UK Politics

The ethics advisor to scandal-hit Prime Minister Boris Johnson has quit, weeks after an investigator’s report criticized the British leader for presiding over a culture of rule-breaking in government.Christopher Geidt stepped down late Wednesday with a terse statement saying “with regret, I feel that it is right that I am resigning from my post as Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests.” Johnson’s office said it was surprised by the decision.Geidt had stayed in his job as Johnson was buffeted by allegations about his judgment and ethics culminating in the “partygate” scandal over parties in government buildings during Britain’s coronavirus lockdowns. Johnson was one of 83 people fined by police, and a civil servant’s report said Johnson and senior officials must bear responsibility for “failures of leadership and judgment” that created a culture of rule-breaking in government.When he was quizzed by lawmakers this week, Geidt acknowledged he had felt “frustration” in his job, noting that he was appointed by the prime minister and so was not “truly independent.”The resignation of his hand-picked ethics adviser is the latest blow for Johnson, who survived a no-confidence vote by his own Conservative Party last week. He has been left a weakened leader after 41% of Conservative lawmakers voted to remove him.Johnson still faces a parliamentary ethics probe that could conclude he deliberately misled Parliament over “partygate” — traditionally a resigning offenseGeidt’s predecessor as ethics advisor, Alex Allan, also quit, stepping down in November 2020 after the prime minister ignored his finding that a Cabinet member had bullied her staff and broken the ministerial code of conduct — also usually a resigning offense.“For the prime minister to lose one adviser on ministers’ interests may be regarded as a misfortune. To lose two looks like carelessness,” said Conservative lawmaker William Wragg, a critic of Johnson.Geidt, a former private secretary to Queen Elizabeth II, had been accused of going easy on top officials in his investigations. Last year he cleared Johnson of breaking the ministerial code by failing to disclose that a Conservative party donor had funded a pricey refurbishment of the prime minister’s official residence.In April he cleared Treasury chief Rishi Sunak of wrongdoing over his wife’s tax affairs and his possession of a U.S. permanent resident’s card. 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

Tenants will gain new rights to challenge “unscrupulous landlords” who ramp up rents or force them to live in shoddy homes, through fresh legislation.The Renters Reform Bill will also stop them from being locked into fixed-term tenancies and – after a three-year delay – end the scandal of no-fault evictions, ministers say.It is being hailed by Shelter, the housing charity, as a “gamechanger for England’s 11 million private renters”, after years of inaction by successive governments.“For the first time in a long time, tenants will be able to stand up to bad behaviour instead of living in fear,” said Polly Neate, the organisation’s chief executive.Michael Gove, the levelling-up secretary, said the bill will:Create a Private Renters’ ombudsman to allow tenants to challenge “unjustified” rent increases and settle disputes with landlords quickly and cheaply, with the power to fine landlords up to £25,000Move all tenants onto periodic tenancies, allowing them to move more easily, or leave poor quality housing without remaining liable for the rentBan Ssction 21 “no-fault” evictions which allow private renters to be kicked out of their homes for no reason, with only eight weeks’ noticeExtend the decent homes standard which sets minimum conditions in public housing to the private rented sectorMake it illegal for landlords or agents to impose blanket bans on renting to families with children or those who receive benefitsMake it “easier for tenants to share their homes with much-loved pets”Mr Gove said: “For too long many private renters have been at the mercy of unscrupulous landlords who fail to repair homes and let families live in damp, unsafe and cold properties, with the threat of unfair ‘no fault’ evictions orders hanging over them.“Our new deal for renters will help to end this injustice by improving the rights and conditions for millions of renters as we level up across the country and deliver on the people’s priorities.”The government says it recognises that the fast-rising number of private tenants often have to cope with “the most expensive, least secure, and lowest quality housing”. Rents are rising at their fastest rate for five years.It has pledged to halve the number of poor-quality rented homes, in both the private and public sectors, by the end of the decade.Shelter recently revealed that a tenant suffers the misery of a no-fault eviction every seven minutes, after the government repeatedly shelved its pledge to outlaw the practice.Ms Neate urged ministers not to back down on its promises to give tenants “safety and security in their home” while ensuring landlords “play by the rules”.“Gone will be the days of families being uprooted and children forced to move school after being slapped with a section 21 no-fault eviction for no good reason,” she said.But Alicia Kennedy, director of Generation Rent, was more cautious, saying it was “disappointed with the detail” about stamping out no-fault evictions.“The government proposals still mean a renter could be evicted every eight months due to no fault of their own,” she argued. More

Dawn Butler was threatened with a police escort if she did not leave the House of Commons after she was ejected from the building last year, the Labour MP has revealed.In July 2021, the politician was thrown out of the Commons after accusing Boris Johnson of being a liar – an accusation which is forbidden under parliamentary rules. Ms Butler, 52, told MPs that the prime minister “lied to the house and the country over and over again” about a range of pandemic-related issues.Speaking to BBC Radio 1Xtra’s Richie Brave about the aftermath of the incident, Ms Butler said: “When I got thrown out, I thought that was it. I was going to get myself a drink in one of the many bars in parliament because I was a bit shaky. “And then I got approached and I was told I needed to leave parliament now, and they said ‘are you going to leave now or do we need to get the police to escort you off the premises?’”The MP for Brent also spoke to the BBC about the treatment from her own party following that day.“People in my own party were ready to disown me. Some MPs stopped following me. And they were disowning me because I broke Parliamentary rules. It’s like they didn’t feel proud of me that I was brave enough to call the prime minister a liar,” Ms Butler said.”There were people who were like ‘your career is done, your career is over. You’ve called the prime minister a liar, that’s it’,” she added.“The people who I expected a phone call from to say ‘Dawn we’ve got your back’… no it didn’t happen. And I got a lot of abuse as well.”Ms Butler was suspended from the Commons under Standing Order 43, with which the speaker can order any member to withdraw from the house for “the remainder of the day’s sitting” for conduct which is considered to be “grossly disorderly”; however, there is nothing in the rules which calls for police enforcement of regulations.Black people are more likely to be stopped by the police and arrested in Britain, compared with their white counterparts.Since the incident, Ms Butler has doubled down on her feelings about Mr Johnson’s conduct.“We’ve got the most outrageous, corrupt, lying prime minister this country’s ever seen. And the rules are not strong enough to hold the gravity of the man’s lies,” she told the BBC.Speaking to LBC following the incident on 26 July, Labour leader Keir Starmer said Ms Butler was right to call Mr Johnson a liar, branding him the “master of untruths and half-truths”.“I think there’s a lot of people that feel that, you know, it’s the person who’s not telling the truth rather than the person who’s calling it out that ought to be on the hotspot. So, I agree with Dawn on that,” Mr Starmer said.“But I do want to, in fairness to the temporary speaker, Judith Cummins, who was there, she did the right thing, she followed the rules because parliament doesn’t allow you to call other parliamentarians liars in the chamber, so I don’t criticise the deputy speaker for what she did, she was following the rules. But do I support Dawn in what she said? I absolutely do.”Ms Butler revealed she had been diagnosed with breast cancer in March and would be taking time off work to recover following an operation.The MP said cancer cells were discovered at a “very early stage” during a routine mammogram towards the end of last year.BBC Radio 1Xtra Talks with Richie Brave is going on a live tour and will be making stops in Bristol, Leicester, Birmingham, Liverpool, and Leeds over the coming months.The House of Commons has been approached for comment. More

Boris Johnson has been warned he risks destabilising Northern Ireland if he follows through on a threat to pull the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights in response to a court ruling which thwarted his efforts to deport asylum-seekers to Rwanda on Tuesday.After the prime minister said he may have to “change some laws” to ensure the flights go ahead, Downing Street today confirmed that ECHR withdrawal is one of a number of options under consideration.The news was greeted with horror in Belfast and Dublin, as convention membership is a fundamental element of the Good Friday Agreement which brought an end to the Troubles in 1998.Withdrawal would make the UK the only non-signatories in Europe other than Belarus, whose application to join the Council of Europe has been blocked over its failure to meet democratic standards, and Russia, which pulled out following the invasion of Ukraine.The threat came as Mr Johnson’s government claimed to be acting to protect the Agreement by introducing legislation to tear up the PM’s Northern Ireland Protocol Brexit deal with the EU.SDLP leader Colum Eastwood told The Independent that any attempt to disapply the convention would be “a clear violation” of the Agreement which explicitly places an obligation on the UK government to incorporate it into law in Northern Ireland.“You cannot on one hand use the primacy of the Good Friday Agreement to justify breaching international law in respect of the protocol while on the other breaching the Agreement in respect of the ECHR,” said Mr Eastwood.“The Good Friday Agreement is a peace accord rooted in internationalism and multilateral support for the democratic settlement in Ireland. Every week, Boris Johnson demonstrates how unfit he is to be its co-guarantor. He cannot be allowed to shatter elements of the peace process and our human rights framework in the pursuit of an inhumane asylum policy.”And Alliance Party MP Stephen Farry told The Independent: “This is not even something that can be considered as an option. The ECHR is hard-wired into the Good Friday Agreement.“The Agreement would be broken. It stands together as a package, and removing one part would fatally undermine it as a whole.“It would create instability and uncertainty and political dysfunction. The assembly and other structures may limp on, but we would not have an Agreement, which is unacceptable, not least because of the history of Northern Ireland.”Mr Johnson has previously promised to replace the Human Rights Act – which incorporates the ECHR into UK law – with a British Bill of Rights.But he has so far resisted pressure from the Conservative right to pull out of the convention, which was largely created by Britain in the wake of the Second World War and commits signatories to accept the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.There were fresh attacks on the ECHR in the House of Commons today following Tuesday’s debacle, in which last-minute rulings from judges in Strasbourg, as well as England’s Appeal Court, prevented the removal of seven asylum-seekers on a £500,000 chartered jet.Conservative MP Alexander Stafford denounced what he referred to as a “despicable ruling from the foreign European Court of Justice”, while fellow Tory Jonathan Gullis said constituents were frustrated that “foreign judges have meddled with our UK legal system”.Mr Gullis, a parliamentary aide in the Northern Ireland Office, hastily took down a social media post in which he said the ECHR had “no place in the UK judicial system” and the government should “free itself from it entirely”, replacing it with a toned-down appeal for its role in UK law to be “looked at”.Home secretary Priti Patel declined to comment on ECHR membership in the Commons, citing the need to avoid influencing ongoing court proceedings. But she said backbencher Sir Desmond Swayne was “tempting me” when he asked if she would like to “take back control” from the Strasbourg judges.And Mr Johnson’s official spokesperson left no doubt that the convention was up for question when he told reporters: “We keep all options on the table as part of our work to address the issues raised by the repeated and sometimes meritless claims that we see consistently with removal flights, while obviously making sure that we continue to protect the vulnerable.”“What we are doing is considering the judgement before coming to a decision on how best to proceed.“Now that will both look at the role of the ECHR but also existing UK legislation and whether it is functioning as envisaged.”Attorney general Suella Braverman later echoed his comments, telling BBC Radio 4’s World at One: ”The government has been clear… that all options are on the table. So we’re not ruling anything in and we’re not ruling anything out.“We are definitely open to assessing all options available as to what our relationship should be going forward with the (ECHR).”The comments came just hours after cabinet minister Therese Coffey told a radio interview she was “not aware of any decisions or hints of leaving the ECHR”.Shadow Northern Ireland secretary Peter Kyle said: “Labour’s commitment to the Good Friday Agreement is fundamental, and the ECHR is the scaffolding which maintains the agreement.“As these comments show, the Conservatives care more about culture wars than the Good Friday Agreement.” More

Boris Johnson’s independent ethics adviser Christopher Geidt has quit following disagreements over Partygate.The shock resignation thrusts the prime minister back into crisis, after he last week won a vote of confidence in his position among Tory MPs by a narrower than expected margin of 211 votes to 148.The peer was blocked from launching an inquiry into whether the PM had breached the ministerial code by rules which state that any such investigation must be approved by Mr Johnson himself.In a statement, Lord Geidt gave no explanation for his decision, saying only: “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 of Mr Johnson’s ethics advisers to resign, following the departure of Sir Alex Allan in November 2020 after the prime minister overruled his finding that the home secretary Priti Patel had bullied staff. No holder of the post under previous PMs has ever felt obliged to quit.The chair of the Commons standards committee, Labour MP Chris Bryant, called on the prime minister to resign.“Christopher Geidt is one of the most honourable men I have ever met,” said Mr Bryant. “In the end, he was a decent man working for an indecent prime minister. He thought he could discreetly bring about incremental change but he was repeatedly lied to by No 10. In honour, Johnson should resign.“So far Johnson has ruined Allegra Stratton’s career, tarnished Christopher Geidt’s reputation and let dozens of staff take the blame for his lawbreaking. Tories must surely wake up one day?”Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner said: “The prime minister has now driven both of his own hand-picked ethics advisers to resign in despair. If even they can’t defend his conduct in office, how can anyone believe he is fit to govern?“Yet he remains propped up in office by a Conservative Party that is mired in sleaze and totally unable to tackle the cost of living crisis facing the British people. The person who should be leaving No 10 tonight is Boris Johnson himself. Just how long does the country have to wait before Tory MPs finally do the right thing?”In a scathing public rebuke of the PM last month, Lord Geidt warned Mr Johnson was at risk of placing the ministerial code in a place of “ridicule” over lockdown-breaching parties at No 10.He said there were “legitimate” questions over whether Mr Johnson had breached ministerial standards and made a veiled threat to quit if the PM continued to insist there was no case to answer.His intervention then forced Mr Johnson to release a detailed explanation of why he did not believe that his fixed penalty fine for breaking Covid lockdown laws did not amount to a breach of the ministerial code of conduct.In a preface to his delayed annual report on ministerial standards on 31 May, the ethics adviser said that Mr Johnson had failed to heed advice repeatedly conveyed to No 10 that he should make a public statement on whether he had abided by the code.Failure to do so would put him in the position of having to advise the PM to launch an inquiry into himself and then resign when Mr Johnson refused to do so – which would put the code “in a place of ridicule”, said Lord Geidt.But Mr Johnson responded that Lord Geidt had not raised the issue directly with him and blamed the situation on a “failure of communication between our offices”.Appearing before a panel of MPs on Tuesday, Lord Geidt hinted that he might have launched an inquiry into Mr Johnson’s behaviour if the powers had been available to him at the time.He told MPs: “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.”Speaking just a day before his eventual decision to quit, Lord Geidt repeatedly refused to say if he had threatened to resign.But he admitted he was an “asset of the PM” rather than enjoying full independence, telling MPs: “How can I defeat the impression that it’s a cosy, insufficiently independent relationship? It’s very hard. But I’m trying my best to work with what I’ve got.”Following his appointment in the wake of the Patel bullying scandal, Lord Geidt was granted new powers to propose inquiries into possible breaches of the code of conduct by ministers. His predecessors had been able to act only on the request of the PM.But he asked for new powers to launch inquiries on his own initiative after it emerged that Mr Johnson had given him incorrect information during his investigation of the refurbishment of the Downing Street flat which cleared the PM of wrongdoing. A review of the role extended Lord Geidt’s powers, but insisted that he must consult with the PM before opening a probe.Liberal Democrat chief whip Wendy Chamberlain MP said: “When both of Boris Johnson’s own ethics advisers have quit, it is obvious that he is the one who needs to go.“This prime minister has constantly lied and broken the laws he wrote. It’s clear as day that he has broken the ministerial code too. For the good of Britain, the next resignation we should be hearing about is that of Boris Johnson.” More

Priti Patel has been accused of wasting millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on a political stunt, after plans to deport seven asylum seekers to Rwanda were blocked on Tuesday night.The aborted flight to the east African country is believed to have cost up to £500,000, on top of an upfront payment of £120m paid to the government in Kigali as part of a “migration and economic development partnership” signed by the home secretary in April.Government officials insisted that planning was already under way for another flight, but legal experts said it was unlikely any plane would take off before the conclusion of a judicial review next month. Defeat in the courts could mean that no migrants are ever sent to Rwanda.Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said it was clear that the deportation plan was a “gimmick” designed to allow Boris Johnson’s government to pick fights with Tory bogey figures like human rights lawyers, without any expectation it would be an effective use of taxpayers’ money.Her comment came after Boris Johnson was ticked off by the deputy speaker in the Commons for claiming that Labour was “on the side of the people traffickers”. His press secretary later justified the allegation on the grounds that Keir Starmer’s party opposes the policy of deportation to Rwanda for migrants who may have crossed the Channel in small boats from France.And Ms Patel lashed out at “the usual suspects”, who she said were trying to “thwart … these efforts, and, with that, the will of the British people”.Ms Cooper demanded to be told how much the deportation flights were costing, and precisely how much Rwanda would receive for each migrant on top of the £120m upfront payment.The Home Office has confirmed the UK will fund accommodation and integration for deported individuals for up to three months, at a cost estimated at £30,000-£50,000 per head.“She knows this is unworkable, unethical and won’t stop the criminal gangs,” Ms Cooper told the Commons. “Yet she still went ahead and spent half a million pounds chartering a plane she never expected to fly.“She still went ahead and wrote a £120m cheque to Rwanda with a promise of more to come, and she still went ahead because all she really cares about is picking fights and finding someone else to blame.“This isn’t a long-term plan, is a short-term stunt. Everyone can see it, it’s not a serious policy, it’s shameless posturing and she knows it. It’s not building consensus, it’s just pursuing division. It is government by gimmick. It’s not in the public interest, it’s just in their political interest.”Ms Patel rejected the charge that the millions spent on the deportation scheme were wasted, claiming that the programme would save lives by deterring migrants from risking the perilous crossing of the Channel by dinghy.“You cannot put a price on lives that are lost and we believe in saving lives and breaking the people-smuggling model,” said the home secretary.But Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson Alistair Carmichael told The Independent that Ms Patel’s policy made no sense in financial terms.“Priti Patel’s Rwanda plan is morally bankrupt, and if she continues trying to fly four refugees in a plane costing half a million pounds it will soon be financially bankrupt too,” said Mr Carmichael.“This makes no sense for the taxpayer and no sense for anyone concerned about an efficient and effective asylum system. If the Tories have money to burn like this, they should be spending it on ensuring that the enormous and growing backlog of asylum applications is dealt with.”He added: “At £120m a seat, even Boris Johnson would blush at that sort of expenditure for himself.”Ms Patel said that preparations for future flights to Rwanda were already under way. Tuesday’s last-minute rulings by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the UK’s Court of Appeal did not amount to an “absolute bar” on removals, and the individuals involved would be tagged while efforts are made to get them on a later plane, she said.Sources in Downing Street and the Home Office held the door open for further attempts to remove migrants ahead of July’s judicial review. But they refused to put any timeline on departures.The ECHR injunctions said that individual asylum seekers should not be sent to Africa until three weeks after the review is concluded, but did not place a blanket ban on deportation flights.But the director of public law at Duncan Lewis Solicitors, Toufique Hossain, told The Independent it was “extremely unlikely” that a further flight could be chartered before the review process is completed.“Anyone served removal directions can just go back to the High Court and the High Court will presumably grant the injunctive relief based on the EHCR ruling,” said Mr Hossain. “It’s not unrealistic that they’re going to try, because it’s this government.“The question is would they waste public money in chartering another flight, which costs about half a million pounds, the financial resources of detaining and trying to remove people, the cost of further legal challenges and getting people off planes, getting injunctions, wasting courts’ time, when they could just wait until July?” More

The government’s decision to spend millions of pounds teaching civil servants storytelling techniques and ways to create a “powerful presence” had been attacked by a former Conservative minister.Lord Agnew, the ex-minister for efficiency who quit earlier this year, said it was “ludicrous” to have handed millions of taxpayers to private firms for the training of government staff.One six-day workshop on “creating a powerful personal presence” is run by drama tutors from the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art at a cost of nearly £1,400 per person.The Rada-run workshop teaches “techniques from theatre practice” on how to “use your body and voice as tools for effective communication and leadership”.The Independent’s columnist Cathy Newman has revealed that other courses supplied by private firms include “leading without authority” – which sets the taxpayer back £1,116 per person – and a “leading in ambiguity” course at £229.The unusual training courses form part of a £50m contract for civil service “learning and development” handed to consultants KPMG in 2020.Lord Agnew told The Independent that he had raised the alarm about the civil service training while at the Cabinet Office, asking a series of questions about whether courses represented value for money.On the idea of handing millions of pounds to private consultancies for training, the Tory peer said: “It’s ludicrous we have to outsource a core competence of being a manager.”Lord Agnew said: “I asked the head of the civil service in August 2020 how much we spend on training. I got the answer in January this year. ‘We spend £190m – £610m on training but we don’t know how it’s spent’.”The ex-minister, who quit over the failure to tackle Covid scheme fraud, added: “It took 16 months [to get an answer]. And there was nothing about the efficacy of the training.”Jacob Rees-Mogg, minister for Brexit opportunities and efficiency within the Cabinet Office, has been on a drive to eliminate government waste and reduce the size of the civil service.Last month Boris Johnson asked Mr Rees-Mogg and other cabinet ministers to draw up plans to axe more than 90,000 civil service roles.The efficiency minister – who raised eyebrows in April by leaving ominous notes on the desks of civil servants still working from home – said the job cuts would bring numbers back to 2016 levels.It is understood that the Cabinet Office monitors all of its training courses to ensure they provide value for money, including the initial award of the contract.But a government source said: “it isn’t clear how courses like this actually help civil servants do their jobs or what real skills they give them”.Asked for a response to the courses, a government spokesperson said: “Training across the civil service is designed to cover a wide range of areas and specialities, to make sure government employees have the best possible skills to deliver the services the public rely on.” More