Home News

Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the worldSign up to our free Morning Headlines emailSenior MP William Wragg has resigned the Conservative whip after he admitted giving politicians’ phone numbers to a suspected scammer.The party’s whips office said he was “voluntarily relinquishing the Conservative whip” after he had already stepped back from his roles as vice-chair of the backbench 1922 Committee and chair of the commons public administration and constitutional affairs committee.The Hazel Grove MP had previously announced his intention to leave parliament at the next election and will now sit as an independent.Mr Wragg admitted last week that he had given colleagues’ phone numbers to someone on a dating app amid fears that intimate images of himself would be leaked after he was targeted in a parliamentary sexting scam.Scotland Yard has said it is investigating reports of the so-called “honey trap” scam after it was suggested that at least 12 men in political circles received unsolicited messages, raising security concerns.The investigation is not thought to involve the security services.The unknown scammer is said to have used the aliases “Charlie” and “Abi” while sending flirtatious messages to coax MPs into sending explicit pictures.Mr Wragg said he was sorry for his “weakness” in responding, an apology which was praised as “courageous and fulsome” by chancellor Jeremy Hunt.But pressure has mounted in recent days amid concerns over parliamentary security, with critics from across the political divide questioning Mr Wragg’s behaviour. More

Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the worldSign up to our free Morning Headlines emailA minister has warned people should not arrested just because they smell amid a mounting backlash over a fiercely criticised piece of legislation which criminalises homelessness.Draft legislation for the Criminal Justice Bill seeks to criminalise “nuisance rough sleeping”, stating this includes anyone who has slept rough, is “intending to sleep rough”, or “gives the appearance” of sleeping rough and causes a nuisance while doing so.The definition of so-called “nuisance” even includes “excessive smells”. Offenders can be hit with a month in prison or fines of up to £2,500 if convicted.Education Secretary Gillian Keegan told Sky News on Tuesday she would back government policy but warned people “should not be arrested just if they smell”.She added: “I haven’t looked at that detail of it, but I guess the word is ‘excessive’, and I don’t know what they mean by that.”Her comments come as over 40 Conservative MPs are expected to rebel against elements of the controversial legislation that criminalise “nuisance” rough sleepers.It comes after leading housing charities recently told The Independent they fear measures criminalising homelessness in the Criminal Justice Bill could hit women hardest.The new legislation, expected to become law before the general election, includes vague ill-defined measures that mean sleeping in doorways or hidden spots could be defined as nuisance behaviour and therefore criminalised. Campaigners are fearful women could be worst hit due to the fact they often seek out hidden spots to protect themselves from sexual violence, harassment and other dangers when sleeping on the streets.A former rough sleeper recently told The Independent about her experience of being homeless on and off from the age of 16 until her forties as she branded the bill a “Dickensian” piece of legislation.“It’s a disgrace,” the now 54-year-old said. “If the government thinks the way to end homelessness is to outlaw it, then they are not facing the issue of homelessness. To say, ‘you look homeless, so I’m going to arrest you’ – that is leaving the police with an untold amount of power to just arrest anybody that they like.”Former home secretary Suella Braverman – who provoked criticism when she referred to rough sleeping as a “lifestyle choice” – introduced the legislation to parliament.Senior government sources say the bill has been put on hold while ministers consult with MPs from both the left and right of the Tory Party who have raised fears about the proposals, The Times reports.Bob Blackman, a Tory MP for Harrow East, has tabled measures to ensure the government meets its initial pledge to repeal the 1824 Vagrancy Act.The Criminal Justice Bill has been branded as “the Vagrancy Act 2.0 on steroids” by senior Lib Dem MP Layla Moran – in reference to the intensely criticised 200-year-old piece of legislation.While parliament voted to repeal the Vagrancy Act in February 2022, this has not yet come into force, and the advent of the Criminal Justice Bill signifies a U-turn from the government given the draconian measures included in the legislation. More

Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the worldSign up to our free Morning Headlines emailTwo years on and Priti Patel and Boris Johnson’s Rwanda plan remains stalled in Parliament. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and the House of Lords keep clashing over amendments – but Independent readers are largely united in their view that the scheme should be scrapped altogether.The immigration policy, first proposed in April 2022, would see asylum seekers relocated to Rwanda for processing and resettlement.However, legal challenges have so far prevented anyone being sent to the East African country.With so much back-and-forth on the Rwanda scheme, we asked if you felt the plans are the best way to tackle the challenges faced by the UK asylum system.The overwhelming majority of readers were keen to see the plans axed, labelling it “ridiculous”, a “costly totem” and “another Brexit failure”.The comments came as the United Nations Human Rights Committee urged Britain on Thursday to abandon the contentious bill. The committee said it was calling on the British government to withdraw the bill or repeal it if it passed.Here’s what you had to say:‘Ridiculous plan’A ridiculous plan without any legal merit or justification, created by a morally bankrupt Government with the sole intention of further dividing society. Iain Banks called it out 11 years ago in his final interview.“I won’t miss waiting for the next financial disaster because we haven’t dealt with the underlying causes of the last one. Nor will I be disappointed not to experience the results of the proto-fascism that’s rearing its grisly head right now. It’s the utter idiocy, the sheer wrong-headedness of the response that beggars belief. I mean, your society’s broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No let’s blame the people with no power and no money and these immigrants who don’t even have the vote, yeah it must be their fault.”Wokebloke‘A fortune spent with no result’A foolish plan thought up by right-wing fools, a fortune spent with no result.The UK has a vast shortage of workers in healthcare and agriculture, add those to the many other skills that are needed because of years of neglect by the government and the huge gaps in apprenticeships that have caused a huge skills shortage.Instead of spending millions on a foolhardy deportation scheme wouldn’t it be better to educate and train people, give people a chance to earn, pay tax, and pay national insurance, all of which the UK needs?Yes, there has to be a limit and a degree of tolerance, but let’s grab some of these people. Wasn’t the USA built on migration?swordfish‘Ship them across by ferry’The best way to deal with small boats is for the government to ship them across by ferry for the same price instead of the traffickers and divert the revenue to processing the claims on board the vessel and provision of temporary accommodation so it does not cost the taxpayer.A £5000 charge would allow for at least a few days in a hotel to process claims and deport if necessary.An efficient processing system needs developing to ensure effective throughput.Freedom‘Foaming hatred’The criminal waste of taxpayers’ money on this ridiculous farce would have paid for the recruitment of additional staff to clear the backlog of applications. However, pinheaded Cruellas were blinded by their foaming hatred.Galileo666‘Another Brexit failure’The Rwanda ‘plan’ has been dead in the water for months. The only reason that this zombie fiasco still lurches on is its usefulness as a sop to the Tory right-wing and to serve as a distraction from the woeful performance of the Home Office in failing to process applications.In one sense it’s another Brexit failure. The need for an enlarged civil service currently failing to cope with an increased burden of bureaucracy is a direct consequence of the loss of administrators in Brussels.Nobody except the most deluded optimists on the fruitloop wing of the Tory Party is in the slightest doubt that there isn’t the remotest likelihood of any aircraft leaving the tarmac.It’s a national scandal that so much public money has been wasted on this ridiculous populist wheeze.PinkoRadical‘A government that cannot afford to lose’Just looking at the whole Rwanda thing from top to tail, what struck me is at every junction, at every pressure point, every node there is a new revelation that just never feels British. Never feels like the type of thing we would do in our recent history. We have transported people in the past, be it prisoners or orphans, but now?We have had to compromise so much to get this policy anyway near completion.To spend so much time, money and effort to get this through the House of Lords and the courts, I wonder if people consider losing our cultural values just to send people thousands of miles to appease racist idiots worth it in the end. Threatening to leave the European Court of Human Rights, breaking international law, trying to sidestep our own courts by spurious legislation, is that who we think we are, or are willing to become to push a policy that does not really fit us?We now have a government that cannot afford to lose face in front of the least desirable people in our country. What a mess.Jim987‘We’re not taking our fair share’Leaving aside the considerable legal and moral considerations weighing in against Rwanda, consider with cold logic the so-called rationale:- We are full: No, we’re not. And we’re not taking our fair share, either.- Infrastructure (housing, schools, NHS etc) strains: Whose fault is that? Certainly not a few thousand refugees. 1.2m authorised immigrants in 2023…. people we NEED and come in via points scheme….. and the Cons are fussing about Channel crossings (2% of that) and potential Rwanda numbers (0.1% of it). WHY?- Housing costs £s billions: Whose fault is that? BACKLOG escalated £s. Who let it build up? NAO data shows a) Rwanda will cost MORE than housing the equivalent number in hotels & b) huge cost associated with converting the Bibby, airfields etc.- Rwanda as deterrent: No evidence for it. How would a scheme that, at best / worst, would impact on less than 10% of total Channel migrants be a deterrent? Crossings are primarily affected by weather, vary hugely by year. 2022 was unusually high (c.45k) but 2023 dropped back by half, due to Channel conditions and efforts in France. If it’s a deterrent, how on earth does that make sense?- Rwanda IS safe: No, it isn’t. Cons can legislate till they’re blue in the face that black is white and up is down but their spokesperson in HoL admitted Rwanda is NOT safe now and won’t be, until conditions in the Treaty we’ve done with them are met. Those conditions have barely even been kicked off yet, let alone completed.All in all, the proposal doesn’t really hold any water, does it? In fact, it might be the perfect vessel for crossing the Channel.Lysistrata2‘Costly totem’The Rwanda scheme is just a costly totem offered up to the electorate as a pretence that the Tories are actually tackling immigration. It will not work and would make little or no difference to the overall numbers if it did but it diverts attention away from more significant factors like the number of foreign students coming to this country and the money that brings in.Mythicalking‘Culture wars’The easiest way to stop the small boats is to open up safe and legal routes to claim asylum in the UK. This would cut off the people smugglers at a stroke and save many lives too. But this government won’t do that, because they need the small boats as a visible tool in their culture wars. The Tories are, in effect, subsidising the people smugglers.June63‘Blurring the lines’STOP THE MADNESS NOW!I have listened carefully to all the parliamentary debates in both houses. The devil is in the detail. The bill says that Rwanda is safe and no-one – not even our highest courts – can say otherwise, whatever happens or will happen there in the future. This is such a dangerous precedent and smacks of a very unpopular government saying ‘we know best’.The scheme gobbles an undefined amount of cash for an undefined number of removals. The government has the audacity to withhold its predictions of these vital figures from the public.All this stacking against the scheme before any consideration of the trampling over of human rights and neglect of our global responsibilities to protect and provide a safe haven for those legitimately fleeing war and persecution – however they arrived.An efficient and speedy assessment and removal system would be much more of a deterrent and save a huge amount of money of hotels and dodgy barges.The government specialises in blurring the lines between ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ migration. The former being by far the highest figure. They allow the public to scrap with migrants over the scarce public facilities – doctors, dentists, housing etc – all of this government’s own making.I think all conservative MPs blindly following the whip in the commons to prop up a failing government need to take a long hard look at themselves.ToteswokeSome of the comments have been edited for this article. You can read the full discussion in the comments section of the original article.All you have to do is sign up, submit your question 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. More

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