UK Politics

Angela Rayner has said she is the victim of a “non-story manufactured to try and smear”her over the sale of her council tax home.The Labour deputy leader was criticised for turning a £48,500 profit on the property in Stockport, Greater Manchester, which she bought in 2007 with a 25 per cent discount.Speaking in her first TV interview since claims emerged that she may have owed capital gains tax on the 2015 sale, Ms Rayner told BBC Newsnight: “I’ve been very clear there was no rules broken. They [the Conservatives] tried to manufacture a police investigation.” More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailBritain risks “sliding into global irrelevance” on artificial intelligence (AI) if the Government does not introduce new laws to regulate the sector, according to a Conservative peer.A new body, known as the AI Authority, would be established under a proposal tabled in Parliament by Lord Holmes of Richmond.His Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Bill, to be debated at second reading on Friday, would require the authority to push forward AI regulation in the UK and assess and monitor potential risks to the economy.We need leadership, right-sized regulation, right nowLord Holmes of RichmondSecurity, fairness, accountability and transparency are among the principles that the AI Authority must take into consideration, according to the Bill.The Government believes a non-statutory approach provides “critical adaptability” but has pledged to keep it under review.Lord Holmes said: “The current Government approach risks the UK sliding into global irrelevance on this hugely important issue of protecting citizen rights and ensuring AI is developed and deployed in a humanity-enhancing, rather than a society-destroying, way.“The Government claims that their light-touch approach is ‘pro-innovation’ but innovation is not aided by uncertainty and instability.“AI offers some of the greatest opportunities for our economy, our society, our human selves.“It also, if unregulated holds obvious existential harms. Self-governance and voluntary agreements just don’t cut it.“We need leadership, right-sized regulation, right now.“The UK can, the UK must lead when it comes to ethical AI.“This Bill offers them that very opportunity. I hope they take it.”The Bill would also seek to ensure any person involved in training AI would have to supply to the authority a record of all third-party data and intellectual property (IP) they used and offer assurances that informed consent was secured for its use.Lord Holmes added on the labelling system: “People would know if a service or a good had used or deployed AI in the provision of that service.”Speaking in November last year, Rishi Sunak said Britain’s AI safety summit would “tip the balance in favour of humanity” after reaching an agreement with technology firms to vet their models before their release.The Prime Minister said “binding requirements” would likely to be needed to regulate the technology, but now is the time to move quickly without laws.Elon Musk, the owner of social media platform X, described AI as “one of the biggest threats” facing humanity.The Government announced in February that more than £100 million will be spent preparing the UK to regulate AI and use the technology safely, including helping to prepare and upskill regulators across different sectors.Minister have chosen to use existing regulators to take on the role of monitoring AI use within their own sectors rather than creating a new, central regulator dedicated to the emerging technology.A Government spokesman said: “As is standard process, the Government’s position on this Bill will be confirmed during the debate.” More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailA government minister tasked with identifying wasteful spending has been charging the taxpayer tens of thousands of pounds in expenses to rent a flat in London despite her fellow MP husband owning a property nearby.Esther McVey has over the past two years received more than £30,000  in taxpayers’ money to rent the flat where she lives with her husband Phillip Davies, the MP for Shipley.Ms McVey, who represents Tatton and was last year appointed minister for ‘common sense’, is paid £86,584 for being an MP but will be earning thousands of pounds more from her additional role as Cabinet Office minister without portfolio.She and her husband have been claiming expenses on a property in Westminster since 2017, according to The Daily Telegraph and campaign group Led By Donkeys.Esther McVey, the so-called minister for common sense, has criticised wasteful government spending According to the report, Mr Davies owns a property in Waterloo, which is about a 25-minute walk away. The property is rented out and the MP  has declared an annual income of more than £10,000 from this property.Mr Davies, who has also earned thousands of pounds from media work over the past two years, said he would have been happy to continue claiming mortgage costs on the flat he owns, “but that option was removed from me”.MPs can no longer claim their mortgage payments back from the taxpayer following changes to the rules in the aftermath of the 2009 expenses scandal.The couple is not breaking any rules but their arrangement raises questions about value for money, particularly given Ms McVey’s role at the top of government in charge of tacking wasteful spending.Ms McVey’s husband is Philip Davies MPMs McVey, a self-declared low-tax Thatcherite who often rails against the ‘big state’, wrote in the Daily Mail last year that she did not “want you to see a single penny of your hard-earned cash wasted on unnecessary public spending”.Her duties as Cabinet Office minister without portfolio include delivery of government priorities and ensuring effective communication of Downing Street’s objectives.Ms McVey, who previously served as secretary of state for work and pensions from January to November 2018, also earned thousands of pounds for media work.In February she told GB News she had written to independent government agencies asking them to spend more efficiently.“We want to make sure there isn’t any waste … You can’t put up taxpayers’ bills and ask the government for more money, and yet not get rid of wasteful spending yourself,” she said.Mr Davies told Led By Donkeys: “If I owned the flat outright and I could stay there without incurring any cost then I would agree that I should do that, but that doesn’t remotely apply in my case.“As far as I am aware, all workplaces cover the accommodation costs of people working away from home, and I am surprised … [you] … think that should no longer be the case. That, of course, will lead to only the wealthiest people in the country being able to become MPs.”Ms McVey has been contacted for comment. More

The youngest ever life peer has taken her seat in the House of Lords, which she wants to abolish.Plaid Cymru’s Carmen Smith, 28, will go by the title Baroness Smith of Llanfaes.She has succeeded as the youngest ever life peer Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge, who was made a life peer in July 2023 at the age of 30.The average age in the unelected chamber is 71.Wearing a a fake fur robe, rather than a traditional ermine one, she swore the oath of allegiance to King Charles III in both English and Welsh. More

The House of Commons erupted in laughter as Penny Mordaunt suggested that Labour’s claims about Jeremy Hunt’s ambition to abolish national insurance were fuelled by dreams “after eating a large amount of cheese.”Opposition MPs pressed the Commons Leader to explain if the “unfunded commitment of £46bn” would be paid for by tax rises for pensioners, cuts to the NHS, or an increase in Government debt.“I suspect the event the honourable gentleman might be recalling was actually a dream, perhaps after eating a large amount of cheese,” Ms Mordaunt said. More

Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the worldSign up to our free Morning Headlines emailPeers have inflicted a further series of defeats on Rishi Sunak’s flagship small boats bill, which would see asylum seekers deported to Rwanda. The House of Lords voted on Wednesday night that the government’s bill should have “due regard” for international law, and that the UK’s treaty with Rwanda should be fully implemented before flights start. Peers defeated the government on all seven votes, including passing an amendment that would exempt Afghan heroes who supported British troops from deportation to Rwanda. Labour’s Vernon Coaker told peers that the reputation of the country was at stake, stressing that it “can’t be right” that the fundamental bill exempts ministers from following international law. Lord Coaker also berated the Tory peers for failing to update the house about when the bill would return to the Lords for further debate – with peers now believing it will not return until after Easter. This delay will push back the dates that flights will inevitably be able to take off to Rwanda. Alex Carlile, a cross-bench peer, compared the mounting costs of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda to staying at The Ritz in Paris and added: “We’re a very long way from being satisfied that Rwanda is a safe country.”Rishi Sunak was told it was a ‘moral imperative’ that Afghan heroes who supported British troops should not be deported to Rwanda Government law officer Lord Stewart of Dirleton has argued criticism of the Tory administration over the Rwanda bill was “fundamentally misconceived”.He said: “We cannot allow people to make such dangerous crossings and we must do what we can to prevent any more lives from being lost at sea.”Ken Clarke, Tory peer and former chancellor, was the sole Conservative peer to rebel against his government in the votes two and three, which were for comparatively small changes to the bill that would force the greater scrutiny of Rwanda’s preparations ahead of flights.Peers also voted in favour of a Labour backbench amendment from Baroness Lister of Burtersett to require age assessments for those facing removal to Rwanda to be conducted by local authorities. They also voted in favour of restoring the jurisdiction of the domestic courts over the bill. In response to an amendment that aims to safeguard Afghan heroes who helped the UK, the government told peers on Wednesday evening that they would consider exempting members of the Afghan special forces from deportation from the UK. The Independent first revealed that members of the Afghan special forces, known as the Triples, who fought alongside British troops had been wrongly denied help by the Ministry of Defence. A review is currently being undertaken into the relocation decisions made for this cohort, a handful of whom have made it to the UK via small boat. While the Illegal Migration Act compels ministers to remove those who have arrived to the UK on a small boat from the country, Tory peers told the Lords that certain groups can be exempted from the affects of the act. This will be of comfort to those Afghan special forces who are deemed eligible under the Ministry of Defence’s new review of relocation decisions, however there is still a fear that those who supported UK troops could again be found ineligible for help. Labour’s Des Browne put forward an amendment to the Rwanda bill to exempt Afghans who worked alongside British troops Des Browne, who put forward the armed forces amendment, told the Lords: “We are told that many, who have braved death, injury and are forced into exile as a result of assisting our armed forces in fighting the Taliban, are to be punished for arriving here by irregular routes.“Even when owing to wrongful refusals on our part or possible malfeasance on the part of the special forces, that compelled them to take these routes in the first place.”Lord Browne said there were a number of Afghans in Afghanistan and Pakistan waiting on review decisions, but “a much smaller number, which the amendment seeks to protect, who are already here”. He continued: “They were compelled to seek irregular routes, or face certain death or torture. “For the last year The Independent, Lighthouse Reports and Sky, have been exposing cases where owing to [government] errors and alleged interference by UK special forces, Afghans who served alongside either with the Triples, or otherwise alongside our armed forces, wrongly were denied the ability to relocate and were forced to arrive here by other means.”Lord Browne said the government should not make promises about future exemptions but rather pass the amendment in front of them that would achieve similar aims. He questioned whether Afghans who had been failed by the Ministry of Defence could trust “the same people who wrongly refused their relocation visas in the first place”. This amendment was passed by the Lords with a majority of 39. MPs on Monday night overturned all 10 amendments to the Safety of Rwanda Bill, including an attempt by peers to prevent age-disputed children from being sent to Rwanda. The Home Office has already identified 150 migrants for the first two deportation flights. The bill will now return to the House of Commons for further scrutiny from MPs. More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailMost parents believe the Government should ban smartphones for under-16s, a poll has suggested.More than four in five (83%) parents said they felt smartphones were “harmful” to children and young people, according to a survey.Charity Parentkind is calling on all political parties to put a ban on smartphones for children in their manifestos ahead of the general election.It comes as Esther Ghey, the mother of murdered teenager Brianna Ghey, is campaigning for an age limit for smartphone usage and stricter controls on access to social media apps.A poll commissioned by Parentkind, of 2,496 parents of school-aged children in England, suggests that 58% of parents believe the Government should introduce a ban on smartphones for under-16s.A huge majority of parents of primary school children back a ban because they are terrified of their children becoming ensnared by a smartphone as they get olderJason Elsom, chief executive of ParentkindThe figure is even higher among parents of primary school children, where more than three in four (77%) would back a smartphone ban for under-16s.The online survey, conducted by WeThink between February 19 and March 4, found only 16% of parents of secondary school children support a smartphone ban for under-16s.Nearly nine in 10 (89%) parents said they were concerned their children could face online bullying and abuse through using a smartphone, while 87% were worried they might access harmful content online.Last week, schools minister Damian Hinds told MPs on the education select committee that getting a mobile phone between primary and secondary school had become a “rite of passage” for nearly all children.More than half (53%) of parents surveyed said they have felt pressure to give their child a smartphone at a younger age than they would prefer.More than two in three (69%) parents believe that limiting children’s access to smartphones would make life easier for them as a parent, the poll found.Jason Elsom, chief executive of Parentkind, said: “Society has sleepwalked into a position where children are addicted to harmful ‘electronic drugs’ and have no escape from their digital dealers.“We are starting to understand the harms of social media and the unrestricted gateway smartphones provide to vile online content but it seems parents already get it.“Most parents want the Government to help them overcome the peer pressure that leads to their children needing mobile phones by banning these devices and a huge majority of parents of primary school children back a ban because they are terrified of their children becoming ensnared by a smartphone as they get older.”He added: “The pressure is starting to mount on the Government to act and political parties to come together on this issue to protect children. This should be as uncontroversial as banning vaping for children.“Every party should put a ban on smartphones in their manifesto, something we will be calling for along with parent groups across the country.”Esther Ghey said: “It is amazing to see the wave of support for the campaigns we are promoting around mindfulness in schools and mobile phone safety.“The message has obviously resonated with parents who, through the poll, are saying that they share my concerns about safety for our young people when it comes to mobile phone use.”She added: “Although we are not working with Parentkind, we fully support any charities and campaigns that share our concerns and also want to help create a safer more empathetic and resilient world for our young people.”In February, schools in England were given non-statutory Government guidance intended to stop the use of mobile phones during school hours.A Government spokesperson said: “The educational and social benefits of technology are immense, but this should not come at the expense of children’s safety. That is why we issued guidance on banning smartphones in schools last month to support teachers and keep schools as a place of learning.“The majority of social media sites say they do not allow under-13s. Once implemented the Online Safety Act will require platforms to enforce their age limits and protect children from accessing harmful and age-inappropriate content.” More

A peer in the House of Lords has said he did not report his wife’s stolen credit card because the thief spent less than she did.With a deadpan delivery, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate left the chamber unsure whether he was joking or not as he recalled the incident on Tuesday 19 March.The former police chief, a non-affiliated peer, said: “My wife, on one of her rare visits to London, had her credit card stolen.“And I monitored the use of the card and I have to say I didn’t report it to the police, because the thief was spending less than she was.”Peers across the Lords erupted into laughter at his comment. More