Home News

Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the worldSign up to our free Morning Headlines emailTwo years and £370m later, the Rwanda plan launched by Priti Patel and Boris Johnson remains stuck in parliamentary purgatory, facing a comstant barrage of amendments and counter-amendments from Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and the House of Lords.In the latest setback from Mr Sunak, peers voted on 20 March 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. With so much back-and-forth on the Rwanda scheme, we want to know if you think the plans are the best way to tackle the challenges faced by the UK asylum system.And even if the scheme was eventually implemented, is shipping asylum seekers off to Kigali the best way to deal with the small boat crisis?It has been previously reported that Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer is considering “detailed plans” for a so-called offshoring scheme, as he seeks to deter Tory attacks on Labour’s alternative to the Rwanda plan.The plan would see migrants having asylum claims processed overseas, with successful applicants allowed to come to the UK. But would you back this move?Meanwhile, the Institute for Public Policy Research has also set out an alternative proposal to the Government’s “impractical” and “costly” Rwanda scheme, including launching a unique refugee visa, particularly for Afghans, allowing them to apply for temporary leave to enter the UK via embassies in other countries, diminishing the need for Channel crossings.Alongside this, the IPPR called for renewed collaboration with European nations to tackle jointly people smuggling, resolve immigration statuses in northern France, and develop mutual agreements on processing asylum claims.Share your thoughts by adding them in the comments – we’ll highlight the most insightful ones as they come in.All you have to do is sign up and register your details – then you can then take part in the discussion. You can also sign up by clicking ‘log in’ on the top right-hand corner of the screen.Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here.Join the conversation with other Independent readers below. 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

Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the worldSign up to our free Morning Headlines emailArmed forces minister James Heappey is to leave his role in government and quit as an MP at the next general election. Mr Heappey, Tory MP for Wells in Somerset, is stepping down to prioritise his family and pursue a different career. The minister, who served in the army in Iraq, Afghanistan and Northern Ireland before joining parliament, said in a letter published online that he had made a “painful decision” to stand down as a candidate in the upcoming general election.Mr Heappey served in the army before becoming an MP He continued: “I have concluded that now is the time to step away from politics, prioritise my family, and pursue a different career”. He said that he would continue to support prime minster Rishi Sunak in his leadership of the Conservative party as a minister “until such time as he wishes me to step down, and then from the backbenches” – adding: “I intend to make each of my remaining days in Westminster count”. Responding to Mr Heappey’s announcement on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, his former boss Ben Wallace said: “James, you are an outstanding minister and one of the best. “Your work on defence and support to the agenda of reform was indispensable. There is a lot to be proud of. Thank you”. Shadow armed forces minister Luke Pollard wished Mr Heappey well, saying: “James and I come from different political traditions but, as his shadow, I have always respected him as a minister. In particular I want to thank him for his support to our friends in Ukraine in resisting Putin’s illegal and brutal invasion.”LidDem’s defence spokesperson Richard Foord said the resignation was “yet another blow to Rishi Sunak’s authority”. He added: “Sunak needs to put the country out of its misery and call an election now instead of allowing this farce to drag on any longer.”Mr Heappey was made a minister by Boris Johnson in 2022 after endorsing him to be leader of the Tory party. He had been a front-runner to replace Mr Wallace as defence secretary but the job was given to Grant Shapps instead. The Times, who first broke the story, reported that Mr Heappey would be standing down from his ministerial role at the end of the month.The newspaper quoted an anonymous Tory MP who said the veteran had been on “resignation watch” after telling colleagues privately that he was unhappy about the level of defence spending. However another source told the paper that while Mr Heappey had been pushing for increased spending this didn’t have anything to do with his decision to stand down. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s recent budget contained no new money for defence despite multiple ministers publicly calling for an increase to spending. Mr Heappey adds his name to a growing list of Tory MPs to announce they are to leave Parliament, with former prime minister Theresa May and former party chairman Sir Brandon Lewis some of the most recent additions. He is the 62nd Tory MP to announce that they will not be standing at the next election. Mr Sunak on Thursday ruled out holding an election on May 2 to coincide with local elections, having previously indicated he will send the country to the polls in the latter half of 2024.Mr Heappey’s constituency of Wells currently has a Tory majority of 9,991, with the LibDems being the second most popular party. The Ministry of Defence said it would not be commenting. More

Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the worldSign up to our free Morning Headlines emailA new government plan to wipe out all badgers in certain areas has prompted a fresh row between officials and wildlife activists.Badgers are blamed for carrying bovine tuberculosis (bTB), which forces dairy farmers to have infected herds culled.The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has back-tracked on earlier promises to end the badger cull, which began in 2013.Instead, as revealed by The Independent last month, officials are proposing to allow 100 per cent of populations to be killed in “cluster” hot spots for the disease. Until now, the target was 70 per cent or above.But animal-welfare supporters are considering renewed legal action over the policy.They claim:The cull is politically motivated to suit certain factions, especially farmersThere are no restrictions on the number of cull areas and the public will not know where they areSlack controls will confuse enforcement bodies and the publicThe numbers killed could double in just over a decade to half a millionDefra is ignoring the science that has disproven evidence officials are relying onUnder targeted culling – or “epidemiological culling” – badgers may be wiped out in areas, mostly southwest England, where bovine TB (bTB) is considered a particular threat.The deadlier policy could begin next year. The government had previously indicated culling could be ended by 2026 before Thursday’s u-turn. Labour has promised to end the cull if it wins power at the general election.Tom Langton, an ecologist who has challenged culling in the courts, said 100 per cent culling was tried in 2018 in Cumbria. “They shot 1,115 badgers – all of them – but could not then attribute change in TB rates to culling as seven farms were quite clearly reinfecting themselves because of the failed testing regime,” he said.He cited a report that found no demonstrable benefit in lower TB rates in cattle.“The new prolonged killing spree, under what looks like a highly simplified licence system, could see the badger tally rise from around 250,000 shot to-date, towards 300,000 by 2030 and half a million by 2038,” he said.“This would be a cull of largely healthy adult badgers and their cubs, cruelly slaughtered using crude methods opposed by the British Veterinary Association, and for no good reason.”The High Court rejected a legal challenge by Mr Langton to culling in 2018, but he said The Badger Crowd organisation, of which he is a member, could consider joining separate legal action already underway.Peter Hambly, executive director of the Badger Trust, said the consultation announced by Defra revealed “yet another appalling attack on a protected native species”.He said tackling bTB could only be done by accurate herd management, more rigorous reliable testing and cattle vaccination. But “the government appears only to listen to stakeholders with vested interests and is fixated instead on a badger-focused policy that affects all of us and our right to nature.“Government bTB policy in England continues to allow poor hygiene and biosecurity on farms yet still provides millions of pounds in compensation to farmers, and the movement of cattle across the country under knowingly unreliable testing and biosecurity regimes.”Government sources hit back, saying the aim of the policy was not to kill all badgers.Environment secretary Steve Barclay said: “Bovine TB has taken a terrible toll on farmers, leading to the loss of highly prized animals and, in the worst cases, valued herds.“There are no easy answers in the battle against TB, but badger culling has proved highly effective and needs to remain a key part of our approach.“Our strategy has led to a significant reduction in this insidious disease, which we will continue to cull in areas where the evidence confirms it is required, as well as making use of vaccinations.” More

Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the worldSign up to our free Morning Headlines emailThe government is set to create a list of “extremist” groups that will be blacklisted from funding and prevented from meeting ministers and civil servants under new plans drawn up by Michael Gove.Mr Gove, the levelling up secretary, said he will use a new definition of extremism to try and crack down on the “pervasiveness of extremist ideologies” that have “become increasingly clear” in the aftermath of the 7 October attack by Hamas on Israel.The definition says extremism is the advancement of a violent, hateful or intolerant ideology that aims to “negate or destroy” the rights of others, or which aims to “undermine, overturn or replace” the UK’s democracy and democratic rights.Extremism is also defined as the promotion of an ideology that aims to “intentionally create a permissive environment” for others to achieve the same aims.The definition does not create new powers, is not statutory and has no effect on existing criminal law. Michael Gove has been criticised for his plans which some say are a threat to freedom of expressionThe new definition has already faced criticism from three former home secretaries and Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, all of whom cautioned the government over the risk of politicising anti-extremism.The archbishop said that the plans risk “disproportionately targeting Muslim communities”. He added: “The new definition being proposed not only inadvertently threatens freedom of speech, but also the right to worship and peaceful protest – things that have been hard won and form the fabric of a civilised society.”Government officials insist that the definition sets a “high bar” that will only capture the most concerning activities. Those who provide a “permissive environment” for extremist groups will be classed as those who repeatedly offer a platform for individuals despite knowing that they have been blacklisted, for example.As well as not receiving funding or meeting with ministers, extremist groups or individuals will be barred from public appointments and from receiving honours.The government published the extremism definition on Thursday and civil servants will now spend the next few weeks deciding which groups fit the criteria. Inclusion on the list will then be signed off by Mr Gove. The Department for Levelling Up has committed to publishing the list when it is complete and has not ruled out putting individuals on the list in the future.Those who are designated as extremists will be contacted by officials and given the opportunity to provide mitigating evidence, detailing why they shouldn’t be included. But once they are included on the list of extremist organisations their only recourse will be in the courts.It is likely that one or more of the groups listed will try to bring a judicial review against the policy.Mr Gove announced the new definition by praising the diversity of Britain, but he warned that British values and democracy are “under challenge from extremists”. He added: “The pervasiveness of extremist ideologies has become increasingly clear in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks and poses a real risk to the security of our citizens and our democracy.Read: A defining moment as ministers update what counts as extremism“This is the work of the extreme right-wing and Islamist extremists who are seeking to separate Muslims from the rest of society and create division within Muslim communities. They seek to radicalise individuals, deny people their full rights, suppress freedom of expression, incite hatred, and undermine our democratic institutions.”Mr Gove said that the measures would “ensure that government does not inadvertently provide a platform to those setting out to subvert democracy and deny other people’s fundamental rights”. Speaking to media on Thursday morning, Mr Gove suggested that a Tory donor’s alleged call for a Black MP to be “shot” would not meet the new definition of extremist. Businessman Frank Hester is alleged to have said that Diane Abbott, Britain’s first black female MP, made him “want to hate all black women”, in comments described as “racist” by the prime minister. Mr Gove told Times Radio: “I wouldn’t want to conflate those motivated by extremist ideology with an individual comment, however horrific, which has quite rightly been called out and which has quite rightly led to an apology.”Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader reacted to the announcement by saying that “tinkering with a new definition” was not enough to tackle extremism. She added: “The government’s counterextremism strategy is now nine years out of date, and they’ve repeatedly failed to define Islamophobia. Any suggestion that the government has been engaging with groups that they’ve now decided are extremists raises serious questions over why it has taken so long to act.”The announcement comes as polling from More in Common finds that 25 per cent of the public thinks the UK is unsafe for Muslims and 39 per cent think it is unsafe for Jews. This is compared to 15 per cent of those surveyed saying Britain was unsafe for them personally. The polling company surveyed 2,027 adults. More

Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the worldSign up to our free Morning Headlines emailPeers have voted to exempt Afghan heroes who have supported UK troops from being sent to Rwanda as part of Rishi Sunak’s flagship small boats bill. The House of Lords backed an amendment on Wednesday night that would prevent the government from removing anyone who supported British armed forces in an “exposed or meaningful manner” from being deported to the African country. It comes after extensive reporting by The Independent on the plight of Afghan heroes who helped the British but were left behind after the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan.Two former chiefs of defence staff, a former defence secretary and a former British ambassador to the US were among the Lords who supported the clause. Peers voted 244 to 160 in favour of the amendment tabled by Labour peer Des Browne, which also covers the family members of those who supported British troops. The Independent has documented a number of cases of asylum seekers who supported the UK armed forces efforts in Afghanistan and who have since been threatened with removal to Rwanda after arriving in the UK via small boat. Peers inflicted a number of heavy defeats against Mr Sunak’s bill on Wednesday night. The House of Lords also backed an amendment that would overturn the government’s plan to oust the domestic courts from the process of deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda. The clause, backed by 278 votes to 189, restores the jurisdiction of the domestic courts in determining the safety of Rwanda and allows them to intervene in certain cases. Ahead of the next election, Rishi Sunak has made ‘stopping the boats’ a key pledge of his leadershipMr Sunak’s government is using the Safety of Rwanda Bill to try and prevent any legal challenges by asylum seekers to their deportation. The bill also currently gives ministers the power to ignore emergency injunctions from the European Court of Human Rights, aiming at clearing the way to send asylum seekers on flights to Rwanda by spring. Peers in the House of Lords also voted by 265 to 181 to enable UK courts to consider appeals against age assessment decisions before a person claiming to be an unaccompanied child is removed to Rwanda. The latest government setbacks to its Rwanda Bill follow five defeats on Monday, setting the stage for an extended tussle between the Commons and Lords during “ping-pong”, where legislation is batted between the two Houses until agreement is reached.The prime minister had previously warned the Lords against frustrating “the will of the people” by hampering the passage of the bill, which has already been approved by MPs.Ahead of the next election, Mr Sunak has made “stopping the boats” a key pledge of his leadership.Speaking against the bill on Wednesday, Labour frontbencher Lord Coaker said: “The courts are there to ensure justice is done and I think justice in this case does require the ability for the law, as it impacts on an individual, to be tested in the courts.“That strikes me as something which is fundamental to the way rule of law operates.“Sometimes that’s really inconvenient to governments… but justice is an important part of our democracy.”Speaking in favour of the amendment to stop the deportation of age-disputed children, Lord Dubs, a former child refugee from Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia, said: “It’s difficult assessing the age of children, officials can get it wrong, and this modest amendment simply seeks to provide a safeguard against getting it wrong. Yes, the minister can say, ‘If we get it wrong the child can be brought back from Rwanda’. What a terrible thing to subject a child to.“Asylum-seeking children are among the most vulnerable of all asylum seekers.”Lord Alf Dubs is veteran campaigner for refugeesThe Bishop of Chelmsford, the Rt Rev Dr Guli Francis-Dehqani, a former child refugee from Iran, said: “Safeguarding is not some burdensome requirement, but a legal and moral imperative.”She asked: “Would you consent for this course of action for your own child or grandchild? I do not believe there is any one among us who would.”The government’s own provisions in the Safety of Rwanda Bill would mean a person claiming to be an unaccompanied child is assessed by two Home Office officials and a decision is made based on appearance and demeanour.If they are judged to be an adult, they will be sent to Rwanda. The unamended bill would allow judicial review if certain conditions are met, but the person claiming to be a child would need to engage with the process from Rwanda.They would also only be able to challenge the decision based on an error in the law, not on the basis of an error in fact. More

Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the worldSign up to our free Morning Headlines emailParents have been warned of new rules for taking their children out of school, with higher fines set to be introduced for those who don’t seek permission.The controversial move follows a drop in attendance after the pandemic and a rise in homeschooling.School absence fines currently start at £60, rising to £120 if they are not paid within 21 days. But the DfE has said fines will now start at £80, rising to £160.Data reveals that nearly 90% of fines were for unauthorised holidays, often booked outside school terms for financial reasons.While Education Secretary Gillian Keegan has emphasised the importance of attendance, critics argue that fines may not be the most effective tool. They call for targeted resources to address the root causes of poor attendance, including support for vulnerable families and children’s mental health.We want to know if you think these steeper penalties will fix widespread truancy issues, or will they simply punish parents who are already trying their best to get their children to school?And even if you don’t struggle the peel your child from their bed in the morning, with the cost of going away rocketing during school holidays, many parents are understandably tempted to take their children abroad in term time to save pennies and allow their family to experience the wonders of travel.If you want to share your opinion then add it in the comments and we’ll highlight the most insightful ones as they come in.All you have to do is sign up and register your details – then you can then take part in the discussion. You can also sign up by clicking ‘log in’ on the top right-hand corner of the screen.Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here.Join the conversation with other Independent readers below or by clicking here. More

Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the worldSign up to our free Morning Headlines emailThe average council tax bill across England is more than £2,000 a year – and it’s only set to get more costly come April.For many, council tax is likely to increase by the maximum amount possible as local authorities across the country hope to boost their finances.By increasing council tax by 4.99 per cent, the levelling-up department is hoping to raise £2bn from taxpayers despite Rishi Sunak’s suggestion of pre-election giveaways.Most of us have to pay council tax, whether you are a homeowner or renter. The money is used to fund a range of services, including street lamps, libraries and waste collection.A portion also goes towards local police and fire and rescue services.What you pay is determined by what your property would have sold for in 1991 in England and 2003 in Wales, as well as your personal circumstances. With another rise imminent, we want to know whether you think council tax provides value for money.Do you think the right services are getting the money where you are? Are there enough concessions on council tax during a cost of living crisis? And would you be happy to pay more to make your area a better place to live?If you want to share your opinion then add it in the comments and we’ll highlight the most insightful ones as they come in.All you have to do is sign up and register your details – then you can then take part in the discussion. You can also sign up by clicking ‘log in’ on the top right-hand corner of the screen.Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here.Join the conversation with other Independent readers below. More