UK Politics

Deportation notices for Paddington Bear have been put up by staff on internal Home Office noticeboards in protest of refugees being deported to Rwanda.The notices say the fictional bear is wanted for a pending relocation flight to Rwanda and add that he arrived illegally in the UK via boat and without a visa.The posters are a part of a campaign by internal Home Office staff who are speaking out against the government’s new refugee policies, including deporting refugees to Rwanda.The group of staff, who go by ‘Our Home Office’ on Twitter, say they are doing this in protest of what they describe as a “barbaric” proposal.Speaking to The Guardian, an organiser of the group said: “The announcement of the Rwanda transportation plan was really a significant moment for a lot of staff members who were quite shocked by how barbaric a proposal it is, particularly the way that it seems to be against the refugee convention and the principles that we are trying to uphold of giving people fair treatment.“No one expects working in the Home Office to be easy but this has pushed a lot of people over the edge,” they added.The official-looking notices depict Paddington Bear and describe identifying details such as his red hat, blue coat and fur along with distinctive behaviours such as eating marmalade sandwiches.They say the bear arrived in the UK via a “clandestine irregular route, using a small boat” and also make reference to Paddington’s appearance in a skit with Queen Elizabeth II for her platinum jubilee.They add that Paddington “may have infiltrated important establishment networks including Buckingham Palace”, accompanied with an image of the Queen sharing tea with the bear, as depicted in the skit. More

Liz Truss has rejected the Church of England’s condemnation of the plan to put asylum seekers on a one-way flight to Rwanda – insisting the policy is “completely moral”.The foreign secretary also claimed that dozens of migrants who have been removed from the flight list after individual legal challenges with “be on the next flight”.Leaders of the Church of England have said the permanent relocation of asylum seekers to central Africa was an “immoral policy” that “shames Britain”.But Ms Truss said: “Our policy is completely legal, it’s completely moral”, adding: “Those people need to suggest an alternative policy that will be work.”There are only seven people still set to board the first flight scheduled to leave on Tuesday night. “We are expecting to send the flight later today – I can’t say exactly how many will be on the flight,” Ms Truss told Sky News.Asked about the dozens of people pulled from the flight after successful legal challenges, Ms Truss said they “will go on future flights”, adding: “If they’re not on this flight, they will be on the next flight.”Meanwhile, Boris Johnson accused lawyers representing migrants of “abetting the work of criminal gangs” as he stepped up his attack on the legal profession.Opening this morning’s cabinet meeting, the PM’s claimed to be working with “humanity and compassion” in tackling small boat crossings – adding: “This government really unlike many others in the way that we represent … that tradition of welcoming people.” Up to 130 people were originally told they could be sent to Rwanda under the home secretary Priti Patel’s highly-controversial scheme.But the Home Office said at the end of last week that only 31 people were due to leave on the first flight. Since then a flurry of legal challenges have seen the passenger list dwindle.The Care4Calais group said several more names were taken off the flight list on Monday – leaving only seven people cleared for deportation scheduled for 9.30pm on Tuesday evening.The government will not reveal the cost of the 200-capacity flight operated by Spanish company Privilege Style – but industry sources have estimated to The Independent that it could be up to £500,000. Ms Truss said she “can’t put a figure on it”, and argued that the plan to reduce the cost of illegal immigration into Britain over time was “value for money”. More

The SNP MP Patrick Grady should be suspended from the Commons for two days for breaching Parliament’s sexual misconduct policy, an independent panel has recommended.In a report, the Independent Expert Panel (IEP) said it had upheld an allegation of sexual misconduct against the SNP’s former chief whip after a party staffer logged a complaint relating to an incident at a work social event in a pub in 2016.It follows an investigation by the parliamentary commissioner for standards, who concluded Mr Grady made “an unwanted sexual advance” to the then 19-year-old that “included the touching and stroking of the complainant’s neck, hair, and back”.Established in the wake of the MeToo scandal, the IEP concluded: “An unwanted physical touching, with sexual intent, from a senior MP to a junior member of staff, even on a single occasion, is a significant breach of the policy. “It must be marked by some period of suspension from the House.”Deciding its sanction, the panel found that the “relative age [36 compared to 19 years old at the time of the incident] and authority of the respondent, as opposed to the complainant” was an aggravating factor.However, the panel added that Mr Grady’s “genuine remorse” for this actions and efforts to address his behaviour were taken into account when determining a sanction. Publishing its report on Tuesday, the IEP added that the recommended punishment had been reduced “because the ‘complainant breached confidentiality repeatedly’; and these breaches were ‘a deliberate attempt to publicly discredit Mr Grady’, leading to him suffering ‘intrusive press activities and abuse on social media’”.They added: “For all the reasons we have set out, in this case it should be short, and will be somewhat shorter than it might have been by reference to the breaches of confidentiality by the complainant.“We consider that the respondent should be suspended for two sitting days from the House, and that neither day should be a Friday. Speaking in the Commons — following the publication of the IEP report — Mr Grady told MPs he accepted the findings in “full”.“My behaviour and the intent behind it was a significant breach of the behavioural code and sexual misconduct policy,” he added, recognising the disparity in age with the 19-year-old staff.He added: “I apologise to the complainant without reservation for my behaviour and for the upset and distress it has caused them.”“I am profoundly sorry for my behaviour and I deeply regret my actions and the consequences. “Any breach of the behaviour code and associated policies risks brining this House into disrepute and will cause stress and upset not just to the complainant, but the wider parliamentary community.” More

Boris Johnson’s ethics adviser has suggested he would have been investigated for a possible breach of the ministerial code over the Partygate scandal – if the power had existed.Christopher Geidt said he now felt able to “initiate” inquiries – under new enhanced powers – but they were not in place when the prime minister was fined for breaking his own Covid rules.Asked if he would have launched an inquiry if he had been able to, the adviser on ministerial interests said it was a “hypothetical” question.But 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.”And he added, on his new power: “I’m not going to be restrained from using it where necessary. My powers were less clear in the previous period.”Lord Geidt said he now had “additional resources” to cope with a flood of controversies surrounding the ministerial code, admitting – to laughter: “’It’s been an especially busy year.”But he was criticised over a failure to investigate a leak of controversial legal advice on the Bill to rip up the Northern Ireland Protocol – arguing that “rests with government”.Lord Geidt admitted the convenient leak – that the attorney general was advising the legislation is legal, a stance contested by a top government lawyer – was an “area of significant concern”.He also did not dispute that he had the power to investigate whether the leak was also a ministerial code breach, but told MPs it “rests with government” to probe the leak.When it was suggested that either the prime minister or Suella Braverman, the attorney general, probably leaked it, Lord Geidt told the public administration committee: “I can’t comment because I really don’t know more of the facts.”The adviser clashed with the prime minister over Partygate, warning Mr Johnson’s breach of the law threatened to undermine the role and risked leaving the system open to ridicule.He reportedly threatened to quit during unless the prime minister issued a public explanation about his conduct – which Mr Johnson then did, claiming his breach of the rules was “unwitting”.Lord Geidt repeatedly refused to say if he had threatened to resign, as he painted a rosy picture about the greater access to the prime minister and powers he now has.He spoke with him “regularly”, he said – declining to say if that was weekly or monthly – insisting: “The door is open.”And he claimed he had won his push to choose what to investigate, other than where there are national security implications or similar, saying: “I believe I can now initiate inquiries.”There was “a clear expectation” written into new terms of reference that “normally consent will be given as a matter of course”. More

Veteran Labour MP Harriet Harman is to lead the Commons committee investigation into whether Boris Johnson misled parliament with his comments during the Partygate scandal.The former cabinet minister will be in charge of the privileges committee inquiry after usual chair Labour MP Chris Bryant recused him over his public condemnation about the PM.Known as the “Mother of the House” given her status as the longest-continuously-serving woman in parliament, Ms Harman was viewed as a figure that could command the respect of MPs of all parties.On Tuesday MPs will be asked to nod through a motion – backed by the government’s deputy chief whip – for Ms Harman to chair the investigation in place of Mr Bryant.Reports suggest the Conservatives are still looking for MPs with a “neutral” attitude to Mr Johnson to sit on the committee, since two current Tory members are government aides.The current membership of the committee includes four Tory MPs, two Labour MPs, and one SNP MP.Last month, Mr Bryant sent a letter to the committee saying he would recuse himself since it was vital for the probe to take place “without any imputation of unfairness” following his public criticism of Mr Johnson.Mr Johnson has defied calls to quit after the demining Sue Gray report into parties held at Downing Street during the Covid pandemic, and has continued to deny that he misled parliament.If the privileges committee finds him in contempt of parliament, it could recommend he is forced to apologise, suspended from the Commons, or even expelled. Any sanction would need to be approved in a vote by all MPs.The prime minister is, in theory, safe from another no-confidence vote in his own party for another 12 months, after narrowly winning a ballot among Tory MPs earlier last week.But speculation has been rife that rebel Tories could push for a change in the year-long grace period rule if opposition to Mr Johnson in the party grows even larger.Former Brexit minister David Davis recently said Mr Johnson could be deposed in a wider Commons vote if a privileges committee inquiry finds that he misled parliament.“If that happened, I suspect there would be big, big debates in the house, ending up with a vote on his ability to continue his tenure as prime minister,” he said. “But let’s wait and see how it plays out.” More

Business leaders have criticised Boris Johnson’s plan to tear up his Brexit deal by overriding the Northern Ireland Protocol – warning the PM not to enter a “damaging trade war” with the EU.Richard Burge, chief executive of the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said the government’s unilateral legislation risked “significant harm” to businesses across the UK.“The introduction of this bill means we are now teetering on the brink of a trade war with the EU – and that will mean further economic pain and falls in investment,” he added.Stephen Phipson, chief executive of manufacturing body Make UK, said the government should “not to start a trade war with the EU in the middle of a financial crisis which would be damaging for both British and EU businesses alike”.The European Commission responded to the publication of the protocol bill by announcing that it intends to re-open legal action against the UK – with vice president Maros Sefcovic hinting at possible trade retaliation ahead.Foreign secretary Liz Truss said there was “absolutely no reason” for the EU to be angry or retaliate against the UK, despite the plans to tear up the protocol sparking outrage in capitals across the bloc.Asking Brussels to trust that the UK would still “protect” the EU single market, she told Times Radio: “Our solution doesn’t make the EU any worse off. So there is absolutely no reason why the EU should react in a negative way to what we’re doing.”But Ireland’s foreign minister Simon Coveney said the legislation would effectively “dismantle” the protocol – calling it “a new low point” for trust between the UK and EU.Mr Coveney said Mr Johnson’s government “was being warned from Ireland, from all EU capitals, from the European Commission, from the White House, all of Britain’s friends are effectively saying, ‘Please don’t do this’.”The foreign minister added: “Business leaders in Northern Ireland and business leaders in the UK have said please don’t do this’.”The Confederation of British Industry’s chief Tony Danker has also criticised Mr Johnson’s government over its “grandstanding” – warning that its plan to override the protocol was already damaging investment.The government wants to create green and red channels to differentiate between GB goods destined for use in NI – which would be freed of red tape – while checks would remain for shipments bound for onward transportation and across the Irish border into the EU.And the introduction of a dual regulatory system would allow businesses selling in Northern Ireland to choose whether they comply with EU standards, UK standards or both. But Northern Irish business leaders warned about the impracticality of the bill, urging Mr Johnson’s government to resume negotiations to resolve any difficulties.Stephen Kelly of trade body Manufacturing NI told the BBC that the idea of creating green and red channels “simply will not work”.Mr Kelly said it and the dual regulatory regime would add burdens for the many business that trade, not only with the rest of the UK – but across the open border with Ireland and the wider EU.Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce Head of Public Affairs Stuart Anderson said: “The apparent shifting of risk onto Northern Irish businesses is a cause for particular concern.”Referring to Mr Johnson’s government, Campbell Tweed of the National Sheep Association added: “I don’t think they understand border areas at all and they don’t really appreciate a lot of trade issues properly.” More

The Home Office is slashing the number of Afghan refugees to be allowed into the UK after fleeing the country – after finally launching a scheme following months of delay.When Kabul fell to the Taliban amid terrifying scenes last August, ministers promised that 5,000 Afghans would be welcomed in the first year, primarily from emergency camps in neighbouring countries.But ministers now say only “up to 2,000” will be admitted over 12 months through that route, working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).Instead, it is counting thousands of people airlifted out of the country last August towards the 5,000 target for the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (ACRS).Stephen Kinnock, Labour’s shadow minister for immigration, attacked the failure to meet the 5,000 pledge, which had been Boris Johnson’s attempt to “redeem himself” for the botched withdrawal.“The government now makes clear it will fail to meet that target. This is yet another promise broken by the prime minister,” he told The Independent.“Meanwhile the home secretary is now seeking to send a number of those very Afghans to Rwanda. This is a shameful and profoundly un-British mess.”Layla Moran, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesperson, said: “We were told that 5,000 people would come to the UK in the first year of the new scheme. But it turns out they are double counting people who had already been evacuated.”The announcement follows fierce criticism of the government for dragging its heels on the ACRS – which was only finally confirmed in January, five months after the Taliban takeover.Around 15,000 refugees were evacuated to the UK in chaotic schemes as Western forces pulled out, but only on temporary six-month visas – without permission to remain here permanently.Mr Johnson promised to bring in “another 5,000 Afghans” through “a new and bespoke resettlement scheme focusing on the most vulnerable, particularly women and children”.But the Home Office now says it has already exceeded this target, arguing “around 6,500 people” brought to the UK in the initial evacuation last year “are eligible for the ACRS”.“We anticipate receiving referrals from UNHCR for up to 2,000 refugees during the first year of this pathway, although this number will be kept under review,” a statement said.The announcement also cast doubt on a pledge to admit 20,000 further refugees over five years, saying only: “We will continue to receive UNHCR referrals to the scheme in coming years.”Up to a further 1,500 “at risk” people, contractors for the British Council, security staff and former Chevening scholars, and their family members, will also be referred for resettlement.Zoe Gardner, head of policy at the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, condemned the “paltry number of Afghan refugees” the government is accepting.“They’ve slammed the brakes on the Afghan resettlement scheme and they refuse to introduce the family reunion routes, or humanitarian visas, that would prevent people from risking their lives to get here,” she said.But a Home Office spokesperson said: “The UK is taking a leading role in the international response to supporting at-risk Afghan citizens and has made one of the largest commitments to resettlement of any country.” More

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is starting her campaign for a second independence referendum on Tuesday, arguing that Scotland would be economically better off outside the United Kingdom.Sturgeon, who leads the Scottish National Party as well as the devolved government in Scotland, says she will release the first in a series of papers laying out the case for independence.Scotland rejected independence in a 2014 referendum, with 55% of voters saying they wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom. The U.K.-wide government of Prime Minister Boris Johnson opposes a new vote on independence, saying the issue was settled in that vote.But Sturgeon argues that the landscape has changed since then, most importantly because of Britain’s departure from the European Union, a policy opposed by a majority of people in Scotland.“Had we known in 2014 everything we know now about the path the U.K. would have taken then, I’ve got no doubt Scotland would have voted yes back then,” Sturgeon said in an interview with the BBC. More