UK Politics

UK judges could rule that deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful, Dominic Raab has admitted – as he refused to say any flights will take off this year.Ministers have attacked the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for preventing the first flight on Tuesday night, insisting they have the domestic legal powers they need to act.But Mr Raab acknowledged a full High Court judicial review, in late July, could also thwart the policy – after the government declined to pass fresh legislation to authorise it.He was asked whether he would be prepared to stake his professional reputation on pledging that at least one asylum seeker will be taken to Rwanda by the end of this year.“Well, I don’t quite know what the courts are going to decide on the main hearing,” the deputy prime minister told LBC Radio.The comment came as Mr Raab appeared to squash No 10 hints it might pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights, saying: “We are going to stay within the Convention.” However, the official spokesman for the prime minister, Boris Johnson, later said: “It is fair to say we have not made a final decision on next steps.”The spikesman reiterated the government’s position that continued crossings of the English Channel in small boats showed that “current approach is broken and that we need to take new steps in order to find a long-term solution for a problem that others have tried to fix but has not been successful so far”.Almost 50 people were brought ashore on Border Force ship Hurricane after rescues in the Channel on Thursday. Eighteen people – including children – were brought ashore in the morning, with approximately 30 people, including young children, rescued in the afternoon.Mr Raab said his new Bill of Rights – overhauling the Human Rights Act – would seek to prevent a repeat of Tuesday’s night’s embarrassment, by curbing the Strasbourg court’s powers to act immediately.Mr Raab accused it of wrongly using a power of injunction, saying: “Our Bill of Rights will correct that and I think it’s the right thing to do.”His caution on future flights is in stark contrast to the immediate aftermath of the ECHR ruling, which saw ministers express confidence that the policy will go aheadIt is now thought unlikely that further deportation attempts – at an estimated cost of £500,000 per flight – will be made until the legal position is settled.The judicial review was launched by the Public and Commercial Services Union, the charity Care4Calais and the pressure group Detention Action, along with four asylum seekers facing removal.It will decide whether the policy “is lawful or not”, the government having been forced to bring back any asylum seekers wrongly deported if it loses the case.Vowing to shake-up UK compliance with the ECHR – while staying with it – Mr Raab pointed to “Rule 39 interim orders” arguing they “should not have a legally binding effect under UK law”.“We are going to stay within the Convention, but make sure the procedural framework is reformed,” he told BBC Radio 4.However, experts have warned the tactic of watering down human rights obligation could backfire by triggering sanctions from the EU.The Bill is expected to remove the need for UK courts to follow wider decisions made by the ECHR, despite commitments made in the Brexit withdrawal agreement.The EU was seen as securing a victory in “locking-in” the UK’s future actions – not last to protect the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland – with the ability to re-examine security cooperation if this is flouted. More

Dominic Raab says he doesn’t know why Lord Geidt resignedBoris Johnson’s ethics adviser Lord Geidt has dealt the prime minister a blow by saying the PM put him in an “impossible and odious position” by considering taking action that was a deliberate breach of his own ministerial code.In a resignation letter – published in full on Thursday morning after No 10 came under pressure when it initially released only a short statement – the former adviser said he had clung on to his role “by a very small margin” over the Partygate scandal.The ministerial interests adviser said he was forced to quit when he was asked to offer a view on the government’s “intention to consider measures which risk a deliberate and purposeful breach of the ministerial code”.The prime minister’s response indicated that the issue related to advice on the Trade Remedies Authority.Lord Geidt said the idea that the prime minister “might to any degree be in the business of deliberately breaching his own code is an affront”.Show latest update

1655389553Sketch: Who among us is stupid enough to be Boris Johnson’s next ethics adviser?Agreeing to be Boris Johnson’s ethics adviser is an act of stupidity that can be rivalled only by agreeing to be a vegan chef to a Tyrannosaurus Rex, writes Tom Peck: Jane Dalton16 June 2022 15:251655387753PM may not replace ethics adviser after second quits in two yearsBoris Johnson is considering abolishing the role of independent ethics adviser, after the second dramatic resignation from the position in Downing Street in less than two years, writes Andrew Woodcock:Jane Dalton16 June 2022 14:551655385713Dispute ‘not linked to PM’s own finances’Downing Street insisted the dispute was not linked to the financial interests of Boris Johnson or any minister.Asked whether the Prime Minister had requested advice related to his own finances that might be tangentially connected to the trade dispute, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “No… or any other minister.”Asked whether it was linked to the Conservative Party’s finances, the spokesman said: “Not that I am aware of. I have seen speculation to that end, but that’s certainly not my understanding of it.”Jane Dalton16 June 2022 14:211655383536No ethics left in Downing Street, says Labour deputy leaderLabour demanded Boris Johnson appoint a new watchdog to replace Lord Geidt as ministerial interests adviser.Deputy party leader Angela Rayner said: “This Prime Minister has, in his own adviser’s words, made a mockery of the Ministerial Code. He has now followed both his predecessor and the anti-corruption tsar out of the door in disgust.“There are now no ethics left in this Downing Street regime propped up in office by a Conservative Party mired in sleaze and totally unable to tackle the cost-of-living crisis facing the British people.“The Government must not only appoint a new watchdog but back Labour’s plan to restore standards. This Prime Minister has debased standards and rigged the rules for far too long. It is time for the Conservatives to do the right thing and remove him from office.”Jane Dalton16 June 2022 13:451655382195Johnson considering not replacing ethics adviserBoris Johnson is considering whether to replace Lord Geidt as ministerial interests adviser as he reviews the role, Downing Street says.The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said the function of the role was vitally important.But asked whether a new adviser was being sought, the spokesman noted a number of issues raised by Lord Geidt and said the Prime Minister wanted to “carefully consider those and reflect on them before taking a decision on how best to fulfil that commitment about ensuring rigorous oversight and scrutiny of ministerial interests”.Pressed on whether Lord Geidt would necessarily be replaced, the spokesman said: “We haven’t made a final decision on how best to carry out that function, whether it relates to a specific individual or not.“He will carefully consider that before setting out the next steps.”He suggested there was no plan to wait for a new adviser to be in place to go ahead with the controversial plan Lord Geidt quit over, saying: “I don’t believe that’s the intention.”Jane Dalton16 June 2022 13:231655381963Confusion over why PM consulted Lord GeidtThe situation surrounding Lord Geidt’s decision to stand down is distinctly unclear.The Prime Minister’s official spokesman was unable to say exactly why Boris Johnson consulted his ethics adviser over the issue – thought to be a proposal to retain steel tariffs – but he said it was a “relatively unusual situation”.Asked whether that meant there was something beyond the commitments to the World Trade Organisation, the spokesman said: “No, that’s what I was referring to.”Jane Dalton16 June 2022 13:191655381393Issue was key industry, admits No 10Downing Street said Boris Johnson’s request to Lord Geidt centred on a “critical national industry” that is at risk of “material harm” without action.Asked whether the request centred on Chinese steel tariffs, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “I can’t get into that”, having cited “commercial sensitivity”.“No decisions have been taken with regards to this specific issue at this point,” the spokesman said.“The fully independent Trade Remedies Authority has provided advice to ministers which found that a critical national industry – and obviously I can’t be more specific – is at risk of material harm if the Government does not take action, affecting businesses and livelihoods.“So it’s of course right the Prime Minister would consider how best to address that issue.”Last year, the authority recommended removing some tariffs on Chinese steel – but was overruled by the government, after protests by the steel industry.The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said the decision was not yet determined but would be “relatively shortly”.Downing Street indicated more details on the scheme that provoked Lord Geidt’s resignation would be disclosed after the commercially sensitive matter is ruled on.Jane Dalton16 June 2022 13:091655380893Ministers pondering key issue for jobs and economy, says GoveCommunities secretary Michael Gove says he is sorry Lord Geidt has quit, but that the issue was an “incredibly important one” for the economy.“I am a huge admirer of Lord Geidt. He is a very distinguished public servant,” Mr Gove said.“I know that the decision that the Government are contemplating is an incredibly important one which has jobs and the economic future of parts of this country at its heart.“The economic decision is a critically important one. I’m sorry Lord Geidt felt he had to go.“Lord Geidt in all the roles that he has had has always been a very dedicated public servant. I am grateful for his service.“The point on which he felt he had to go was related to a quite complicated and commercially sensitive economic matter where I think the Government is absolutely right but I can’t say more about it for the moment.”Jane Dalton16 June 2022 13:011655380637’Donald Trump trade war started it’The tariffs were extended for a year – until the end of this month, according to one expert.Sam Lowe says the tariffs can be traced back to Donald Trump’s trade war:Jane Dalton16 June 2022 12:571655378495What is the matter at stake?Lord Geidt dances around the issue at the centre of his resignation in his letter, only describing it in vague terms. In his reply, Mr Johnson hints it concerns steel tariffs, being connected with the new post-Brexit trade remedies authority and the need to protect a crucial industry from damage.The move would potentially breach “obligations” with the World Trade Organisation, the reply acknowledges. More in Rob Merrick’s piece here:Zoe Tidman16 June 2022 12:21 More

Boris Johnson is considering abolishing the role of independent ethics adviser, after the second dramatic resignation from the position in Downing Street in the space of less than two years. Following Christopher Geidt’s shock walkout on Wednesday evening, Downing Street said Mr Johnson was considering a rethink of the system which could see responsibility for overseeing ministers’ adherence to their code of conduct handed to a committee rather than a high-profile individual.After a string of scandals including lockdown-breaching No 10 parties and the refurbishment of the PM’s flat, it is understood that Mr Johnson feels the task of acting as custodian of ethics in Downing Street may place too much pressure on an individual official.Responding to the threat to the adviser’s position, Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner said: “There are no ethics in Downing Street under this prime minister.”Lord Geidt made no comments about the nature of the adviser’s role in his resignation letter, instead focusing on a number of occasions when he had been left frustrated by the prime minister’s approach.But Mr Johnson said in his reply that they had separately discussed “the burdens placed on you by this increasingly public role, and the pressures that would be felt by anyone in your position”.Mr Johnson’s official spokesperson said: “This function is vitally important and the prime minister is committed to making sure all ministers – including the PM – are held to account for maintaining high standards of behaviour and behaving in a way that upholds the high standards of propriety the public expects.”But he said the PM acknowledges that Lord Geidt was forced to operate in “difficult circumstances” and that a number of issues about the role have been raised both by the adviser himself and by the Commons Public Administration Committee.“He wants to consider those and reflect on how best to fulfil that commitment of ensuring rigorous oversight and scrutiny of ministerial issues.“In light of those issues, it’s right that time is taken to consider carefully how best to do this before deciding exactly who and what that function should be.”Asked if this meant Lord Geidt may not be replaced, the spokesperson said: “The prime minister hasn’t made a final decision on how best to carry out that function, whether it relates to a specific individual or not.“The prime minister’s view is that what is absolutely vital is that there is a way to police those standards, making sure ministers are held to the highest standards of behaviour and propriety and that the ministerial code is enforced. The exact mechanism to do that is something he wants to reflect on. It could continue as it was before. He hasn’t made a final decision.”The role of independent adviser on ministerial standards was created in 2006 by Tony Blair in response to recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life.National Audit Office chief Sir John Bourn was the first holder of the post, followed by former standards commissioner Sir Philip Mawer from 2008-11 and ex-chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee Sir Alex Allan from 2011-20. More

Boris Johnson’s ethics adviser quit over a No 10 plan that risked a “deliberate breach the ministerial code”, his resignation letter reveals.However, Christopher Geidt’s letter fails to fully lift the lid on the controversy – which Downing Street described as a “commercially sensitive matter in the national interest”.In a stinging letter – which the government first attempted to suppress – Lord Geidt says he was put in an “impossible and odious” position by the request to advise on the plan.“This would make a mockery not only of respect for the Code, but licence the suspension of its provisions in governing the conduct of Her Majesty’s Ministers. I can have no part in this,” he has written.He was already only clinging onto the role “by a very small margin” over Mr Johnson’s refusal to let him investigate the Partygate scandal, the adviser states.In his reply, Mr Johnson hints the issue concerns steel tariffs, being connected with the new post-Brexit Trade Remedies Authority and the need to protect a crucial industry from damage.The planned move would potentially breach “obligations” with the World Trade Organisation, the reply acknowledges.Lord Geidt’s letter adds: “The idea that a Prime Minister might to any degree be in the business of deliberately breaching his own code is an affront.“A deliberate breach, or even an intention to do so, would be to suspend the provisions of the Code to suit a political end.”Caroline Lucas, the Green MP, tweeted: “No wonder the PM tried to keep Lord Geidt’s resignation letter under wraps – this is absolutely excoriating. How on Earth is our utterly unashamed rule-breaking PM still in office?”Diana Johnson, a Labour MP asked, mockingly: “What is it about the prime minister that causes him to have such rotten luck in retaining ethics and anti-corruption advisers?”The resignation – the second by Mr Johnson’s adviser on the ministerial code in under three years – leaves Downing Street flailing to find a replacement willing to take on the poisoned chalice.In the Commons, the paymaster general Michael Ellis declined to confirm that a new adviser will be appointed – despite the many sleaze allegations against the current government.Lord Geidt’s letter also reveals that he had decided to resign before his bruising evidence session before a committee of MPs on Tuesday.He hinted he would have investigated Mr Johnson – if he had been allowed to – over whether he breached the code in being fined over the No 10 parties.And he said: “It’s reasonable to say that, perhaps a fixed penalty notice and the prime minister paying it, may have constituted not meeting the overarching duty under the ministerial code of complying with the law.”Last year, the Trade Remedies Authority (TRA) recommended the removal of some tariffs on Chinese steel – but was overruled by the government, after protests by the steel industry.One trade expert said tariffs were extended for one year, but only until the end of this month – suggesting ministers were poised to overrule the TRA a second time, without legal justification for doing so.In his reply, Mr Johnson wrote his plan involved “protecting a crucial industry”, which “would suffer material harm if we do not continue to apply such tariffs”.Mr Johnson’s spokesman refused to confirm if steel is the industry concerned and said Lord Geidt had not provided any “formal advice”.“The prime minister sought Lord Geidt’s advice in relation to this issue and the interplay with the ministerial code. That is not unusual in and of itself,” he said.He added: “The independent TRA has provided advice to ministers which found that a critical national industry is at risk of material harm if the government doesn’t take action, affecting businesses and livelihoods.“It is ultimately a decision for the government. No decisions have been taken with regard to this particular issue at this point.”In a statement, the TRA said that the case referred to in Lord Geidt’s letter was one “called in” by the government earlier this year, meaning that ministers hold full decision-making authority in relation to it.“The TRA has carried out analysis under the government’s direction and we provided a report of findings to the secretary of state for international trade on 1 June,” said the statement. “The report of findings is an analytical piece of work designed to inform government decision-making and does not contain recommendations from the TRA.” More

Witnesses should not be able to avoid giving evidence at inquiries after “an increasing number of rich and powerful” people have done so in recent years, MPs have said.The Committee of Privileges has published a report recommending legislation which would ensure Parliament can compel witnesses to turn up to the House of Commons when summoned.Those who have refused to give evidence include Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg, who was summoned to give evidence at a committee investigating the effects of fake news on UK democracy in 2018.The committee also said Parliament should be able to ensure that requested papers and records are provided.Labour MP Chris Bryant, who chaired the report by the Privileges Committee, said: “The right of select committees to summon witnesses and hold the powerful to account cuts to the heart of our parliamentary democracy.“Most witnesses are more than happy to give evidence to a parliamentary inquiry.

From billionaire high street moguls to unaccountable Government advisers, these proposals will make it tougher for such individuals to disregard their democratic dutyLabour MP Chris Bryant“But an increasing number of the rich and powerful have started to resist engaging with select committees in recent years and, in doing so, have shown contempt for Parliament and the people it represents.“From billionaire high street moguls to unaccountable Government advisers, these proposals will make it tougher for such individuals to disregard their democratic duty.“Our proposals, if approved by the House, will empower select committees to compel reluctant witnesses to attend or provide documents to parliamentary investigations – allowing committees to conduct their work efficiently and fairly.”Mr Bryant urged MPs to act on the report, adding that it also sets out proposals to ensure witnesses are treated fairly.Making a statement in the Commons on the report, Conservative Sir Bernard Jenkin, chairman of the Liaison Committee and a member of the Privileges Committee, gave more details on the proposed legislation.He said: “It (the report) clarifies some things; for example, the draft Bill does not seek to criminalise contempts of the House as such, and that the criminal offence will be that of failing to comply with a summons to attend a committee or to produce papers without reasonable excuse, rather than giving unsatisfactory responses to questions when attending a committee.“It revises the draft Bill to substitute a maximum sentence of six months’ imprisonment in place of the original proposal of two years, and to give Mr Speaker the power to issue the statutory summons.“It calls upon the House’s Liaison Committee to develop a protocol on the treatment of witnesses to ensure that all witnesses get fair treatment. And I chair that committee and I will make sure that occurs.” More

Tory MPs have urged Harriet Harman to step back from an inquiry into whether Boris Johnson misled parliament, after unearthing historic comments by her on the matter.The veteran Labour MP was accused of prejudging the outcome of the investigation after it emerged in April she had posted that Mr Johnson appeared to have “misled the House of Commons”. Ms Harman was put onto parliamentary privileges committee this week to replace Chris Bryant, who was recused after having called Mr Johnson a “proven liar” who “repeatedly lied to parliament”. Sir Robert Buckland, the former justice secretary, told the Daily Telegraph newspaper that Harman should “reflect” on her position as the committee’s likely chair.“As a lawyer, Harriet Harman is someone who values due process above everything else and I am sure she would want to reflect very carefully about any potential impact of tweets she has issued that in any way suggest that she is biased,” he said.And on Thursday morning Cabinet office minister Michael Ellis told MPs Ms Harman should “consider” her position.”It is an age old principle of natural justice that no person should be a judge in their own cause,” he said.But Labour frontbencher Nick Thomas Symonds on Thursday morning defended his colleague. “I think Harriet Harman is a highly respected, highly experienced parliamentarian. Which MP hasn’t expressed views of different kinds about the Prime Minister?” he told Sky News”The committee will continue its investigation. Harriet Harman is an extremely experienced, very well-respected, on all sides of the house [parliamentarian].”Ms Harman had tweeted on 12 April: “If you get Covid regulations FPN you can either admit guilt, or go to court to challenge it. If the prime minister and chancellor admit guilt, accepting that police right that they breached regs, then they are also admitting that they misled the House of Commons. Or are they going to challenge?”She also shared a blog posted by Alastair Campbell, the former Labour press secretary, in which he said the prime minister and others “broke their own emergency laws”, and “lied repeatedly”.The prime minister repeatedly claimed in parliament that he had broken no rules and that he was upset at having discovered what had been taking place on No10 – deploying a sliding scale of excuses that retreated each time new evidence emerged. However, it later emerged that he had broken the rules personally, and that he was present at a number of the gatherings. More

Pressure is growing on Boris Johnson to release a resignation letter penned by his ethics adviser, to reveal why he has quit suddenly – plunging the government into a fresh crisis.A former holder of the post warned the public will “draw their own conclusions” if the prime minister keeps secret what is thought to be a strongly worded exit note sent by Christopher Geidt.Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, also pointed to “many unanswered questions about the ethics adviser’s sudden exit”.She urged Mr Johnson to “come clean about the sequence of events that has seen yet another Downing Street ethics adviser quit in disgust.”Lord Geidt’s resignation has revived the Partygate controversy – just as Downing Street hoped the storm had passed for now – and shone the spotlight again on the prime minister’s behaviour.On Tuesday, in a bruising evidence session before MPs, the adviser on ministerial interests hinted he would have investigated Mr Johnson – if he had been able to.He said: “It’s reasonable to say that, perhaps a fixed penalty notice and the prime minister paying it, may have constituted not meeting the overarching duty under the ministerial code of complying with the law.”Dominic Raab, the deputy prime minister, ducked questions about whether the letter will be released, claiming he did not know if one existed.He admitted Lord Geidt’s brief statement “doesn’t tell us very much” – and promised “an update” later from No 10.Philip Mawer, the adviser on ministerial standards to Gordon Brown, said the resignation was not a surprise, because Mr Johnson has a “long charge sheet” against him.“If the letter and the prime minister’s reply are not published, then I think people will draw their own conclusions and it won’t be favourable to the prime minister,” he said.In a brief statement, Lord Geidt said: “With regret, I feel that it is right that I am resigning from my post as independent adviser on ministers’ interests.”He is the second person to quit the post in under three years. Alex Allan walked out in November 2020, after Mr Johnson kept Priti Patel as home secretary, despite his finding that she bullied her civil servants.The government has also said Lord Geidt was, this week, “asked to provide advice on a commercially sensitive matter in the national interest”, but declined to give any details.Asked why he believed the adviser quit, Mr Raab suggested the reason could either be criticism over his performance at the Commons committee, or the mysterious other matter.“He had a pretty rough grilling by MPs this week. I think sometimes we in the media, and as politicians, maybe underestimate how civil servants feel with that kind of scrutiny,” he told Sky News.“And there was a particular issue, a commercially sensitive matter in the national interest, which he was asked to look at.” More