UK Politics

The Church of England has accused Boris Johnson of a “disgraceful slur” against the Archbishop of Canterbury, following his criticism of the government’s immigration policy.The prime minister claimed at a private meeting of Tory MPs on Tuesday afternoon that the clergy had been less outspoken on the Russian invasion of Ukraine than on his plan to deport refugees to Rwanda.But on Tuesday evening Lambeth Palace pushed back at Mr Johnson’s apparent attempt to delegitimise the Archbishop’s Easter Sunday criticism of the government.John Bingham, head of media at the Church of England, said in a post on social media that if the reports from the meeting were true they were “a disgraceful slur”. He pointed to a statement issued by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York on the morning of the invasion immediately condemning the Russian attack on Ukraine as “horrific and unprovoked” as well as “an act of great evil”.Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell had also urged Christians to make “a special day of prayer for Ukraine, Russia and for peace as well as supporting a global day of “prayer and fasting for peace” on Ash Wednesday.Sources close to the prime minister used the meeting of Tory MPs on Tuesday to accuse the senior clergy of being “less vociferous” in condemning Vladimir Putin.The prime minister announced last week that some people arriving in Britain would be resettled in Rwanda. The announcement provoked strong criticism from across the political spectrum, including the Archbishop of Canterbury Mr Welby who raised “serious ethical questions” about the policy in his Easter Sunday address.In the sermon, the archbishop said the policy could not “stand the judgment of God” and that “sub-contracting out our responsibilities, even to a country that seeks to do well, like Rwanda, is the opposite of the nature of God who himself took responsibility for our failures”.The Rwanda announcement comes after a string of damaging news stories about the prime minister’s lawbreaking behaviour during the Covid lockdown – and the policy is being interpreted in Westminster as an attempt to move the news agenda onto other matters. More

Boris Johnson’s law-breaking birthday party was viewed as a “positive story” by the media in 2020 and was merely “respite” from his hard work, a government minister has claimed.The PM is under renewed pressure after he was told to resign by former chief whip Mark Harper, despite apologising dozens of times for the fine received for his birthday bash at No 10.However, business minister Paul Scully defended the July 2020 event – and pointed out it had been mentioned in The Times the day after.“The newspapers … didn’t think he broke the law,” he told Sky News. “The prevailing view at the time was that the prime minister’s birthday, and he had a few moments of respite.”The minister told Times Radio: “At the time it was literally covered in the newspaper, in a diary piece, as a bit of respite from hard work. At the time, that was the view he took – that it was a pause out of his workplace.”Mr Scully added: “You’re looking at things two years on with a different prism. He was under the belief that what he did was acceptable … but the police have come to a different conclusion, and he absolutely respects that.”The business minister told BBC Breakfast the birthday party “was seen as a positive story”, adding. “In the context of what’s happened over the last couple of years a different view is taken.”Mr Scully also said the PM had attended the birthday event “in the heat of the moment, but he’s accepted he’s done wrong, he’s accepted he’s made a mistake”.The Times reported the day after the law-breaking bash that Mr Johnson had celebrated his 56th birthday “with a small gathering in the cabinet room”.The PM is preparing to depart for the official trip to India on Wednesday ahead of Thursday’s Labour motion calling for the privilege committee to determine whether he misled parliament with his Partygate denials.Conservative party whips have told all MPs to vote against the Labour motion, with several Tory MP reportedly ready to abstain over fears it could be used against them at the general election.Mr Scully defended the prime minister over his comments to MPs in December that Covid rules were followed at No 10. “I don’t believe he did knowingly misled parliament,” said the minister.Pressed on whether he accepted that Mr Johnson broke the law, the minister said: “The police have found that”.Mr Scully also said the PM also “accepts that the police have found him to have broken the law” – though Mr Johnson has yet to say he does accept he broke the law.Tory MP Craig Whittaker, one of the Conservatives to call for Mr Johnson’s resignation, urged him to refer himself to avoid taking colleagues to “the brink”.Noting Mr Johnson denies intentionally misleading the House, Mr Whittaker told BBC Newsnight: “What I would like to see is the prime minister referring himself to the privileges committee so that he doesn’t take all of my colleagues, including myself, to the brink on Thursday evening.”One rebel Tory did challenge him at Tuesday night’s meeting to agree to a privileges committee probe if he had “nothing to hide”. But the PM repeatedly challenged his MPs to consider whether they would “rather have Labour”.Another Tory MP told The Independent the PM was “not brilliantly contrite” at last night’s meeting, but he appeared to have done enough to keep existing backers onside.The backbencher added: “The mood in the party is not great. I think everyone expects more fines, and that will make things more difficult. If the local elections are really bad, some will change their minds on the idea that he’s a vote winner.” More

Boris Johnson has accused the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby of having “misconstrued” the government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.Sources close to the prime minister said he accused the senior clergyman of being “less vociferous” in his condemnation of Vladimir Putin than he was in his attack on the policy – which will potentially see thousands of asylum seekers deemed to have arrived in the UK “illegally” sent to Rwanda.Mr Johnson appeared before Tory MPs on Tuesday evening after apologising in the House of Commons for breaking lockdown rules.He received loud cheers and banging on the tables from the largely supportive parliamentary party at the meeting of backbenchers, where he spoke for around 40 minutes.After defending himself over Partygate, Mr Johnson went on to hit out at “senior members of the clergy” and the BBC over criticism of the plan to send migrants to Rwanda, following condemnation by the Archbishop of Canterbury and other bishops.Mr Welby raised “serious ethical questions” about the policy in his Easter Sunday address and said it cannot “stand the judgment of God”. More

Theresa May has led a barrage of criticism of her own government’s deal to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, questioning the “legality, practicality and efficacy” of the policy.The former prime minister and home secretary – architect of the “hostile environment” that played a role in the Windrush scandal – told her successor Priti Patel in the Commons that she could not support the policy and demanded evidence that “this will not simply lead to an increase in the trafficking of women and children”.Andrew Mitchell, the former international development secretary, also raised “grave concerns” that the policy “simply will not work” and questioned Ms Patel on the price of the scheme.It came after Britain’s anti-slavery commissioner condemned the “lack of humanity” and warned that trafficking victims sent to Rwanda are likely to be deprived of support.Dame Sara Thornton told The Independent she had “significant concerns”, citing evidence the African country has detained thousands of potential trafficking victims without providing them with proper care in the past year.The multimillion-pound deal between the UK and Rwanda, announced last Thursday, will see asylum seekers in the UK flown 4,000 miles away to have their asylum claims processed by Rwandan authorities.The Home Office has said asylum seekers arriving in the UK will go through a screening process before it is decided that they can be flown to Rwanda, and that nobody will be removed if it is “unsafe or inappropriate” for them.But the document outlining the terms of the migration deal states modern slavery victims could be among those removed from Britain under the arrangement, and Rwanda will be provided with information about relocated individuals “relating to any special needs that may arise as a result of their being a victim”. Ms Patel defended the policy in a fierce Commons debate, saying it is legal and is needed to tackle smuggling gangs who “effectively exploit various loopholes in our existing laws”.She refused to directly answer MPs’ questions on whether there was a cap on the cost per migrant forcibly deported, on top of the £120m economic deal with Rwanda. Senior Tory Dame Andrea Leadsom criticised as “absolutely abhorrent and inexplicable” criticism from people including archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, who has said the policy is “the opposite of the nature of God”.Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said the government policy is “unworkable, unethical and extortionate in the cost for the British taxpayer”.Meanwhile, hundreds of local councillors across Britain have come together to reject the Rwanda deal, accusing ministers of “dividing and discriminating”, and warning the plans will “entrench racism”.In a statement seen by The Independent, the councillors said: “We are appalled by the proposal to send asylum seekers to Rwanda […] We urge the government to choose differently. We ask the government to trust our communities and work with us, not foster racism and division via contracts with foreign governments or private companies.“These unspeakably cruel plans play fast and loose with international law, entrench racism and put people’s lives in danger. They have been tried elsewhere and scrapped because they are inhumane and ineffective as well as very expensive.”The Home Office was approached for comment. More

Senior Conservative MP Mark Harper has called for Boris Johnson to step down over his conduct during the Partygate scandal – saying the prime minister was “no longer worthy” of the office.The former minister revealed that he had sent a letter of no-confidence to the 1922 Committee chair Sir Graham Brady shortly after Mr Johnson apologised “unreservedly” in the Commons.Mr Harper, who leads the Covid Recovery Group, told MPs: “I’m very sorry to have to say this, but I no longer think he is worthy of the great office that he holds.”The senior figure added: “We have a PM who broke the rules that he told the public to follow, hasn’t been straightforward about it – and is now going to ask the decent men and women on these benches to defend the indefensible.”In his letter to the 1922 Committee chair, Mr Harper suggested Mr Johnson may have broken the ministerial code – saying it was “difficult to avoid the conclusion that the prime minister has misled parliament”.Mr Harper accused the PM of fostering a “toxic culture” at No 10 – saying the clearest example was staff partying “hours before Her Majesty the Queen laid to rest her beloved husband”.Dismissing the idea that a leadership contest would be unwise during the Ukraine war, Mr Harper said it was at times of international crisis “that our country needs a prime minister who commands trust [and] obeys the law”.The senior figure added: “I have reached the conclusion he is no longer able to deliver the principled leadership required to take our country forward … Our party still has so much to offer our country, but sadly, not under Boris Johnson’s leadership.”Cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg dismissed the idea that Mr Harper’s statement was a “big moment”. He told LBC Radio: “Mark had been gearing up for that for some time. It was quite funny when he said how much it pained him when he was clearly enjoying the moment thoroughly.”Mr Rees-Mogg also said Mr Johnson’s “contrition was very genuine” and insisted: “I think it is clear that the prime minister did not knowingly misled.” In his first comments to the Commons since he was handed a £50 fine for attending his birthday party in June 2020, Mr Johnson repeated the “full apology” he first made in a broadcast interview last week.Asked if he had deliberately misled the House by telling MPs in December that Covid rules were followed at Downing Street, he replied: “No.”The apology was dismissed as “half-hearted” by Sir Keir Starmer – who repeated his call for Mr Johnson to resign after becoming the first sitting PM found to have broken the law.The Labour leader urged Tory MPs to “bring an end to this shameful chapter”, adding: “I urge them again – don’t follow in the slipstream of this out of control, out of touch prime minister.”However, several Tory MPs came to Mr Johnson’s defence. Robert Halfon, chair of the education select committee, thanked the PM for his apology and said it would “mean something to my constituents”.Sir Geoffrey Clifton Brown, treasurer of the 1922 committee, praised the “fulsome apology” and said the prime minister was “taking a lead in Ukraine”.Veteran Tory MP Sir Bill Cash pointed out that the fixed penalty notice was a civil fine – claiming that it comes without “any admission of guilt”.Steve Baker MP, Mr Harper’s fellow lockdown sceptic, said: “My right honourable friend could not have made a more humble apology.” But the senior Tory backbencher added: “What assurance can he give us that nothing of this kind will ever happen again?”Tory MP David Simmonds also challenged Mr Johnson, saying he understood public anger over parties. “I have to ask … what steps he had in mind to restore the moral authority of this government?” Mr Johnson replied that he was “heartily sorry”, before saying he had “taken steps to change the way we do things in No 10”. But the PM refused to say whether he accepted that he had broken the law.Conservative MP Sir Robert Goodwill reportedly asked some constituents which leading Tory figure would make the best “alternative” PM. In an email shared by Times Radio, the MP for Scarborough and Whitby outlined the merits of several cabinet members – including Rishi Sunak, Dominic Raab and Sajid Javid.But Sir Robert insisted that he was not suggesting there should be a leadership contest, claiming the letter sent to around 100 constituents was only bid to “smoke out” Labour supporters writing to him.A no-confidence vote in the PM is triggered if 1922 chair Sir Graham Brady has 54 letters from Tory MPs. But two of the dozen or so MPs who said they had submitted letters earlier this year recently said they had withdrawn their missives, citing the Ukraine war.Meanwhile, Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle has allowed MPs to vote on a Labour motion this Thursday on whether the PM should face an investigation over claims he misled parliament over Covid rule breaches.Labour is understood to be wording the motion to make the vote about whether to refer Mr Johnson to the Committee of Privileges, which has the power to summon reports and documents.A Labour source: “Any Conservative MP considering voting to block this investigation would be voting for a cover-up. They should reflect on the mess they got themselves into over Owen Paterson before falling into line.” More

MPs will get the opportunity to debate, and vote on, whether Boris Johnson should be referred to the Commons privileges committee over potentially false statements he made to parliament about Partygate, Speaker Lindsay Hoyle has announced. And we want to know what you think should happen next.Have your say. Scroll down to take part in our reader poll.The motion has been tabled for Thursday after several MPs, including Labour leader Keir Starmer, wrote to Sir Lindsay over the Easter recess about the prime minister’s conduct. Sir Lindsay said while it is not for him to police the ministerial code, having taken advice “from clerks of the House” he would allow a debate to go ahead on Thursday.“Scheduling this will, I hope, give members an opportunity to consider the motion and the response to it,” he told MPs.The PM has been fined by the Metropolitan Police for attending a birthday bash – thrown in his honour – at No 10 while strict Covid restrictions were in place during the first lockdown of 2020.When questioned about the gatherings, he repeatedly denied that any Covid laws were broken – something now known to be untrue.He now faces career-threatening allegations that he knowingly misled parliament. There are also reportedly three other gatherings being investigated that the PM face further fines for.What do you think should happen now? Do you think Johnson should be investigated further by parliament? Cast your vote in our readers’ poll below and check back soon to see the results. More

Theresa May has said she does not support the Rwanda asylum policy and questioned its legality and effectiveness.Addressing Priti Patel in the House of Commons, the former prime minister and home secretary asked for more details of the scheme and who will be affected by it.“From what I have heard and seen so far, I do not support the removal to Rwanda policy on the grounds of legality, practicality and efficacy,” she said.“If it is the case that families will not be broken up, where is her evidence that this will not simply lead to an increase in the trafficking of women and children?”Ms Patel insisted the deal complied with international laws but refused to give parliament more details of eligibility requirements, offering to meet Ms May instead.The home secretary said that the agreement was aligned with “all international and domestic legal obligations” and was part of wider efforts to combat people smuggling.She told MPs that the current situation was putting “unsustainable pressures on our public services and local communities”, and that almost £5m was being spent every day on hotel accommodation for asylum seekers awaiting decisions.“Access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers,” she added.Yvette Cooper, Labour’s shadow home secretary, said the costs were being generated by a backlog of asylum decisions caused by the Home Office.“The only reason we’re paying a fortune in hotel costs is because Home Office decision making has completely collapsed on her watch,” she told the House of Commons.“[Ms Patel] is asking Rwanda to do the job but she is not capable of … she is just using this policy to distract from years of failure.”Ms Cooper called the policy “unworkable, unethical and extortionate”, questioning why the government had not given full information on costs.She said there was “no evidence of a deterrent effect” after the Home Office permanent secretary Matthew Rycroft warned there was not an insufficient “level of assurance over value for money”. More

Boris Johnson was saying “what he believed to be the truth” when he denied there were any law-breaking No 10 parties, a cabinet minister says – despite attending at least one of them.Brandon Lewis lifted the lid on what the prime minister will tell the Commons later, when he will face MPs for the first time since the police fined him for breaking his own Covid rules.The Northern Ireland Secretary hinted that Mr Johnson will accept the police’s verdict only grudgingly – referring to the Met having “taken the view that a fine should be issued”.And he insisted it is perfectly possible for the a “lawmaker to be a lawbreaker”, because Tony Blair is among ministers issued with parking tickets in the past.Mr Johnson faces career-threatening allegations that he knowingly misled parliament when he repeatedly denied that any Covid laws were broken – something now known to be untrue.But Mr Lewis said: “When he spoke to parliament, he was speaking what he believed to be the truth and what he outlined to be the truth.”Asked whether the prime minister now accepts he broke the rules, Mr Lewis told Sky News: “In the sense that he has paid a fine that the police have decided to issue because the rules were broken.“But that doesn’t mean that anything he said to parliament was inaccurate at the time. What he said to parliament he believed to be true at the time.”The argument is crucial to Mr Johnson’s survival chances, because the ministerial code dictates that any minister who knowingly misleads parliament must quit.It will become more difficult to mount if the prime minister is, as expected, is fined again for other social gatherings during lockdown – including one allegedly held in his own Downing Street flat.At present, his only fine is for the surprise birthday party held in the cabinet room in June 2020, which No 10 insists was brief and took place between work meetings.The Commons Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, will decide today whether to allow a vote on whether Mr Johnson has brought parliament into contempt – or should be investigated by a committee of MPs.Although the government would almost certainly win the vote easily, the opposition parties believe it would at least force Tory MPs to put their support for the prime minister on public view.Tobias Ellwood, the chair of the Commons defence committee, called for a vote of confidence after the May local elections, to decide if “it is time for change”.“Unfortunately, many, many MPs continue to be very numbed by this – very, very concerned by where we’re going,” he said.“If I was the prime minister, I would show leadership here, recognise this requires crisis management as such, and say that ‘these are difficult times, I will give you the opportunity to support me through an actual vote of confidence’.” More