Home News

Ministers have for the first time signed a deal to send asylum seekers arriving in the UK to another country to have their cases processed, in a move experts warn will encourage people traffickers.Boris Johnson is set to announce an agreement with Rwanda that will see migrants “offshored” more than 4,000 miles away to the landlocked African country while they wait for an asylum decision from the Home Office.It is understood that the Rwandan government will be paid an initial cost of £120m under the deal, which will be funded by the British taxpayer.The prime minister is expected to set out the plans in a speech on Thursday morning, stating:“Our compassion may be infinite, but our capacity to help people is not.“The British people voted several times to control our borders – not to close them, but to control them. So just as Brexit allowed us to take back control of legal immigration by replacing free movement with our points-based system, we are also taking back control of illegal immigration, with a long-term plan for asylum in this country.”But while the government claims the move will allow the UK to “take back control”, critics condemned the policy, saying it was “cruel and nasty”.Describing it as “unworkable, unethical and extortionate”, shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper warned that it would cost the UK taxpayer billions of pounds during a cost of living crisis and would make it “harder, not easier” to get fast and fair asylum decisions.She slammed the announcement as a “desperate and shameful” attempt by Mr Johnson to “distract from his own law-breaking” and from the “collapse” of the Home Office’s decision-making on asylum claims, which sees thousands waiting for more than a year for a decision.“The Home Office is now a catalogue of failure, from passport queues to Ukrainian visa delays, to rising crime and falling prosecutions. Instead of getting a grip on the basics, all Priti Patel and Mr Johnson do is come up with wild and unworkable headlines. Britain deserves better,” she added.Enver Solomon, of the Refugee Council, described the plan as “cruel and nasty” and said it would do little to deter people from coming to the UK, only leading to “more human suffering and chaos”.“Far from enabling people to rebuild their lives, we know from where this has been done by other countries [that] it only results in high levels of self-harm and mental health issues, and can also lead to people ending up back in the hands of people smugglers,” he said.The plan to develop capacity for offshore processing forms part of the Home Office’s controversial Nationality and Borders Bill, which is currently going through parliament.Senior Tories have condemned the measure, with former cabinet minister Andrew Mitchell warning that the move would involve building a “British Guantanamo Bay” and would cost £2m per asylum seeker – more than putting them up in the Ritz hotel.Richard Harrington, the government’s own refugees minister, said only last week that he had not been informed of the plans, and indicated that any such policy is likely to fail.Critics point to a similar migration deal between Rwanda and Israel between 2014 and 2017, which resulted in most of those who were sent there leaving the country and making the dangerous journey to Europe – during which many people were trafficked and sold.Campaigners have also warned that the plan is likely to see LGBT+ asylum seekers who have fled life-threatening situations in their home countries and sought protection in the UK being sent to a country where it is not safe for gay and transgender people to be open about their sexual orientation.There is widespread evidence of ill-treatment and abuse of LGBT+ people in Rwanda, with a Human Rights Watch report last year stating that Rwandan authorities had rounded up and arbitrarily detained gay and transgender people in the country.A policy of offshoring asylum seekers in Australia, which ran from 2001 to 2007 and restarted in 2014, has seen thousands diverted to Nauru or Manus Island to have their claims processed. The policy has been widely condemned, with Amnesty International saying it amounted to indefinite detention in what may be considered “degrading or inhumane” conditions.Sonya Sceats, chief executive at Freedom from Torture, said the plans were “deeply disturbing” and should “horrify anybody with a conscience”.“Australia’s experiment with offshore processing camps became a hotbed of human rights abuses, where sexual abuse of women and children was rife,” she said. “It is even more dismaying that the UK government has agreed this deal with a state known to practice torture, as we know from the many Rwandan torture survivors we have treated over the years.”Mr Johnson will state in his announcement that the plan will “ensure the UK has a world-leading asylum offer, providing generous protection to those directly fleeing the worst of humanity, by settling thousands of people every year through safe and legal routes”.Following Mr Johnson’s speech, home secretary Ms Patel will announce further details on what the government has dubbed a “world-first migration and economic development partnership” during a visit to Rwanda.Where has ‘offshoring’ been used before?There are many details yet to emerge on the UK government’s new migration deal with Rwanda, but the aim is clear: send asylum seekers away to deter them from arriving on our shores.A policy of “offshoring” asylum seekers is a first for the UK, but it has been done – though examples are limited – in other parts of the world.Australia started placing asylum seekers in detention centres on Nauru and Manus Island in 2001. The policy ran until 2007, and restarted in 2014. It has seen thousands placed in detention camps, at a cost of around $12bn in the eight years to 2021.Up to three-quarters of asylum seekers being held in Australia’s offshore camps were ultimately determined to be refugees, but the government denied them any prospect of resettlement in the country.The harsh physical conditions in the centres have been well documented, with detainees suffering from poor mental health due to prolonged detention and uncertainty about their future prospects, inadequate and unhygienic living conditions, and a poor standard of healthcare.At least 10 people have taken their lives while being held in Australia’s offshore processing centres.No evidence has been found for the effectiveness of the Australian model of offshore asylum processing in the reduction of migration flows, according to a report by the Open Society European Policy Institute.Announcing its new “migration and economic development” deal, the government described Rwanda as “one of the fastest-growing economies in Africa which is recognised globally for its record on welcoming and integrating migrants”.But a similar migration deal between Rwanda and Israel between 2014 and 2017 is said to have resulted in nearly all of the 4,000 people estimated to have been sent there leaving the country almost immediately.Many attempted to return to Europe via people-smuggling routes, where trafficking and human rights abuses are rife, notably along the journey through Libya.In a less direct example, the EU has also been accused of using a form of offshoring by outsourcing its efforts to curb migration to the Libyan coastguard, which the bloc has funded to carry out “pushbacks” in the Mediterranean and bring migrants back to Libya.Migrants have subsequently been detained in centres and have fallen victim to ruthless trafficking gangs, who have subjected them to torture in a bid to extort money from their relatives back in their home countries.Denmark signed a migration deal with Rwanda last year, as well as passing an act allowing the country to relocate asylum seekers to outside the EU while their cases are being processed, though no migrants are believed to have been sent from Denmark to Rwanda yet.The African Union strongly condemned the move, accusing Denmark of “burden shifting” and highlighting that Africa already “shoulders the burden” of many of the world’s refugees.With no offshore policy across the world known to have been a success, and many human rights abuses having resulted from such policies, the UK’s plan comes with considerable risks. More

The Attorney General has asked judges at the Court of Appeal to clarify the law around whether defendants can use their human rights as a defence when they are accused of criminal damage.Suella Braverman made the referral in the wake of the acquittals of four people accused of pulling down the statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol during a Black Lives Matter protest. The bronze memorial was then rolled by a crowd through the streets of the city before being dumped in the harbour.Rhian Graham, 30, Milo Ponsford, 26, Sage Willoughby, 22, and Jake Skuse, 33, dubbed the “Colston Four” were acquitted of criminal damage despite acknowledging their part in toppling the monument. Any future ruling by the Court of Appeal, however, will not impact the four defendants’ acquittals.Ms Braverman concluded the case led to uncertainty regarding the interaction between the offence of criminal damage and the rights relevant to protest peacefully.Jurors were asked to decide if they believed a conviction for criminal damage was a “proportionate interference” with the defendants’ human rights of freedom of expression, thought and conscience.It was the final question in the “route to verdict” – a series of steps for a jury to follow when deciding if someone is guilty or not guilty.Ms Braverman said that she had also asked the court to consider whether it was up to juries to decide if a criminal conviction is a proportionate interference with someone’s human rights.During the trial in December and January of this year at Bristol Crown Court, the four defendants each claimed the statue was offensive and a hate crime towards Bristol’s black community.Sage Willoughby compared the statue with Nazism, saying: “Imagine having a Hitler statue in front of a Holocaust survivor – I believe they are similar.”In his directions to jurors, Judge Peter Blair QC said they had to balance the defendants’ human rights against the legislation contained within the Criminal Damage Act.He said that individuals have the right to freedom of thought and conscience and to manifest one’s beliefs, and the right to freedom of expression.Judge Blair said: “These rights protect not only beliefs, such as anti-racism, and speech itself, but also actions associated with protest.“Even where those actions have more than a minimal impact on the rights of other people, they need not result in a conviction. It is all a matter of fact and degree.”He added limitations on human rights are permitted under laws including the Criminal Damage Act if it is “in the interests of public safety or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.The issue of human rights was the last question in the “route to verdict”.The jury was asked if it was sure a conviction for criminal damage would be “a proportionate interference” with the defendants’ “rights to freedom of thought and conscience, and to freedom of expression”.Jurors were told if they were sure the answer was “yes” the verdict should be guilty, and if “no” it should be not guilty.Ms Braverman said: “After careful consideration, I have decided to refer the Colston statue case to the Court of Appeal to clarify the law around protests.“Trial by jury is an important guardian of liberty and critical to that are the legal directions given to the jury.”She added: “It is in the public interest to clarify the points of law raised in these cases for the future. This is a legal matter which is separate from the politics of the case involved.”Ms Braverman acted independently of the government, making the decision in the interests of future cases involving the same point of law.Since 2000, there have been 19 occasions of this power being used by Attorneys Genera. The last time this power was used was in December 2020 when the Attorney clarified the law in relation to sexual assault. More

The government has asked police forces in England and Wales to identify transgender victims of crime by their birth sex in official statistics.In new guidance issued last week, the Home Office said police should record the sex of victims and suspects according to their birth certificate or their gender recognition certificate (GRC), a legal marker of having changed gender.A spokesperson for the department told The Independent that the guidance is voluntary but could be made permanent after April 2023 depending on police feedback.They said it is up to each force how they determine what is on someone’s birth certificate or GRC, and that officers should separately ask people their gender identity if it differs from those documents.However, since only a tiny fraction of trans people have a GRC, the policy means most trans people could be misgendered in official statistics, for example by counting trans women as men if they are attacked or sexually assaulted.It is a victory for gender-critical feminist campaigners who believe that trans women should be excluded from women’s toilets, changing rooms, healthcare facilities, domestic violence shelters, and prisons.Mallory Moore, a researcher with the UK-based Trans Safety Network, said the change would have a “chilling effect” on trans people reporting crimes.“This is a signal to trans victims of crime that they will be misgendered if they seek support,” she said. “I already know people who regularly just don’t report things, because there’s nothing to be gained from reporting things to an institution that’s hostile towards you… this is only going to make that worse.”Ben Collier, a lecturer at the University of Edinburgh who specialises in how government agencies record sex, agreed: “This will further undermine the trust and legitimacy of the police for LGBT people… any practical implementation of this would be extremely cruel, both to victims of crime and people that have committed crimes.”The new Home Office guidance was first revealed by an FOI request from campaign group Keep Prisons Single Sex, which argues that failing to record criminals’ birth sex allows “male crime [to be] hidden in female data”. More

Long delays could be to blame for almost two-thirds of adult rape investigations being dropped because the victim wants to discontinue the case, MPs have warned.A damning report by the Home Affairs Committee discovered 63 per cent of adult rape investigations were terminated between July and September last year because the victim decided to drop their case.The research found some 63,136 rape offences were recorded from September 2020 to September 2021, with MPs noting this is an “all-time high”. Alongside that, the amount of completed rape prosecutions plummeted from 5,190 back in 2016-17 to only 1,557 in 2020-21.MPs condemned the “unacceptably low numbers” of prosecutions for rape and sexual offences as they argued the collapse in rape prosecutions is not likely to be tackled unless victims are provided with improved support and proper nationwide funding is rolled out.The report argued reforms are often still in their early stages or are “localised” and are in need of substantial funding to have repercussions nationally.Earlier in the year, the prosecution rate nosedived to only 1.3 per cent of recorded rapes in England and Wales.Dame Diana Johnson, a Labour MP who is chair of the committee, said: “The collapse in the number of prosecutions for rape and sexual offences over the last five years is truly shocking and completely unacceptable. “While it is clear that significant effort is being put in to reversing this decline across the criminal justice system, there is much further to go. Thousands of victims are failing to get the justice they deserve and this has to stop. From now on the focus must be on supporting the victims.”Dame Diana argued coming forward to the police to report rape should be the start of “getting justice” yet it is now “a source of further pain”.“The fact that even now nearly two-thirds of cases collapse because a victim may not be able to bear going forward is unimaginable,” she added. “We need to see much more ambition and focus. We need better data collection to understand exactly what resources are available to handle rape cases at a local level and how they are performing.”Dame Diana said victims must be supported through their rape case with specialist support and “improved counselling” to cope with trauma. The politician also called for ministers to “further pilot the provision of independent legal advice to victims and survivors grappling with requests from the police to access data from their phones or third-party material.”She added: “From now on there must be constant review and reform of every element of the system handling rape and sexual offences. There cannot be a single step back until prosecutions and convictions are far higher than they were even in 2016.”MPs in the committee warned the government’s rape review, which outlined ministers’ plans to address the collapse in rape charges and prosecutions, has a dearth of “ambition”.“Lengthy delays in cases reaching court, harmful evidence-gathering processes and poor provision of support services are turning people away from seeking justice,” MPs said. The committee report noted at least two-fifths of police forces in England and Wales have no specialist rape teams, while the government fails to record how many police officers are specifically trained to investigate rape. The report called for each police force to have a specialist rape team.It comes after the government apologised to thousands of rape victims last summer, saying it has been unable to seek justice due to the flaws of police and prosecutors. “The vast majority of victims do not see the crime against them charged and reach a court. One in two victims withdraw from rape investigations,” a joint statement from the home secretary, justice secretary and attorney general said.“These are trends of which we are deeply ashamed. Victims of rape are being failed. Thousands of victims have gone without justice. But this isn’t just about numbers – every instance involves a real person who has suffered a truly terrible crime.” More

Dame Cressida Dick has hit out at the “politicisation of policing” in a parting shot as she leaves the Metropolitan Police.In an open letter to Londoners, the departing commissioner took what will be seen as a swipe at mayor Sadiq Khan amid a continuing row over her resignation.“The current politicisation of policing is a threat not just to policing but to trust in the whole criminal justice system,” she wrote.“Operational independence from local and central government is crucial for an effective democracy and is a model respected around the world. We must all treasure and protect it.”The letter was published after Dame Cressida walked out of Scotland Yard to a guard of honour from saluting police officers on Friday, while being clapped and cheered by an assembled crowd.It did not directly refer to the murder of Sarah Everard or a succession of scandals involving allegations of racism, sexism and corruption by officers, but Dame Cressida wrote that the force was rooting out “those among us whose horrific actions have let you all, and us, down so terribly”.She added: “I’m sad my time in this great job is fast drawing to a close however I am extremely optimistic for the Met’s future. It is bigger, more diverse, more capable than ever.”Dame Cressida announced her shock resignation in February, months after having her term extended by Priti Patel.She said she had “no choice but to step aside” because Mr Khan had no confidence in her leadership.The circumstances have become the subject of an escalating political tussle between the Home Office and City Hall.In March, the home secretary ordered a review of the circumstances around Dame Cressida’s resignation by the outgoing chief inspector of constabulary, Sir Tom Winsor. In a statement to parliament, Ms Patel said the circumstances “warrant a closer look at the legislation which governs the suspension and removal of the commissioner”.It will cover the timeline of events and circumstances leading up to Dame Cressida’s resignation, consider “whether due process was followed” and make recommendations for the future, the Home Office said.Dame Cressida Dick resigns from role as Metropolitan Police CommissionerMr Khan said on Friday that he would not “hide from the fact” he lost confidence in the commissioner.Speaking at the launch of Labour’s local election campaign in Barnet, north London, Mr Khan said: “I’m not going to hide from the fact that we’ve had in our city a series of devastating scandals, overt racism, sexism, discrimination, [and] homophobia. We’ve had trust and confidence from Londoners in the police service at rock bottom.“It’s one of the reasons why I lost confidence in her and it’s one of the things I’ll be looking for in a new commissioner – how they will address some of these serious issues that, frankly speaking, the current commissioner failed to address.”In her letter, Dame Cressida said she would always look back on her time as commissioner “with pride for what has been achieved” and hailed drops in murders, shootings, stabbings and other types of violence.She described the Metropolitan Police as a “world-class police service” that was a “wonderful place to work” and “far more diverse and inclusive than it has ever been”.“Of course as I look back there is more I wish we had achieved,” she added. “We are listening and acting on what you tell us so we can change for the better.”One of the co-founders of the Reclaim These Streets group, which won a legal challenge over the Metropolitan Police’s threat to fine members £10,000 for organising a vigil for Sarah Everard, said the letter was blaming “a few bad apples”.“I wish Cressida Dick had used her parting letter to admit that there are institutional problems of misogyny and racism that she failed to get a grip on, and a damaging locker room culture that her successor urgently needs to tackle,” Anna Birley told The Independent.“I hope her departure marks the beginning of the hard work needed to improve culture, tackle discrimination and build confidence in policing among women in the capital.”The director of the Centre for Women’s Justice, which has supported several legal challenges against the Metropolitan Police over its treatment of women, said Dame Cressida’s loyalty to fellow officers “always seems to take precedence over public concerns”.Harriet Wistrich added: “To describe the police as a ‘wonderful place to work’ is to turn a deaf ear to the horrendous misogyny, racism, homophobia and sexual violence we have heard about from officers within the Met. Her inability to respond effectively to this public concern has ultimately led to her downfall.”Dame Cressida’s last day in post will be on Sunday, after which she will take unused annual leave, with her final day of employment being 24 April.Deputy commissioner Sir Stephen House will temporarily serve as acting commissioner while a successor is recruited. More

The economic chasm between the north and south of England is set to be widened by the cost-of-living crisis, new research suggests.Of the 31 areas across the country most vulnerable to soaring fuel, food and energy prices, 19 are in the north and another eight are in the midlands, according to analysis compiled by the Centre for Progressive Policy. The remaining four are in London.People living in Middlesbrough, Hull and Blackburn with Darwen will hit the hardest by skyrocketing costs in the coming months, the economic think tank predicts. Burnley, Sandwell in the West Midlands and Hyndburn in Lancashire make up the rest of the top six places likely to be worst effected.The analysis — which ranked all 310 local authority areas in England — suggests Boris Johnson will not only fail in what he has described as a “moral mission” to level up the country but instead oversee a worsening of the divide between the northern half of the country and the more affluent south during his term in office.“Levelling up slogans will be dead on arrival at the next election unless the government reconsiders its policy options,” said Ben Franklin, director of the left-leaning CPP.Writing in the centre’s new Levelling Up Outlook report, he added: “The cost-of-living crisis poses a significant and immediate threat to the defining mission of this government, threatening to worsen living standards in the poorest places and further entrench unacceptably high place-based inequalities.”The analysis – the first of its kind since Rishi Sunak’s widely panned Spring Statement last month – uses six key indicators of deprivation to rank how vulnerable an area will be to falling living standards. The indicators are the number of households likely to face fuel poverty, food insecurity and child poverty, as well as the number of adults claiming universal credit, in low paid work or economically inactive.Intriguingly, of the 31 areas set to be hardest hit, 16 are covered by old Red Wall constituencies which shifted from Labour to the Conservatives during 2019’s general election. It means that the very areas that swept Mr Johnson to power face being left further behind than ever.Mr Franklin added: “Voters on low pay, experiencing food and fuel poverty or pushed out of work altogether, are on the margins of extreme vulnerability – but they are also in many of our most marginal seats. That adds political saliency to the urgent moral case for addressing the cost-of-living crisis.”Lisa Nandy, shadow secretary of state for levelling up and MP for Wigan, said the report proved that “opposite of levelling up” was now happening.She said: “This new research reveals the inadequacy of the government’s response to the cost-of-living crisis facing families. We need to get money back into people’s pockets.“You can only level up if people have money to spend in their local communities.”The government’s Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities did not immediately respond to request for comment. More

Priti Patel’s plan to criminalise refugees crossing the English Channel is in danger after the House of Lords rejected the proposed law for a second time.In a rare move, peers voted again to remove the offence of arriving in the UK – including British waters – without permission from the Nationality and Borders Bill.It was one of 12 defeats suffered by the government on Monday night, when peers including the former lord chief justice warned that the plans violate the Refugee Convention.The House of Lords moved to ensure any move to offshore asylum seekers was subject to approval of both houses of parliament, and that the government must give a costs breakdown.It also backed measures to prevent the prosecution of people rescuing migrants at sea, while taking steps to prevent asylum seekers being treated differently based on how they enter the UK.In addition, peers renewed their demand that asylum seekers be allowed to work if no decision had been taken on their claim after six months, as well as enable unaccompanied child asylum seekers in Europe to join family in the UK.They backed measures to guarantee extended support for confirmed victims of modern slavery or trafficking, and inserted a clause to ensure that unlawful citizenship deprivations can be reversed.The votes mean that Lords amendments will go back to MPs for a second time, having been rejected earlier this year.If the “ping-pong” process continues without either house giving way before the current parliamentary session ends, there is a risk of the bill falling.Official procedure states that argument usually “does not go beyond the stage” already reached by the Nationality and Borders Bill.“A situation where one house insists on its amendment after the other house has insisted on its disagreement to it is described as ‘double insistence’,” says Erskine May, the guide to parliamentary practice and procedure. “A bill is normally lost.”The House of Lords has already insisted twice on amendments, and MPs will have a second chance to either agree them or send back changes that peers will agree to.Ukraine’s ambassador says ‘at least’ 100,000 refugees could come to UKThere is no binding rule to how many times a bill can go back and forth, and Erskine May states that “if there is a desire to save a bill, some variation in the proceedings may be devised”.Several peers acknowledged the unusual situation during Monday night’s debate.Moving a successful motion to ensure the law complies with the Refugee Convention, Labour peer Baroness Chakrabarti said: “I take the primacy of the other place [Commons] very seriously.”But she said the amendment was necessary as an “insurance policy”, as the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has said the proposals violate the convention and the government denies it.“It offers protection as of right, not dependent on executive largesse to pick and choose which refugees should be saved and which continent or conflict these should be escaping from,” she added.Liberal Democrat peer Lord Paddick said that “double insisting on the removal of the provisions from the bill would have serious consequences”.Lord Judge, the former lord chief justice, said that although the government insists its plans comply with international law, “a number of us take the view that these provisions do not so comply”.“We respectfully suggest that the Commons should be asked to think again and reflect on the consequences if the advice that it is receiving is wrong and the advice that we are suggesting is right,” he added.Lord Brown, a former Supreme Court judge, said: “I truly believe, as do many others, that several of these provisions flagrantly breach our obligations as interpreted by the UNHCR, the body responsible for that under the convention.”Conservative peer Lord Cormack, who was previously a Tory MP for 40 years, said he had watched the progress of the bill with “increasing disappointment and sadness”.“I became increasingly convinced that this largely unnecessary bill is narrow and mean-minded and at times approaches the vindictive,” he added, saying that the proposals were in danger of “breaching international law and also international humanity”.Lord Cormack said MPs had treated the House of Lords “with disdain” by dismissing carefully argued amendments, and that there was “no proper scrutiny” in the Commons.He added: “We are talking about some of the most persecuted and endangered of humanity, who are not motivated by legislation when they catch the train or drive their car or get into boats, but are motivated by a desire to enjoy a freer and better way of life.”Lord Kerr, a crossbench peer, said the government had not evidenced its claims that the laws would deter dangerous journeys to the UK.“We all know that the way to stop tragedy in the Channel is to open a safe route,” he added.“I think the concern across the country about the way that the government are treating the victims of Putin’s war in Ukraine shows that we are more in tune with the national mood than the Home Office.”Baroness Williams, a Home Office minister, had argued for the House of Lords to drop its amendments.“We want to do everything we can to deter people from making dangerous and, sadly, as we have seen, often fatal journeys,” she said.“That is why we want to change the law to provide prosecutors with additional flexibility when someone has ‘arrived in’ but not technically ‘entered’ the UK.”The law would widen the current offence of illegal entry, which cannot be committed by migrants who are rescued at sea or aim to claim asylum immediately in port, to mean it can be applied to that group.It comes after at least a dozen prosecutions were quashed and the exposure of an unlawful Home Office blanket phone seizure policy for boat migrants.Lady Williams said the government was “seeking prosecutions only in the most egregious cases”, such as when migrants have put others at risk or caused channel disruption. More

Five million households will be forced to spend at least 10 per cent of their budget on energy bills after Friday’s price cap hike, according to the latest analysis.The prediction comes as the limit on bills leaps by 54 per cent, adding an average of £693 a year to the cost for those on default tariffs.A number of major energy suppliers websites crashed Thursday as customers raced to submit meter readings ahead of the increase. Users reported being unable to access the websites of energy giants such as British Gas, SSE, E.ON, and EDF.The price rises will double the number of households in “fuel stress” – a term for those spending 10 per cent or more of their income after housing costs on energy bills – overnight from 2.5 to 5 million in England alone, according to the Resolution Foundation think tank. The figures account for chancellor Rishi Sunak’s recent intervention to ease the impact.With the price cap expected to rise sharply again later this year, the think tank said a further 2.5 million households could fall into “fuel stress” in the autumn unless more support is provided, bringing the total to 7.5 million. This is based on an estimated £500 increase in the price cap on 1 October.Shadow climate change secretary, Ed Miliband, hit out at the prime minister and Sunak for not doing more to help. “On the day when energy bills rise by record amounts for millions of families, it is shameful that Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak are refusing to go further to support the British people facing a cost of living crisis,” he said.“It tells you everything you need to know about this government that they stand by whilst working people, families, and pensioners suffer.”In early February, Mr Sunak announced a support plan worth £350 – via a £150 council tax rebate and a repayable upfront £200 discount – for each of “the vast majority of households” to take the “sting” out of the rise.But there are mounting concerns among some Tory MPs that the chancellor’s lack of fresh measures for the poorest households could take a toll in May’s local elections.“There’s such a profound problem of seeming tone deaf when you’re out trying to drum up support,” one senior Conservative MP said. “People are starting to see their neighbours tighten their belts, and the demand build on local charities,” they added.“The spring statement failed to help the most needy,” another Tory MP told The Independent. “It also failed to keep taxes down, too. The fuel duty cut’s been swallowed up as well, judging by most drivers’ experience. No one feels like a winner when they’re trying to sell high taxes and little [financial] support.”The 1 April is the crest of the “acute” cost of living wave, according to the Resolution Foundation, as the price cap rise combines with other cost pressures in the economy to push inflation to a 40-year high.Mr Sunak’s efforts to assist the economic shock from energy bills via council tax rebates will miss out more than half a million of the poorest households, it was warned.Jonathan Marshall, senior economist at the Resolution Foundation, said: “Another increase in energy bills this autumn hastens the need for more immediate support, as well as a clear, long-term strategy for improving home insulation, ramping up renewable and nuclear electricity generation, and reforming energy markets so that families’ energy bills are less dependent on global gas prices.”Johnson told MPs on 9 March that he would be setting out an energy independence plan for this country in the course of the next few days. However, an energy strategy has yet to emerge and it is unclear when it will be published. The Treasury has reportedly resisted some of the long-term cost implications.Ofgem, which regulates gas and electricity markets in Great Britain, announced on 3 February that the energy price cap – designed to prevent firms from making excessive profits – will increase for approximately 22 million customers from 1 April.The regulator calculates it means the average household on default tariffs paying by direct debit will see a £693 increase to £1,971 per year for gas and electricity. There will be an increase of £708 from £1,309 to £2,017 a year for the average prepayment customer. Ofgem has said the increase is “driven by a record rise in global gas prices over the last six months”.Freezing temperatures are due to hit as the price cap rise kicks in. Met Office meteorologist Tom Morgan said: “People will wake up [on Friday] to temperatures just below freezing, -1 or -2 across most of England and Wales for example, but by the afternoon we’ll see temperatures at 8 or 9C.”He added: “Once again, on Friday night we’ll see temperatures widely fall below freezing across the whole of the UK and in the early hours of Saturday morning, possibly down to -4, -5C even in the south of England.”The government is “in no doubt” that rising energy prices “will be a significant challenge for a majority of the British public”, No 10 said on Thursday.The prime minister’s official spokesman highlighted the support offered by the government and said: “We would encourage anyone that is concerned to make sure that they are availing themselves of the support that is available to them.” More