UK Politics

The top civil servant at the Home Office warned Priti Patel the evidence behind her plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda in order to deter people making the hazardous Channel crossing was “highly uncertain”.It was revealed on Friday the home secretary was forced to issue a rare “ministerial directive” – only the second at the Home Office since 1990 – in order to press ahead with the policy after objections were raised by the permanent secretary.But details of the concerns were not made public until Saturday evening when the Home Office published correspondence between the official, Matthew Rycroft, and Ms Patel, dated 13 April – just two days before the initial £120m deal with Rwanda was unveiled.In his letter to the home secretary, Mr Rycroft said he was “satisfied myself that it is regular, proper and feasible for this policy to proceed”, as he cited the intention to prevent loss of life in the Channel and maintain “public trust and confidence in border controls”.However, he stressed: “This advice highlights the uncertainty surrounding the value for money of this proposal. I recognise that, despite the high cost of this policy, there are potentially significant savings to be realised from deterring people entering the UK illegally.“Value for money of the policy is dependent on it being effective as a deterrent. Evidence of a deterrent effect is highly uncertain and cannot be quantified with sufficient certainty to provide me with the necessary level of assurance over value for money.”Requiring the home secretary’s “written instruction to proceed”, he added: “I do not believe sufficient evidence can be obtained to demonstrate that the policy will have a deterrent effect significant enough to make the policy value for money.“This does not mean that the MEDP [Migration and Economic Development Partnership] cannot have the appropriate deterrent effect; just that it there is not sufficient evidence for me to conclude that it will.”In her same-day response, Ms Patel said that “without actions, costs will continue to rise, lives will continue to be lost” and claimed Home Office modelling forecast showed the number of small boats crossing the Channel are “expected to rise again this summer”.The cabinet minister said: “It would therefore be imprudent in my view, as home secretary, to allow the absence of quantifiable and dynamic modelling – which is inevitable when developing a response to global crises influenced by so many geopolitical factors such as climate change, war and conflict – to delay delivery of a policy that we believe will reduce illegal migration, save lives, and ultimately break the business model of the smuggling gangs.”The publication of the correspondence also came amid warnings the home secretary could face a walk-out in the Home Office over the controverisal plans, with staff potentially requesting transfers.Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA trade union, told BBC News: “Civil servants know their job is to support the government of the day. They sign up for that knowing they might not like what the government does.“On the more divisive policies, which this clearly is, they face a choice – implement or leave. That could mean elsewhere in the Home Office, another department, or the service.”Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) Union, which also represents civil servants, said that for the government “to attempt to claim this is anything other than utterly inhumane is sheer hypocrisy”.He added: “We have already seen that they are prepared to risk lives by turning boats back in the Channel – a policy which we have had to take them to court over. It is a heartless approach that displays total disregard for human life which everyone must oppose.” More

A veteran Tory MP has accused the Archbishop of Canterbury of “sharpening political divisions” for suggesteing the government’s Rwanda asylum policy would not stand up to the scrutiny of God.In an attempt to defend the controverisal proposals – unveiled by Boris Johnson and Priti Patel last week – cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg, also claimed Justin Welby had misunderstood the policy.Delivering his Easter Sunday sermon, the head of the Church of England criticised the plan to send some asylum seekers on a one-way ticket over 4,000 miles away to the east African country.In a scathing intervention, Mr Welby accused the government of “sub-contracting” its responsibilities, adding there were “serious ethical questions about sending asylum seekers overseas”.Speaking at Canterbury cathedral, Mr Welby said the measures “cannot carry the weight of our national responsibility as a country formed by Christian values”.He added: “The details are for politics. The principle must stand the judgment of God, and it cannot.“It cannot carry the weight of resurrection justice, of life conquering death. It cannot carry the weight of the resurrection that was first to the least valued, for it privileges the rich and strong.”Later the Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell also told an Easter sermon: “We can do better than this. We can do better than this because of what we see in Jesus Christ, the risen Christ, with a vision for our humanity where barriers are broken down, not new obstacles put in the path.”He said he had found it “so depressing and distressing this week to find that asylum seekers fleeing war, famine and oppression from deeply, deeply troubled parts of the world will not be treated with the dignity and compassion that is the right of every human being, and instead of being dealt with quickly and efficiently here on our soil will be shipped to Rwanda”.The proposals have also been condemned by charities while a former Conservative cabinet minister said it was “immoral”, “impractical” and likely to involve “astronomic” costs, beyond an initial £120 million deal singed between the UK and Rwandan governments.But John Redwood, the Conservative MP for Wokingham, asked on social media: “So what is the Archbishop’s proposal on how to stop the lucrative and illegal trade by people traffickers? Why does he want to live with law breaking and dangerous voyages?”“I thought the Easter message was love conquers all,” he added. “We should forgive and reconcile. Could the Archbishop do that instead of sharpening political divisions?”The Brexit opportunities minister, Mr Rees-Mogg told the BBC World at One programme: “I think he [Mr Welby] misunderstands what the policy is trying to achieve, and that it isn’t an abandonment of responsibility, it is in fact a taking on of a very difficult responsibility.“The problem that is being dealt with is that people are risking their lives in the hands of people traffickers, to get into this country illegally. Now, it’s not the illegal bit of it, it is the encouragement of people traffickers that needs to be stopped.”Another Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen, also claimed on Sky News that the head of the Church of England’s comments represented “a little bit of naivety really. “I don’t think he’s in step with his congregation, I don’t think he’s in step with the views of the country,” he said. “But of course he’s perfectly entitled in a free and open democracy to espouse whatever views he may have”.Wes Streeting, the Labour frontbencher, however, said: “It really isn’t for politicians to tell the head of our church what he should or shouldn’t say in his Easter sermon. Conservative MPs should reflect on it instead”.A Home Office spokesperson said: “The UK has a proud history of supporting those in need of protection and our resettlement programmes have provided safe and legal routes to better futures for hundreds of thousands of people across the globe.“However, the world is facing a global migration crisis on an unprecedented scale and change is needed to prevent vile people smugglers putting people’s lives at risk and to fix the broken global asylum system.“Rwanda is a fundamentally safe and secure country with a track record of supporting asylum seekers. Under this agreement, they will process claims in accordance with the UN Refugee Convention, national and international human rights laws.”In his Easter sermon, Mr Welby also said families across the country were “waking up in fear” due to the pressures of the cost-of-living crisis, with a hike in energy bills, increasing taxes and record inflation.“Families across the country are waking up to cold homes and empty stomachs as we face the greatest cost-of-living crisis we have known in our lifetimes,” he said. “And because of this they wake up with fear.”With the Russian invasion of Ukraine now in its seventh week, the Archbishop of Canterbury added: “Ukrainians have woken up to the end of the world as they knew it. Now they are awakened by the noises of war, and the sickening reality of terror.“They wake up to mortal fear. Let this be a time for Russian ceasefire, withdrawal and a commitment to talks”.In his own Easter message, the prime minister paid tribute to “the Christians of Ukraine, whether they’re marking Easter today, or its orthodox equivalent later this month, for whom Christ’s message of hope, the triumph of life over death and good over evil, will resonate this year, perhaps more than any other”.Speaking in Ukrainian, and referencing a Psalm, he said: “Be strong and have courage in your heart, you all who trust in the Lord.” More

Boris Johnson “shredded” the ministerial code over the Partygate scandal and has become a “great debaser of decency” in political life, according to an eminent historian.Five days after Mr Johnson was issued with a fixed-penalty notice for flouting Covid regulations, and refused to resign, Lord Peter Hennessy said it was the “most severe constitutional crisis involving a prime minister”.Delivering his scathing criticism, the history of government expert said: “The Queen’s first minister is now beyond doubt a rogue prime minister, unworthy of her, her parliament, her people, and her kingdom.“I cannot remember a day when I’ve been more fearful for the wellbeing of the constitution,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Broadcasting House.Reading from his diary entry on Tuesday – when No 10 first confirmed the prime minister had been fined by the Metropolitan Police – the historian said it will “forever be remembered as a dark, bleak day for British public and political life”.“It is the day that Boris Johnson became the great debaser in modern times of decency in public and political life, and of our constitutional conventions – our very system of government,” the crossbench peer said.Lord Hennessy, who is the Attlee professor of contemporary British history at Queen Mary University London, added: “The prime minister sealed his place in British history as the first law-breaker to have occupied the premiership – an office he has sullied like no other, turning it into an adventure playground for one man’s narcissistic vanity.“Boris Johnson has broken the law, misled parliament, and has, in effect, shredded the ministerial code, which is a crucial part of the spinal cord of the constitution.”But speaking on Radio 4’s The World This Weekend, cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg said he disagreed with Lord Hennessy’s “understanding of the constitutional significance of the ministerial code, which he was talking about”.“The ministerial code is not a legislative part of our constitution, it is a set of guidelines produced by the prime minister.”Mr Rees-Mogg said that when Mr Johnson told MPs rules had been followed in No 10 during Covid restrictions: “I think that the prime minister spoke to parliament in good faith.”He added: “I think that when you hear what happened on the party for which he has been fined, many people would think that they were in accordance with the rules, when they were meeting people they were with every day, who happened to wish them a happy birthday, because that was the day it was.“I think that was a perfectly rational thing to believe. Now the police have decided otherwise and the police have an authority. But he wasn’t thinking something irrational or unreasonable, that that was within the rules.”Lord Hennessy’s remarks come as the prime minister prepares to deliver a statement when MPs return to the Commons on Tuesday, where he will not deny wrongdoing, but point towards the wider context, including Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, according to The Sunday Times.Speaking last week from his Chequers residence, Mr Johnson issued a “full apology” and confirmed he had paid the fine, but defied calls to resign and insisted it did “not occur to me” at the time he had broken the Covid regulations.He denied he had misled parliament, claiming he “spoke in completely good faith” when he told the House of Commons in December that no rules were broken, adding: “I want to be able to get on and deliver the mandate that I have”.While the cabinet and many Conservatives MP are standing by him, citing the war in Ukraine, a handful of colleagues have called for his resignation and he now faces the possibility of a perilous few weeks with the prospect of more fines from the Metropolitan Police, who are investigating 12 events in total.Green Party MP Caroline Lucas has also written to the Commons speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle asking whether he will “facilitate a process whereby MPs” can hold Mr Johnson and the chancellor Rishi Sunak, who was also fined, “to account for misleading parliament”.Ms Lucas is pushing for a way MPs can scrutinise what has happened and for the two most senior figures in government “to be found in contempt of parliament” through mechanisms such a motion on the floor of the House of Commons or the Committee on Privileges. More

Boris Johnson is set to embark on a much-delayed trip to India, where he will focus on defence and trade.The prime minister will meet his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi in New Delhi with the aim of deepening the security partnership between the two countries.The visit to India’s capital on Friday will follow a trip to Ahmedabad in Gujarat – believed to be the first time a prime minister has visited India’s fifth-largest state, which the government says was the ancestral home to around half of the British-Indian population in the UK.During his visit to Gujarat on Thursday, Mr Johnson will meet business leaders and focus on trade.The PM had been due to visit India on his first major trip after he was elected in 2019, but it was repeatedly delayed due to Covid-19.Ahead of his visit this week, the prime minister said: “As we face threats to our peace and prosperity from autocratic states, it is vital that democracies and friends stick together. India, as a major economic power and the world’s largest democracy, is a highly valued strategic partner for the UK in these uncertain times.”My visit to India will deliver on the things that really matter to the people of both our nations – from job creation and economic growth to energy security and defence.”In Gujarat, Mr Johnson is expected to announce major investment in key industries in both the UK and India, as well as new collaboration on science, health and technology.The PM is also expected to use the trip to push forward trade negotiations launched earlier this year.PA More

The government has admitted that a special “taskforce” announced last autumn to tackle the supply chain crisis existed for just days – and may never have convened.Established the day before Boris Johnson began conducting a major reshuffle, the cross-governmental group tasked with “fixing” supply issues was placed under the supervision of Michael Gove.Reports at the time claimed that Mr Johnson had joked to Mr Gove – who was then Cabinet Office minister – that he “didn’t want to have to cancel Christmas again” as the National Economic Recovery Taskforce (Logistics) was set up.But in response to a parliamentary question from Labour’s deputy leader Angela Rayner in March this year, Michael Ellis, the current Cabinet Office minister, was forced to admit that the taskforce, announced on 14 September 2021, no longer existed.“When the prime minister’s cabinet committee structures were refreshed, gov.uk was updated in October 2021 and this no longer included the National Economic Taskforce (Logistics),” he said.The minister insisted that logistics and supply chains remained “a priority” for the government, adding that they were “discussed regularly by ministers in a range of forums”. The Cabinet Office later said work continues to enhance the resilence of supply chains, but now through a committee focused on domestic issues.Responding to a separate question, Mr Ellis declined to comment on whether the logistics taskforce had met “at least once” before it was removed from the list of cabinet committees.“It is a long-established precedent that information about the discussions that have taken place in cabinet and its committees and how often they have met is not shared publicly,” he said.Ms Rayner told The Independent this amounted to evidence that the government was “unprepared for the problems facing our country, which will only make the cost of living crisis worse.“They lurch from crisis to crisis,” she said. “Instead of serious solutions, all they’ve got is gimmicks and fake announcements to grab cheap headlines, with no real plan to solve the problem. The consequences are clear – travel chaos and spiralling prices for ordinary people.“Now they’ve been caught creating a fake taskforce to hide the fact that they don’t have a plan to protect supply chains and ease the travel disruption Brits are experiencing.”But a government spokesperson said: “These claims are incorrect. Logistics and supply chains are a priority for the government, and are discussed regularly by ministers in a range of forums. “We are committed to supporting people with the pressures of the cost of living and we have already provided over £22 billion of help in 2022-23.”Andy Prendergast, national secretary of the GMB union, said: “The logistics crisis has had serious consequences across the economy – yet it gets no more than lip service from the government. “You’d have thought after seeing the public plagued by empty shelves and haulage chaos, the taskforce would have taken serious steps to address the problems.”He added: “As usual, it’s all talk and no action from a government incapable of getting to grips with the problems blighting households across our country.” More

Boris Johnson is facing calls to outline a timeframe for an inquiry into the chancellor Rishi Sunak’s ministerial declarations and ensure the final report is published in “full”.In a letter – seen by The Independent – to No 10 and Lord Geidt, the prime minister’s independent adviser on ministerial interests, Angela Rayner also urged Mr Johnson to detail the remit.“Given the urgency of this issue, it is crucial that a timeframe for this investigation be published in full by Downing Street or Lord Geidt,” Labour’s deputy leader stressed.The Labour frontbencher said following Sue Gray’s report into No 10 parties, which is awaiting publication until the Metropolitan Police conclude their own probe, “confidence in our standards system is already at rock bottom”.Her letter comes after The Independent revealed last week that the chancellor’s wife, Akshata Murty, had non-domiciled status – exempting her from UK tax on overseas income.Mr Murty, whose father is one of India’s richest men, has since said she will pay UK tax on all her worldwide income, saying she understood the “British sense of fairness”.Questions have also been raised after the chancellor admitted to holding a US green card, which allowed him permanent residency in America until around October 2021, having been appointed chancellor the previous year in February.In an attempt to defuse the political storm, Mr Sunak requested the prime minister’s independent adviser on ministerial interests investigate his declarations since becoming a minister in 2018.Mr Johnson, who said he had full confidence in the chancellor, agreed the request from the chancellor on Monday – but no further details of the inquiry, including a timeframe, have been provided.Ms Rayner said there are a “whole catalogue of outstanding questions not only for the chancellor but for the prime minister himself”, adding: “The British people deserve answers”.In her letter she asked why the Cabinet Office had previously suggested that Lord Geidt had already said he was “completely satisfied with the chancellor’s propriety of arrangements” and had followed the ministerial code to the letter.“Has the independent adviser already cleared the chancellor, prejudging this investigation, which suggests that it is simply a whitewash with a predetermined conclusion,” she asked. “Or were the Cabinet Office statements untrue?”She said Lord Geidt’s inquiry must ask whether Sir Alex Allan, the former independent adviser on ministerial interests, will be interviewed for previous advice he gave Mr Sunak.Ms Rayner added the investigation must also ask whether the chancellor declared his US green card “upon each ministerial appointment” and why the “vast majority” of interests, including those of his spouse and close family, were kept confidential.In his letter to Mr Johnson last week, the chancellor said: “I am confident that such a review of my declarations will find all relevant information was appropriately declared.“I have throughout my ministerial career followed the advice of the officials regarding matters of propriety and disclosure and will continue to do so. I look forward to working with Lord Geidt’s office throughout such a review and providing all relevant information as necessary”.A government spokesperson said: “The chancellor provided a full list of all relevant interests when he first became a minister in 2018, as required by the ministerial code. “The chancellor’s interests have been looked at by successive independent advisers since this time, but following recent interest he has asked for a further review of whether all interests have been properly declared in the interest of transparency and openness.” More

Speed limiters are set to be fitted to all new cars under government plans to fall in line with new EU regulations, according to a report.A consultation will be announced by ministers imminently on a number of vehicle safety measures that will set off an alarm or reduce engine power if drivers go above a certain speed limit, The Daily Telegraph reported.The technology, known as “intelligent speed assistance”, is dependent upon GPS tracking and cameras on the vehicle and was previously described as a “big leap forward” in road safety by EU officials.Tory MP Craig Mackinlay, who is the chairman of the Fair Fuel UK Motorists and Hauliers all-party parliamentary group, said the proposals sound “very unconservative”.He said: “This will completely destroy the luxury car market, and I think there are so many aspects of the anti-driver campaign now that are coming to the fore.“This is just more Big Brother in your cockpit. We’ll see more of this if we go up the route of road pricing. I don’t think people have thought of the freedom aspects of all of this. It just sounds very unconservative.”The choice of alert given to drivers who break the speed limit would be up to vehicle manufacturers and could range from reducing the engine power or a push back on the pedal.Drivers would be able to override the technology, but it would reset after each time a motorist restarts the vehicle. Some manufactuers such as Ford and Citroen have already started using the speed limiting technology in their vehicles. Edmund King, the president of the AA, said that speed limits on roads would need to be very accurate on the digital system to ensure there were no problems.He said: “The speed limits have to be totally accurate because the car is reacting to the speed limit. If you’ve got the wrong speed limit in the digital system, it might slow you to the wrong speed or allow you to speed to the wrong speed.”The Department for Transport (DfT) said no decisions had been made on which safety regulations the UK would follow.A spokesperson added: “The UK’s departure from the EU provides us with the platform to capitalise on our regulatory freedoms.“We’re currently considering the vehicle safety provisions included in the EU’s General Safety Regulation and will implement requirements that are appropriate for Great Britain and improve road safety.” More

The UK’s proposal to send migrants who arrive in Britain unlawfully to Rwanda is “unacceptable” and a breach of international law, the UN’s refugee agency said.The Government announced this week it plans to provide failed asylum seekers, including those crossing the Channel in small boats, with a one-way ticket to Rwanda, where they will have the right to apply to live in the African country.Gillian Triggs, an assistant secretary-general at the UNHCR, said the agency “strongly condemns outsourcing the primary responsibility to consider the refugee status”, as laid out in the scheme put forward by Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Home Secretary Priti Patel.Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s World At One programme, the former president of the Australian Human Rights Commission said the policy was a “troubling development”, particularly in the light of countries taking in millions of Ukrainian refugees displaced by the conflict in eastern Europe.Put to her that Australia had effectively deployed a similar tactic to cut migration numbers, Ms Triggs said: “My point is, just as the Australian policy is an egregious breach of international law and refugee law and human rights law, so too is this proposal by the United Kingdom Government.“It is very unusual, very few states have tried this, and the purpose is primarily deterrent – and it can be effective, I don’t think we’re denying that.“But what we’re saying at the UN refugee agency is that there are much more legally effective ways of achieving the same outcome.”She said attempting to “shift responsibility” for asylum seekers arriving in Britain was “really unacceptable”.Ms Triggs pointed out that Israel had attempted to send Eritrean and Sudanese refugees to Rwanda, but that they “simply left the country and started the process all over again”.“In other words, it is not actually a long-term deterrent,” she added.Tom Pursglove, minister for justice and tackling illegal migration, said on Friday that the policy was “in line” with the UK’s legal obligations.However, he accepted that it would be “difficult” to implement the plan to remove asylum seekers to Rwanda, with the Government braced for legal challenges.He told Times Radio: “I think what is also really important to make (clear) in dealing with that issue is that, at all times, we act in accordance with our international obligations, the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) and the refugee convention.“We are absolutely confident that our policies are in line with that and entirely compliant, which by extension would mean that those legal challenges would be without merit.“But it will be difficult, there will be challenges.”Mr Pursglove also suggested during broadcast interviews that other countries in Europe were considering emulating the UK’s Rwandan policy, which he described as a “world first”.He said there was a “moral imperative” to crush the business model of human traffickers and avoid a tragedy like that seen in November, when a dinghy sank in the English Channel, drowning dozens of migrants heading to Britain.“The point I would make is that what is cruel and inhumane is allowing evil criminal gangs to take advantage of people, to take their money, to put them in small boats, often with force, including women and children, to put them in the Channel with all the risks that that presents to human life,” he told ITV’s Good Morning Britain.“We simply cannot allow that to happen, which is why we’ve introduced the new plan for immigration to stop these illegal journeys.”The minister also argued that in the “longer term” the scheme would save Britain money, with almost £5 million per day currently spent on accommodating those arriving in the country.Former Tory international development secretary Andrew Mitchell questioned that, saying calculations had been made that suggested it would be cheaper to put those arriving in Britain up at The Ritz hotel in London’s Mayfair for a year. More