent the constituency of Airdrie and Shotts.The by-election, which took place just a week after the Scottish Parliament election, was sparked by former MP Neil Gray’s decision to step down from the Commons and run for Holyrood.After he was elected to the corresponding constituency in the Scottish Parliament last week, Ms Javed, 28, retained the seat he had held — albeit with a majority down on the 5,201 held by Mr Gray in 2019.She polled 10,129 votes, ahead of Labour candidate and local councillor Kenneth Stevenson who came in second with 8,372 votes, a majority of 1,757.Conservative candidate Ben Callaghan secured 2,812 votes, with Liberal Democrat Stephen Arrundale fourth with 220 votes.Turnout in the election was 34.3%, with Ms Javed saying this was “low” but adding she was proud of the SNP’s record in the area and “proud to be elected as the MP for Airdrie and Shotts”.Her election came as the Scottish Parliament saw its most diverse group of MSPs ever sworn in, with women of colour elected to Holyrood for the first time.Ms Javed, a modern studies teacher, said she taught her students about the reasons why there are fewer people from minority communities in politics.She said: “We talk about reasons such as a lack of role models, and it has taken till 2021, but now we have two women of colour in the Scottish Parliament.”But I don’t just want women of colour to look at me, or people of colour, I want anyone from any minority group to be able to look at me and say ‘if she can do it, so can I’.”In a speech made after votes were counted at the Ravenscraig Regional Sports Facility in Motherwell, she promised she would “fight for independence”.She added: “The initial priority has to be the Covid recovery, we have just gone through a pandemic, people have really struggled this last year.”And as we move through the pandemic and when the time is right, then yes of course we will be looking to campaign for another independence referendum, as is the right of people of Scotland.”Whatever the result is of that referendum, so be it, but that choice is of paramount importance.” More

A senior Unite official has been suspended by Labour after tweeting that Priti Patel was “disgusting” and should be deported in response to the immigration stand-off in Glasgow.Howard Beckett, the assistant general secretary who is standing for leadership of the union, posted the message after Border Force officials detained two men.Police Scotland released the Indian nationals after crowds surrounded the van on Thursday.Mr Beckett tweeted: “Priti Patel should be deported, not refugees. She can go along with anyone else who supports institutional racism.“She is disgusting.”He subsequently deleted the message and apologised.He has now been suspended by the party, according to the PA news agency.He later said: “Priti Patel message on Eid al Fitr is to deport Muslim refugees. Those who have been forced to flee war zones.“We are seeing appalling institutional racism again and again from the supposed pillars of the British elite.“Our society should have no place for racism, at all.“I’m very sorry for my earlier tweet. I was angry to see Muslim Refugees being deported on the morning of Eid al Fitr.”He said his earlier message was “never intended to be literal” and “the wording was wrong” and “offensive”.“I apologise unreservedly to Priti Patel. No one should be deported.”It is understood neither of the men involved in the situation in Glasgow is Muslim.A Labour spokesman said the party “takes these allegations extremely seriously” and promised appropriate action. More

The government has been accused of “over-exaggerating” the threat to free speech on campus in order to push through new laws by a university union. New legislation will be introduced in parliament for the first time on Wednesday, which the education secretary said would tackle “the chilling effect of censorship on campus once and for all”. It would place new requirements on universities and student unions and allow a regulator able to issue fines for any breaches, among other measures. But the move has faced backlash from a union representing thousands of university staff in the UK who have been left “incredibly concerned” by the move. Jo Grady, the general secretary of the Union and College Union (UCU), told BBC Radio 4’sToday programme. “We think that this bill itself is a serious threat to freedom of speech and academic freedom on campus.”She added: “We think that it is an incredibly over-exaggeration of issues in order to push this through.”When asked about former home secretary, Amber Rudd, having an invitation to speak at an event at Oxford University retracted due to the Windrush scandal, Ms Grady said there were “far more serious” threats to free speech among university workers.She claimed staff were facing job losses “because their research agendas don’t align with what the university wants” and others on precarious contracts having to “to align their research agendas, again, with what university wants”“These are genuine threats, not people who already have very privileged jobs not being allowed to speak in an event 30 minutes before,” Ms Grady said.UK universities have said they share the government’s commitment to free speech on campus – but said any new measures must be “proportionate”.A spokesperson for the Russell Group, a group of leading universities, said:  “Our universities have always protected the right to have free and open discussion of challenging or controversial ideas.” They added: “It is vital that any further changes or additions to an already complex system are proportionate, protect university autonomy and avoid creating unnecessary or burdensome bureaucracy.”Last month, the group vowed to protect free speech on campus, adding their institutions already facilitate “free and frank intellectual exchanges”.A spokesperson for Universities UK – which represents 140 institutions – said: “It is important that the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill is proportionate – focusing on the small number of incidents – and does not duplicate existing legislation or create unnecessary bureaucracy for universities which could have unintended consequences.”On Tuesday, the Queen’s Speech set out government plans to introduce new laws on freedom of speech at universities.The Department for Education (DfE) said registered universities and colleges in England will be required to promote and defend freedom of speech and academic freedom under the proposed legislation.For the first time, students’ unions at universities would be required to take steps to secure lawful freedom of speech for members and visiting speakers under the measures in the Bill.This follows controversy over cases of the “no-platforming” of speakers – where they are refused a platform to speak – on campuses, including of Ms Rudd.The new Bill also covers the creation of a free speech champion at regulator the Office for Students (OfS), with the power to issue sanctions.Gavin Williamson, the education secretary, said: “It is a basic human right to be able to express ourselves freely and take part in rigorous debate.”Our legal system allows us to articulate views which others may disagree with as long as they don’t meet the threshold of hate speech or inciting violence. This must be defended, nowhere more so than within our world-renowned universities.”He added: “Holding universities to account on the importance of freedom of speech in higher education is a milestone moment in fulfilling our manifesto commitment, protecting the rights of students and academics, and countering the chilling effect of censorship on campus once and for all.”In a statement, Jo Grady from the UCU said the government was “using freedom of speech as a Trojan horse for increasing its power and control over staff and students”. An OfS spokesperson said: “Free speech and academic freedom are essential elements to effective teaching and research.”Universities and colleges have legal duties to protect both free speech and academic freedom, and their compliance with these responsibilities forms an important part of their conditions of registration with the OfS.They added: “We will ensure that the changes that result from proposals expressed in [the] Queen’s Speech reinforce these responsibilities and embed the widest definition of free speech within the law.”Additional reporting by Press Association More

Extra powers for the health secretary under new NHS reform plans could open the door to more politicisation of the NHS, MPs have warned.The Commons health select committee said the planned new powers that would be granted to Matt Hancock under proposed changes legislation lack the necessary safeguards or detail on how the powers would be used.The committee demanded more transparency over the power of the secretary of state to appoint senior NHS managers, the ability of ministers to intervene in local reconfigurations and service closures and the power to change the role of national organisations without primary legislation. The government has said the planned reforms, which will be the first major change to the NHS in more than a decade, will help local NHS services to join up with local councils, social care and other services.It will create new integrated care organisations which will aim to deliver services for people across regions.But the proposed legislation, which was confirmed in the Queen’s Speech this week, include a host of so-called Henry VIII powers that the health secretary will be able to use without needing a vote in the House of Commons. NHS Providers chief executive Chris Hopson, who represents the views of NHS trusts, said: “Trust leaders are pleased to see the committee share their concerns over proposals in the white paper to give extensive new powers to the secretary of state. We wholeheartedly support the committee’s recommendation that further safeguards are put in place to protect the NHS’s operational independence and to ensure the power to intervene in local health services does not lead to the politicisation of the NHS.“It is inappropriate for party politicians to be able to solely determine how NHS funds are allocated across each region and constituency and which NHS managers should be hired and fired. They should not also be able to stop much needed changes to improve the quality and safety of local health services without good reason.”The committee also criticised the current lack of ambition on solving the workforce crisis in the NHS caused by widespread vacancies for nurses, doctors and other staff.The new health bill requires the government to publish updates on workforce planning once every five years.The MPs said this was not an “adequate response” and ministers should include a requirement to publish annual reports on workforce shortages and future staffing requirements that cover the next five, 10 and 20 years, together with an assessment of whether enough staff are being trained.The cross-party group of MPs also warned the government it would be “extremely disappointed” if Boris Johnson fails to deliver on his promise to produce a long-term plan for social care by the end of the year.It said the lack of a plan could undermine the ambitions for the NHS and the new Health and Care Bill should include a duty to publish a 10-year plan for social care within six months of the bill become law.Mr Johnson, originally promised to “fix” the system when he entered No 10 in July 2019, but the government has only promised to bring forward proposals “later in the year”.In its report, the committee said: “The absence of a fully funded plan for social care has the potential to destabilise integrated care systems and undermine their success.”Without secure, long-term funding, the problems that have bedevilled the care sector over the last two decades will not be solved.”The committee chairman, former health secretary Jeremy Hunt, said: “If such issues are addressed, the government has an opportunity to deliver a post-pandemic watershed 1948 moment for the health and care system, matching the significance of the year the NHS was founded.”But if they are not, it will be a wasted opportunity to deliver the truly integrated care required by an aging population.” More

How much trouble will Lord Christopher Geidt make for the prime minister? Of course, the fairer way to put the question is to ask how much trouble the prime minister is prepared to make for himself. The evidence on that, looking at the record thus far, is abundant. A watchdog on standards, the role Lord Geidt is now taking on, can only do so much to restrain a wayward premier. Boris Johnson can only really be sacked by his party (or the electorate), and not by any appointed official. However, a compliant sort of establishment old buffer as adviser on ministerial standards, an obedient poodle, is obviously better than some sort of snarling rottweiler. In his evidence to the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Lord Geidt sought to assure him that, smooth and discreet as he may be, he is not afraid to sink his teeth into the prime minister’s bottom.On the immediate priorities, these are to publish the register of minister’s external interests, and of course the investigation into who paid for the refurbishment of the prime minister’s flat. And, whoever the finding channels, whether it was consistent with the ministerial code and the seven principles of public life set out by the first standards supreme, Lord Nolan more than a quarter of a century ago – qualities not always immediately associated with the name Johnson: selflessness; integrity; objectivity; accountability; openness; honesty; leadership. More

David Cameron has admitted he had a “serious economic interest” in Greensill Capital, but refused to say how much he stood to earn.Giving evidence to a House of Commons committee, the former prime minister insisted that he did not know that the finance firm was in trouble when he lobbied government ministers last year, despite boss Lex Greensill saying he informed him as early as March 2020.And he said he would be ready to support changes to the law to ensure that in-house lobbyists like himself are forced to register if they make contact with ministers and officials on companies’ behalf.Beginning up to five hours of grilling by two parliamentary committees, Mr Cameron said it was “a painful day” for him to have to answer questions about his behaviour as a senior adviser to Greensill, when he bombarded ministers including Rishi Sunak and Michael Gove with text messages, emails and calls seeking access to state Covid support schemes in the early days of the pandemic.Asked how much money he stood to gain if Greensill had succeeded, Mr Cameron said: “I was paid a  generous annual amount – far more than what I earned as Prime Minister – and I had shares, not share options but shares, in the business.“I absolutely  had a big economic investment in the future of Greensill, I wanted the business to succeed, I wanted it to grow. I haven’t put a number on those things.”While accepting it was right for the committee to ask what his role was and whether he “overstepped the mark”, he said: “I had this economic interest – a serious economic interest, that’s important – but I don’t think the amount is particularly germane to answering those questions and as far as I’m concerned it’s a private matter.”He insisted that reports he stood to gain £60m if the company succeeded were “completely absurd”.Treasury committee chair Mel Stride suggested that Mr Cameron’s lobbying efforts were driven by the fear that Greensill might be about to fail, at financial cost to himself.“Many people would conclude that, at the time of your lobbying, your opportunity to make a large amount of money was under threat,” said Mr Stride. “You really must have known that.”But Mr Cameron responded: “I did not believe, in March or April, when I was doing this contact, that there was a risk of Greensill falling over.”Mr Cameron was also asked about texts he sent to Tom Scholar, the Treasury permanent secretary, which he signed off with “love DC”.“With anyone I know at all well, I tend to sign off text messages with ‘love DC’ – I don’t know what but I do,” the former prime minister explained.The records released by the Treasury committee this week also raised eyebrows because Mr Cameron appeared to question a policy of cutting interest rates during pandemic.But he said he had actually meant cutting VAT – claiming he had been a “victim of spell check” and had made an error.Mr Cameron also claimed his push – by meeting Matt Hancock – to give Greensill a role in speeding up payments to health staff was a way to stamp out “the evils of payday lending”.“The idea that staff in the NHS can draw down their salary, as they earn it – rather than have to wait until the end of the month – I think we could go some way to ending the use of payday lending,” he told MPs.Mr Cameron said he now accepted he would have been better to contact ministers and officials through formal letters, but said that the lobbying took place during “exceptional times”.He rejected suggestions that Whitehall officials would be unduly influenced by being contacted by a former prime minister.“I think it was acceptable to do what I did,” he said. “I thought very carefully before picking up the telephone, and I thought the circumstances warranted because they were unique.“I’ve reflected since then, and thought, in future it would much better to have one single communication. But these were exceptional times, and that’s why I think it was acceptable to do what I did.”Mr Cameron said that in their evidence, Treasury officials Tom Scholar and Charles Roxburgh had said they “did not feel improper pressure”,“Clearly these civil servants were not intimidated by getting a call from me or from looking at this proposal,” he said. “They thought it was appropriate and they got on and looked at the scheme.”Mr Cameron accepted that “ex-prime ministers are different” and said there was an argument for a committee of former senior civil servants and businesspeople to advise them on interests after leaving office. This would be of use “particularly for a younger one who doesn’t just want to be on the board of some bank and make the odd speech, but who wants to get stuck in and help a business grow and expand,” he said. “Perhaps I would find that beneficial.” More

Former British Prime Minister David Cameron said Thursday he never suspected that a financial services company he lobbied for would go under, threatening thousands of jobs at a steel firm it helped finance.Cameron was summoned to answer lawmakers’ questions about his efforts to win government funds for Greensill Capital. His involvement with the firm has spurred inquiries into political lobbying in Britain.The former Conservative Party leader is a key link in a chain of contacts between government ministers, civil servants and Greensill, which collapsed in March. The bankruptcy forced the owner of Liberty Steel, which employs about 5,000 people, to seek a British government bailout. Greensill was one of the company’s key financial backers.Cameron told Parliament’s Treasury Committee he had “no sense at all” that the company was in danger.“There was certainly no sense of jeopardy” at board meetings, he said.Cameron became a part-time adviser to the firm two years after he left office in 2016. Greensill Capital was founded by Australian banker Lex Greensill — a former adviser to Cameron’s government.During the coronavirus outbreak, Cameron sent text messages to U.K. Treasury chief Rishi Sunak and emailed the Bank of England in an effort to secure government-backed loans for Greensill under a program to help companies hurt by the pandemic. He also lobbied Health Secretary Matt Hancock on behalf of a Greensill product that would have allowed health care workers to receive advance payments on their salaries.Cameron said he was motivated by a desire to help support British workers and businesses “in the economic turmoil caused by COVID” and not by the prospect of making millions from his Greensill shares.“I was paid an annual amount, a generous annual amount, far more than I earned as prime minister, and I had shares,” said Cameron, who earned about 200,000 pounds ($280,000) a year when he was U.K. leader.“I absolutely had a big economic investment in the future of Greensill, I wanted the business to succeed,” he said. But he insisted the amount he stood to make was “a private matter.”Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Conservative government has launched its own investigation into lobbying, led by a lawyer, but opponents doubt it will get to the truth. Opposition parties are calling for tougher rules on contacts between business representatives and government officials, saying Britain’s laxly enforced lobbying regulations leave the door open to corruption.Cameron said his appearance before the committee, by video link, was “a painful day.”“I abided by the rules that were in place,” he said. “But rules alone are never enough.“I completely accept that former prime ministers are in a different position to others because of the office that we held and the influence that continues to bring. We need to think differently and act differently.” More

David Cameron has been accused of “demeaning” the position of prime minister, as he answered MPs’ questions about his role in the collapse of Greensill Capital.The former PM was confronted by Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh as he gave evidence to the House of Commons Treasury Committee.Ms McDonagh told him that former Treasury minister Lord Myners had described the firm’s operations as a “Ponzi scheme”.She told him: “You had the enormous privilege of being the prime minister of our country, you’re one of just five people post-war to have been re-elected to lead our government. “Do you not feel that you have demeaned yourself and your position by WhatsApping your way around Whitehall based on a fraudulent enterprise, based on selling high risk debt to unsuspecting investors?”She asked: “Did you know that 90 per cent of Greensill’s business represented unsecured loans to high-risk borrowers, and half the time without any invoice whatsoever?”And referring to his involvement in the Earnd app used in the NHS to allow staff to receive payments up-front, she asked him: “Do you accept that your lobbying of the NHS wasn’t for its health but for the health of Greensill expand its balance sheet?”But Mr Cameron insisted that the NHS pay scheme was intended to “stamp out payday lending” by allowing staff to access money they had learnt.He told Ms McDonagh: “My view is that what I did was I made a choice to work for a business which I hoped would be a UK FinTech success story – and many people believed that it would – and I wanted to help that company.“What I did at that time of economic crisis was put to the government what I genuinely believed was a good idea of how to get money into the hands of small businesses and get their bills paid early.” More