UK Politics

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailThe three-year public inquiry looking into the government’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic – has already seen damning revelations, WhatsApp messages and statements which have exposed the government and its failings.Former prime minister Boris Johnson is at the centre of all of this, with a two-day hearing set to commence on Wednesday 6 December.The team leading the Covid-19 inquiry includes Baroness Heather Hallet, a former Court of Appeal judge – who is chair of the inquiry. Ben Connah, inquiry Secretary and Martin Smith who works as a Solicitor to the inquiry.Hugo Keith is currently leading as Counsel to the inquiry and plays a significant role in the investigation. So far, Mr Keigh has by no means made the probe an easy ride for those in the hot seat.Here’s everything you need to know about Hugo Keith and the Covid-19 inquiryWho is Mr Keith and what are some of his key moments?Hugo Keith KC’s role is to give independent legal advice to Baroness Hallet, present the evidence, question the witnesses and lead the wider counsel.In November, Michael Gove was shut down during his Covid inquiry hearing for suggesting the virus may have been man-made.Michael Gove apologises for Government mistakes during pandemic.When Mr Gove was asked about the government’s lack of preparation for Covid as the pandemic unfolded, he admitted the government was “not as well prepared as we should have been”.“The nature of our preparation was for a flu pandemic,” he told the inquiry.He then went on to suggest the virus may be man-made adding: “It turned out that we were not as well prepared as we should have been, ideally.“The nature of the fact the virus was novel … and this probably goes beyond the remit of the inquiry, but there is a significant body of judgment that believes the virus itself was man-made. And that presents a set of challenges as well.”Mr Keith stepped in and told Mr Gove it was not the place to discuss the matter.“It forms no part of the terms of reference of this inquiry Mr Gove, to address that somewhat divisive issue, so we are not going to go there,” he said.Lead counsel KC also grilled Mr Gove about WhatsApp messages sent by Cabinet Secretary Simon Case saying working with Mr Johnson’s team was like “taming wild animals”.Matt Hancock’s Covid hearing Former health secretary Matt Hancock giving evidence to the UK Covid-19 Inquiry In another hearing, Mr Keith questioned former health secretary Matt Hancock on his claim that he first told the then PM, Mr Johnson to call a nationwide lockdown on 13 March 2020.Mr Keith then showed Mr Hancock his own book, Pandemic Diaries, and asked why he had not made a note of the intervention at the time.Mr Keith said: “It’s not in your diary, so-called, I should say, Mr Hancock. The entry for March 13 makes no reference to you telling the prime minister this vital piece of information that he should lock down immediately.”“Telling the prime minister of this country, for the first time, that he had to call an immediate lockdown, is surely worthy of some recollection, is it not?,” he asked.Mr Hancock responded and said: “I didn’t have full access to my papers for the writing of that, and this came to light in researching the papers ahead of this inquiry.”He also referenced an email from himself to Mr Johnson which he said was a “suppression strategy” to tackle coronavirus.Mr Keith, highly unimpressed by Mr Hancock’s reply, said: “The inquiry is well aware of that email… Do you use the word immediate or lockdown?”.In response to Mr Keith, Mr Hancock said he was unable to answer the question as he did not have the email in front of him.Matt Hancock Vs Dominic CummingsDuring his hearing, Mr Hancock was also shown a WhatsApp message he sent to then-Downing Street adviser Dominic Cummings in which he said the Government needed to “up a gear on winning the public argument”.This included telling the public that “we are better prepared than other countries” and that the UK’s “contain phase” had been “better than other countries”.Mr Hancock also accused Mr Cummings of creating a “culture of fear” in government which undermined the pandemic response.The former health secretary also said Mr Cummings was a “malign actor” who subjected his staff to abuse during the pandemic.“Was it unpleasant? Yes, it was unpleasant for a whole load of my staff as well who were subject to this sort of abuse from the chief adviser,” Mr Hancock told the inquiry.“It went further, wider than I thought at the time, but my job was to lead the health and care system, the whole thing.”Mr Hancock further rejected claims he lied to colleagues about having a plan for the outbreak, describing these as “false allegations”.Instead, he pointed the finger at Mr Cummings for, he suggested, presiding over an atmosphere in which blame was attributed rather than allowing people to “spend all of their effort solving the problems”.“It was deeply, deeply frustrating… we’ve discussed the structural problem which was essentially an adviser trying to take executive authority away from the prime minister for a period until the cabinet secretary stopped it and put in place the MIG (Ministerial Implementation Group) process,” Mr Hancock said.Mr Cummings later rebuked Mr Hancock’s account on X/Twitter, accusing him of “flat out lying” by claiming to have pushed for a lockdown on March 13.The former aide wrote: “Hancock flat out lying to Inquiry claiming he privately pushed for lockdown on 13th with PM – but admits there’s no evidence for it – and again on 14th in mtngs – when evidence from ALL others & paper trail is that he was still pushing Plan A herd immunity 13-15th – and his Perm Sec was still pushing Plan A on 18/3 to Cabinet Secretary (email uncovered by media) – the reason I physically stopped him coming to the second mtng on 14/3 was cos he was arguing AGAINST a change of plan & bullshitting everybody about herd immunity & ‘best prepared in the world’ (see evidence from multiple witnesses).” Additional reporting from PA agency More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster email Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who led Britain through the coronavirus pandemic before being ousted by scandal, is set to defend his record on Wednesday at a public inquiry into the country’s handling of COVID-19.Johnson will be grilled under oath by lawyers for the judge-led inquiry about his initial reluctance to impose a national lockdown in early 2020 and other fateful decisions.Johnson arrived at the inquiry venue at daybreak, several hours before he was due to take the stand, avoiding a protest by relatives of COVID-19 victims.Among those wanting answers from the inquiry are families of some of the more than 200,000 people in the U.K. who died after contracting the virus. A group gathered outside the office building where the inquiry was set, some holding pictures of their loved ones. A banner declared: “Let the bodies pile high” — a statement attributed to Johnson by an aide. Another sign said: “Johnson partied while people died.” Johnson was pushed out of office by his own Conservative Party in mid-2022 after multiple ethics scandals, including the revelation that he and staff members held parties in the prime minister’s Downing Street offices in 2020 and 2021, flouting the government’s lockdown restrictions.Former colleagues, aides and advisers have painted an unflattering picture of Johnson over weeks of testimony at the inquiry.Former Chief Scientific Adviser Patrick Vallance said Johnson was “bamboozled” by science. In diaries that have been seen as evidence, Vallance also said Johnson was “obsessed with older people accepting their fate.” Former adviser Dominic Cummings, now a fierce opponent of Johnson, said the then-prime minister asked scientists whether blowing a hair dryer up his nose could kill the virus.The U.K. has one of the highest COVID-19 death tolls in Europe, with the virus recorded as a cause of death for more than 232,000 people.Johnson agreed in late 2021 to hold a public inquiry after heavy pressure from bereaved families. The probe, led by retired Judge Heather Hallett, is expected to take three years to complete, though interim reports will be issued starting next year.The inquiry is divided into four sections modules, with the current phase focusing on political decision-making. The first stage, which concluded in July, looked at the country’s preparedness for the pandemic. More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailSir Keir Starmer would be welcomed into the Conservative Party with “open arms”, Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg has said.The top Tory and arch-Brexiteer said the Labour leader’s recent article in the Telegraph, in which Sir Keir praised Margaret Thatcher, sounded like a Conservative minister launching a leadership bid.Sir Keir’s article, under the headline “voters have been betrayed on Brexit and immigration”, read like something by “the most ardent of Eurosceptics” or a “Trussite”, Sir Jacob added.He added: “As a Tory member, I would like to extend a welcome to the Leader of the Opposition with open arms.”The Tory former minister was commenting after Rishi Sunak suggested Nigel Farage would be welcome to join the Conservatives – insisting his party was a “broad church”.“The more pressing question is not whether Nigel Farage will join the Tory Party, but whether Keir Starmer is planning to defect and launch a Tory leadership bid,” he told GB News.A Labour spokesman said: “What Jacob Rees-Mogg knows is that the travel is all in the opposite direction with former Tory voters backing Keir Starmer’s changed Labour Party to end thirteen years of Tory decline and give Britain its future back.”The Labour leader sparked a backlash with his article, in which he said Mrs Thatcher had effected “meaningful change” and “set loose Britain’s natural entrepreneurialism”.He also sought to outflank Mr Sunak by appealing to Tory voters on Brexit and migration.In a shift from his staunch opposition to Britain leaving the EU, Sir Keir said the Tories have “failed to realise the possibilities of Brexit”.He said  he “profoundly disagrees” with the idea Labour should duck topics such as small boat crossings and immigration.And he added: “This is a government that was elected on a promise that immigration would ‘come down’ and the British people would ‘always [be] in control’. For immigration to then triple is more than just yet another failure – it is a betrayal of their promises.”Sir Jacob, who served as business secretary under Lizz Truss, said: “A man wrote an article for The Telegraph last week entitled ‘Voters have been betrayed on Brexit and Immigration.’“This reads as if it were vintage Farage. The man in question went on to hail Margaret Thatcher, as the leader who dragged Britain out of its stupor by setting loose our natural entrepreneurialism.“He then went on to criticise the wasted money, the high debt and the record-high tax burden. He sounds as if he could be a member of the ERG!”Sir Jacob added: ““So, who is this man? This great Conservative-sounding figure? Is he a cabinet minister waiting in the wings for a Tory Party leadership bid? One setting out his stall – along with a number of other ministers who seem to be circling.“He must be among the most ardent of Eurosceptics, a member of the ‘Go for Growth’ movement, a Thatcherite – a Trussite even – a capitalist, a sensible, free market Conservative.“But – the man I’m referring to is not Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss or even me, for that matter.“I’m of course talking about the leader of the Labour party – the socialist party – Sir Keir Starmer.” More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailNew laws designed to slash the number of migrants by 300,000 a year risk splitting up families already living in the UK. Brits could see their foreign partners told to leave the country the next time their visa comes up for renewal – if their household does not earn £38,700, No 10 said.The move is part of plans to cut net migration after it soared to nearly three-quarters of a million in 2022.Experts, however, warned the planned crackdown was causing distress for many. Downing Street defended the policy, saying it was right that “if you are bringing someone into the country you are able to support them”. Under the plans unveiled on Monday those wishing to bring their spouse to the UK will now have to earn £38,700, a significant increase on the current figure of £18,600, and what has been described as a tax on love. Former Tory minister Gavin Barwell said it was “both morally wrong and unconservative to say that only the wealthiest can fall in love, marry someone and then bring them to the UK”.As well as applying to those yet to come to the UK, No 10 confirmed the new higher figure risks affecting those already here. Asked if it would apply to partners when they came to renew their visas, No 10 said the change was “not retrospective, but it would apply to renewals in the future”. At that point, people would be expected to “meet the visa requirements of the day”. The prime minister’s official spokesperson added: “People always have a set length of time for their visas and will be aware at the conclusion of that visa time that they don’t have a guarantee that they will obviously remain in the country.” The income level had not been updated for 10 years, No 10 said. There are exemptions, but these will be on a case-by-case basis, and it stressed that the amount could be spread across the household. Madeleine Sumption, the director of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, said the changes would make the UK an outlier among western nations. “This is definitely completely different to what any other high-income country does,” she said. Josephine Whitaker-Yilmaz, from migrant rights organisation Praxis, said she was concerned for families who feel “forced to make horrible decisions” due to the changes.The changes are due to come into effect in spring and will apply when existing visas for foreign spouses come up for renewal. The prime minister’s spokesperson said on Tuesday: “The family immigration rules contain a provision for exceptional circumstances where there would be unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant, their partner, a relevant child or another family member if their application were to be refused.”No examples were given and the spokesperson said applications would be considered on a “case-by-case basis”.Official figures from April show the median gross annual earnings for full-time employees in the UK was £34,963. More

Sign up for the View from Westminster email for expert analysis straight to your inboxGet our free View from Westminster emailHome secretary James Cleverly has hailed yet another deal with Rwanda as the way to rescue the government’s thwarted plan to stop the boats – only for it to be denounced as a “gross political fantasy”. The embattled cabinet minister said there was now no credible legal reason for the policy to continue to be blocked after he flew to Kigali to sign a new treaty.But Mr Cleverly still could not guarantee flights will depart next spring, as Rishi Sunak hopes, as he became the third minister in less than two years to sign an agreement with the African nation.Tory MPs warned they would examine new emergency legislation on Rwanda – due to be published within days to determine the country is a safe destination – to ensure planes carrying asylum seekers take off. It came as the prime minister faces a major Commons revolt from two sides of his party over the planned new law. MPs on the right of the party are pushing the PM to use it to opt out of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) – warning he must go for the “full fat” version to stop judges intervening. Home secretary James Cleverly arrives at Kigali International AirportBut senior Tory moderates are also warning Mr Sunak they may not support his legislation if he does try to flout the ECHR, arguing that it would be “a mistake” that doesn’t command public support. As the treaty was unveiled, it emerged that: Asylum seekers sent to Rwanda who go on to commit serious crimes while there could end up back in the UK UK taxpayers will have to pay more on top of the £140m already spent on a scheme which has yet to send a single asylum seeker to the east-central African country The UK will take some of Rwanda’s refugees under the plans, a measure contained in the original agreementRwanda will still have a veto over which asylum seekers it accepts Those sent there will be offered support and accommodation by the UK for five years Under the treaty, they will not be sent on to a third country, such as the one from which they fled – the main criticism of the Supreme Court – and will stay in Rwanda Mr Sunak announced the new treaty – and the emergency legislation – in the wake of a damning Supreme Court judgment which ruled his plans unlawful.In the Rwandan capital, Mr Cleverly praised the new deal, saying: “We feel very strongly this treaty addresses all of the issues of their lordships in the Supreme Court.”But he could not guarantee when the first flight of asylum seekers would take off.The home secretary added: “We want to see this part of our wider migration plan up and running as quickly as possible.” James Cleverly during Tuesday’s press conference in Kigali Under the treaty, those sent to Rwanda will stay there, no matter the outcome of their asylum application. The Supreme Court had warned that under the previous system, vulnerable refugees risked being erroneously sent back to the countries from which they had fled, where they would face persecution. But the court also questioned whether undertakings given by Rwanda could be relied upon. Also included in the treaty are plans for UK lawyers to be sent to Rwanda to help process claims and ensure appeals are granted correctly. An independent monitoring committee will assess the processing of asylum claims and the treatment and support for individuals for up to five years. It will also establish a new whistleblowing system to allow asylum seekers sent to Rwanda to lodge confidential complaints.Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper accused Mr Cleverly of being the third home secretary in 18 months to take a trip to Rwanda “for a photo op”. Priti Patel signed the initial deal last April while his predecessor, Suella Braverman, visited Kigali earlier this year. “More home secretaries than asylum seekers have been sent there and the scheme is badly failing,” Ms Cooper said. “We know … even if it ever does get off the ground, it will only cover a very small number of people when over 1,000 people arrived in small boats last week alone.”The government’s former top lawyer Jonathan Jones questioned whether ministers were really as confident as they suggested.He said: “If the government were really confident that the treaty did the trick and Rwanda will now be “safe”, it could be confident of winning any further court challenge and wouldn’t need to change the law as well.But the government has said it will table a Bill which will likely tell the courts that Rwanda is now to be treated as “safe” for the purposes of asylum claims.”Lib Dem home affairs spokesperson Alistair Carmichael said: “It was obvious that this policy was destined to fail from the beginning, and this couldn’t have been made any clearer than the Supreme Court ruling.“The Conservatives have already spent far too much time, energy and money on this failing policy. It’s time for James Cleverly to get serious and get on with fixing the broken asylum system. “Tackling the sky-high asylum backlog and creating safe and legal routes for sanctuary will make far more progress towards that than this pet project policy ever could.”Prime minister Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda plans are being closely watched by his MPsThe Law Society of England and Wales was sceptical about Mr Cleverly’s assurances, saying it “remains unclear” how the treaty will overcome the Supreme Court ruling based on a “well-established principle of international law”.Nick Emmerson, the president of the professional association representing solicitors, argued that neither the deal nor new legislation “can overnight provide adequate means of safeguarding the rights of people removed to Rwanda”.Steve Valdez-Symonds, from Amnesty International, said: “With this treaty, ministers are once again doubling down on a fundamentally reckless policy of not processing asylum claims made in the UK – even while expecting other countries to deal with the asylum claims they receive. “The policy of not processing claims has already created a massive, costly and inhuman backlog, in which tens of thousands of people are now simply stuck in limbo.“The gross political fantasy that Rwanda can simply receive these people from the UK is utterly immoral, wholly impractical and sets a terrible example on the world stage.” Enver Solomon, from the Refugee Council, said: “It’s time for the government to admit that the Rwanda plan just isn’t the right way forward. Instead, we need to develop a fair and compassionate approach to refugee protection that focuses on providing safe routes and a fair hearing for those seeking safety in the UK.”Last month, former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption accused the government of trying to “change the facts by law” by declaring Rwanda safe. He also said the scheme was “probably dead”. More