Home News

The High Court has ruled home secretary Priti Patel’s secret policy of confiscating asylum seekers’ mobile phones as unlawful.The Home Office has had a secret blanket policy of seizing phones belonging to asylum seekers who had arrived in the UK via clandestine routes, such as in small boats. The phones’ data was then extracted.Three asylum seekers – known only as HM, KA, and MH – one of whom has been recognised as a potential victim of trafficking, filed a judicial review of Ms Patel’s policy at the High Court.All three had their phones seized between April and September 2020, without them being able to tell their families they had arrived in the UK or having enough time to note down important phone numbers.Officials had threatened them with criminal penalties unless they provided the codes to unlock their phones, lawyers for the claimaints said.The data stored in their phones was later extracted. Their lawyers claim that thousands of others arriving to the UK in small boats had their phones confiscated, and hundreds of others had their data cloned.The phones of the three claimaints were only returned months later after the legal action had started, the lawyers said.The asylum seekers were unable to contact their families to say that they were safe, and neither did they have time to note down their important numbers, they added.But the court has ruled that the policy was unlawful and breached human rights and data protection laws.Privacy International, a leading human rights NGO, intervened in the case. It said that Ms Patel had denied the existence of the phone policy but admitted to the confiscation of phones, and cloning of data still retained by the Home Office.It has also been revealed that Ms Patel has self-referred herself to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for breaching data protection law. But she decided not to inform the many hundreds of asylum seekers that were affected by the breach.The home secretary that immigration officials had the right – under section 48 of the Immigration Act 2016 – to search the arrivals by small boat, take their phones, and extract data from the devices.But the High Court ruled that the law could not be used to carry out personal searches and, as a result, the searches of the claimants and the subsequent seizures of their phones was unlawful for this reason too.The policy also infringed their right to family and private life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), the court ruled.The Home Office’s demand for the phones’ unlocking codes under the threat of criminal penalties was also found to be unlawful and in breach of human rights.Clare Jennings of Gold Jennings – a solicitor firm that represented claimant HM – said: “Such systematic extraction of personal data from vulnerable asylum seekers, who were not suspects in any crime, was an astonishing and unparalleled assault on fundamental privacy rights. “Today’s judgment provided much needed clarification as to the extent of immigration officers powers of search and seizure and confirmed beyond doubt that the home secretary’s policy of seizing all mobile phones from small boat arrivals was unlawful.”Daniel Carey of Deighton Pierce Glynn – the solicitors that represented KH and MA – said: “All of this had real impacts on very vulnerable people, who lost touch with their families and couldn’t get their asylum documentation, while the phones languished on a shelf for many months, many which now cannot be returned. “I am pleased that today’s judgment vindicates our clients and all those affected. It is another example of how the Home Office’s hostile environment policy disregards basic human rights and dignity.”Lucie Audibert of Privacy International said: “It’s quite clear that the Home Office considered that asylum seekers arriving on UK shores did not have the same privacy rights as other people – it unashamedly granted itself unlawful powers to systematically seize and search their phones, even when they weren’t suspected of any crime. “This is in line with this government’s (and many others’) efforts to criminalise migration and rob migrants of their basic human rights. We welcome today’s judgment and hope the claimants will obtain due redress for these unacceptable violations of their rights.” More

Thousands of disabled pupils and those with special needs could have their school transport taken away because of the spiralling cost of fuel, council chiefs are warning.Coach and minibus companies and taxi firms are demanding higher fees to cover their higher petrol and diesel bills.In some cases, transport providers are demanding an extra 20 per cent when their contracts are up for renewal.But county councils, which coordinate the services, say the budgets of hard-pressed local authorities, which have already been set for the coming year, will not extend any further.Without extra funding, the councils may be forced to cut other services or cancel the transport, they say.The chancellor’s 5p cut in fuel duty is unlikely to make much difference because the Ukraine war, wider fears over energy supplies and inflation have all pushed up prices at the pumps.In a survey for the County Councils Network, almost two-thirds of councils said their expenditure on school transport for disabled and special needs pupils was “unsustainable”, and 34 per cent said it was “difficult”.Even before fuel prices started soaring, these costs increased from £175m in 2016 to £244m last year.At least 51,550 disabled and special needs pupils need free school transport – up from 41,185  in 2016-17, according to data from nearly 30 county authorities.The network said some transport providers were activating “break” clauses in their contracts, giving councils 28 days’ notice of handing back routes.“The local authority then has to retender for the route, but new bids are coming back at up to 20 per cent more because of the fuel crisis,” a spokesman said.“So those councils will either be left having to pay more – or seeing loads of young people not have access to school transport.”A report by the network also found that councils have had to cut back on eligibility for mainstream free school transport, with almost 20,000 fewer pupils qualifying than five years earlier.Many special educational needs and disabilities pupils require coach and minibuses or taxis – transport offered by the very companies that are worst hit by record fuel hikes, the organisation says.Keith Glazier, children’s services spokesperson for the County Councils Network, said: “Free school transport is a lifeline for many pupils, but local authorities have been placed in a difficult position owing fuel prices reaching record highs.“Transport providers are understandably concerned they are paying much more than a year ago, but it means councils either pay the higher rates they are requesting or potentially see thousands of pupils unable to access free school transport, which is a statutory responsibility for local authorities.“With our budgets set for the coming year, there is little wriggle room for local authorities, except to reduce other vital services.”The report calls for more government support.County authorities across England spent a total of £555.6m on free school transport last year, up from £472.6m in 2016-17. The increase is largely down to a 33 per cent rise in expenditure for disabled and special needs pupils, figures show.Over the past three years, the average cost of transport per pupil has risen by £206 to £6,099 a year, due to rising costs, such as fuel.All children under eight qualify for free transport if their school is more than two miles away, and over-eights qualify if their school is more than three miles away.The Independent has asked the government to respond. More

The badger cull did not contribute to a significant fall in levels of cattle tuberculosis, a “landmark” report has found.The peer-reviewed findings prompted the RSPCA to call for an immediate and permanent halt to the government’s culling programme.But the government disputes the study’s conclusions, saying the data has been manipulated by the authors, who have campaigned against the cull.Between the start of the cull in 2013 and the end of 2020, it’s estimated more than 140,000 badgers were shot dead, mostly in west and southwest England, in an attempt to eradicate the disease in cattle.In 2020-21, more than 27,000 cattle in England had to be slaughtered to tackle the disease, which costs farmers thousands of pounds.Badgers are carriers for TB, but the science over how to tackle it is hotly contested.The government has always insisted that the cull programme, costing more than £100m, has successfully reduced the disease.A 2019 study in Nature showed “statistically significant” drops in cattle TB incidence in Gloucestershire and Somerset after four years of culling.But the authors of the new research say they looked at a much larger number of herds and badgers across a wider region and for a longer period, 10 years.Cull opponents have long argued that culling makes surviving animals flee the area, potentially carrying the disease with them, so spreading it more widely.The new paper, published in the journal Veterinary Record, based on the government’s own data, concludes there was no detectable link between the culling of badgers and any decline in the level of bovine TB in cattle herds.The study authors, ecologist Thomas Langton and vets Mark Jones and Iain McGill, have all campaigned previously against the cull – and the government hit back, saying the paper had been produced to fit their agenda and that its cull strategy is working. The research compared the prevalence of bovine TB in cull and non-cull areas in high-risk zones between 2013 and 2019.The authors said their analyses showed that while the disease peaked and began to decline, there was no statistical evidence that the rate and nature of the decline was different in the two types of area. The fall in TB rates was instead down to the introduction of cattle-based measures including more intensive testing and movement controls, the paper’s authors said.The government has previously promised to end culling, replacing it with vaccines, and is carrying out cattle vaccine trials. But the programme has continued and the mass shooting of badgers is still planned to go on until at least 2025. Ministers have promised that this year will be the last when four-year licences are issued.Tom Langton, principal author and consulting biologist of the new report, said: “As the bovine TB epidemic continues to spread across England, government claims on badger culling ‘having worked’ are supposition, using small amounts of data from small areas over short periods.“Here, we have a real-world analysis, using extensive data from across England’s high-risk area, supported by comprehensive statistical analysis.“It is what farm veterinarians, farmers and the public should already have been told regarding this continuing animal health emergency.“Hard-working beef and dairy farmers should be given the advice and support that they need, to protect hundreds of thousands of domestic and wild animal lives and to prevent ruined farming livelihoods.”Emma Slawinski, of the RSPCA, said:  “We warmly welcome this landmark study. In the face of this conclusive evidence, the government should immediately call a permanent halt to its cruel, ineffective and arbitrary programme based around the mass slaughter of badgers, and focus on cattle-based solutions.“For too long the government has chosen to look the other way as it determinedly pursued an ill-conceived course of action with no scientific basis and no success, instead promoting cruelty and wasting time and money.”A government spokesperson said: “This paper has been produced to fit a clear campaign agenda and manipulates data in a way that makes it impossible to see the actual effects of badger culling on reducing TB rates. “It is disappointing to see it published in a scientific journal.”Government figures show that the overall TB rate in England fell last year. More

Hundreds of England’s care homes could be closed and care rationed because the government has “seriously underestimated” the costs of a shake-up, experts are warning.Widespread closures would leave hundreds of thousands of elderly and vulnerable residents homeless.Those in the southeast, the east and the southwest would be hardest hit, according to a new study.Under a package of social care reforms announced in September, ministers are aiming to make care fees fairer between private and state fee payers.At the moment, residents who self-fund all their care pay up to 40 per cent more on average than those eligible for state support, for whom their local authority arranges care, and care homes charge councils lower rates.The government says it wants to end this “persistent unfairness” by allowing private payers to ask their local authority to arrange their care, starting next October, and to increase the fees that councils pay to make the care market sustainable.It argues the reforms will protect people needing to go into a care home from unpredictable costs.Ministers have allocated £378m a year to compensate councils for the new “fair cost of care”.But analysis by healthcare market company LaingBuisson for the County Councils Network says the government “seriously underestimated” the costs of its proposals by at least £854m a year.The shortfall could lead to widespread closures and a shortage of beds, and trigger a deterioration in the quality of care between local authority and private placements, the study warns.Care England, the main organisation representing providers of the roughly 13,368 homes in England, says the funding allocation could lead to “catastrophic financial failure”.And council chiefs, who are already facing severe financial pressures, say they would be unable to make up for the shortfall without cutting services or imposing significant council tax rises.The new study calculates care providers would lose £560m a year – a loss of 3.8 per cent of revenue. Care homes in all but one region in England would be hit, the report says, but the largest losses would be in the southeast, east, and southwest, as they have the largest proportion of private fee payers.From next month, National Insurance contributions are being increased by 1.25 per cent to fund the new health and social care levy, although it will not be ringfenced for councils until 2025.Martin Green, chief executive of Care England and chair of the Care Provider Alliance, said the report showed the annual cost to councils after the changes would be at least three times current government funding allocations, He added: “If not immediately revised, this could lead to catastrophic financial failure to be experienced by providers, leading to home closures, and an inability to invest in services for some of the most vulnerable members of society now and into the future.”Martin Tett, adult social care spokesperson for the County Councils Network, said: “There is a clear consensus from those that work in adult social care that the government’s Fair Cost for Care proposals are laudable – we all support the principle of making the system fairer. But the government has seriously underestimated the costs of its proposals.”He said the proposals could result in widespread care home closures and a rationing of care, adding: “Councils will be left between a rock and a hard place – either by raising council tax to excessive levels and cutting local services, or by seeing widespread care home closures in their areas.”The government’s own modelling is different from that of LaingBuisson.A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “Our wide-ranging and ambitious reform of the adult social care system will protect people from unpredictable costs, offers outstanding quality and will be accessible to those who need it.“We recognise that the type of genuinely transformational change set out in our White Paper, People at the Heart of Care, cannot be accomplished overnight so we are providing £1.36bn over the next three years to support local authorities to make significant progress towards paying providers a fair rate of care. “This includes £162m in 2022-23, followed by £600m in each of the following two years.“As part of our gradual implementation, we will review our approach ahead of allocating money for 2023-24, working closely with local authorities and providers to monitor market changes, and determine appropriate grant conditions, guidance, and distribution mechanisms.” More

Sajid Javid said it would be difficult for him to “offer the time” to host Ukrainian refugees in his home as he urged those considering signing up to help to be sure they can “fulfil the obligations” of the scheme.Housing and communities minister Michael Gove will set out later the details of a new programme through which people in the UK can offer to host Ukrainian refugees in their homes.Families will receive a thank you payment of £350 a month and be expected to commit to a minimum of six months of housing an individual or a group.But the health secretary said if help cannot be provided this way, there are other methods of offering support.Mr Javid was asked on BBC Breakfast whether he would consider hosting refugees in his home.“I’m starting to have a conversation with my wife on that and I think many households – as you say, and I’m pleased you brought this up – are probably thinking about this across the country,” he said.“It’s important that anyone that becomes a host, that they can fulfil the obligations of a host, that they can spend time with these families and help, but there are many ways that we can all help and whatever I do at a personal level, I will most certainly be helping.”Mr Javid told LBC that he has donated to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Ukraine.And he told ITV’s Good Morning Britain: “I do think, for me personally, it will be hard to offer the time that I think a host would reasonably (be) expected to have available to help the family that’s arriving, to help to integrate them into British society.”Downing Street indicated that the prime minister will not be taking any Ukrainian refugees in at No 10.The prime minister’s official spokesman said it was down to individual ministers whether they chose to give accommodation to a refugee.“There are specific challenges around security on housing people in No 10,” the spokesman said.“Various ministers have been asked about this. Obviously it will come down to individual circumstances. This is a significant commitment.”Transport secretary Grant Shapps said he would apply to join the hosting scheme.In a tweet he said: “We’ve spent the past few weeks as a family discussing the devastating situation in Ukraine, and so we intend to apply today to join other UK households in offering our home to provide refuge to Ukrainians until it is safe for them to return to their country.”On Sunday, Mr Gove, was asked if he would take in a Ukrainian refugee.He told the BBC’s Sunday Morning programme: “I’m exploring what I can do, I know that there are others who have. Without going into my personal circumstances, there are a couple of things I need to sort out – but yes.”He said there are potentially “hundreds of thousands of people” in the UK willing to take Ukrainians into their homes through the Government’s new sponsorship scheme, which he is due to outline on Monday.Mr Javid was asked on ITV’s Good Morning Britain whether, instead of Britons offering up space, it would be better if the mansions of sanctioned Russian oligarchs were the first place considered.He said: “Not the first place – I don’t think it would be practical to make them the first place – but I do know that that is something that my friend Michael Gove is looking at.“I think there’ll be some legal hurdles to try and do that, but it’s right that he looks broadly to see how we can house more and more Ukrainian refugees.”Mr Javid said it is a “sensible approach” to allow Britons to offer refugees places to stay.“This is an unprecedented situation,” he said. “There are, as we’ve seen across Europe, many millions of refugees and it’s right that Britain plays its role and that we have a scheme that allows British families to play their part and to offer sanctuary.”London mayor Sadiq Khan said it would be a form of “poetic justice” to repurpose the mansions.He told Times Radio: “I, for some time, with others, have been complaining about those Russian oligarchs close to (Vladimir) Putin, using our city to launder money by buying homes or businesses. And what’s doubly heart-breaking about the homes they buy is they’re left empty for years. They’re not homes, they’re gold bricks used to launder money. More

The government will ask the British public to open their homes to Ukrainians fleeing the Russian invasion amid intense criticism of its response to the refugee crisis.Levelling up secretary, Michael Gove, is expected to set out on Monday details of the new “sponsored” route to allow Ukrainians without family links to the UK to come to the country.The scheme was announced last week by Priti Patel, the home secretary, but details have been unclear amid reports of “different views” between Whitehall departments over the exact nature of the programme.According to the Daily Telegraph, a hotline and webpage will be made available where individuals, charities, businesses and community groups will be able to offer rooms to those escaping the conflict.It was added Ukrainians using this route to Britain would be granted permission to stay in the UK for an initial 12 months, with the ability to work, claim benefits and free healthcare.Those offering housing would have to agree to take the refugees for a minimum period – potentially six months – and demonstrate that they meet appropriate standards, the report said.According to Western officials, the number of people fleeing the Russian invasion – already around 2.5 million – could reach 4 million within days as the Kremlin continues to wage war.While many have fled to neighbouring countries such as Poland, Hungary and Moldova, the Ukrainian ambassador to the UK has estimated tens of thousands of people escaping the conflict may come to Britain.After days of criticism over the government’s handling of the situation, including the bureaucracy of the current visa routes and a lack of preparation despite weeks of warnings over a possible invasion, Boris Johnson insisted more details would be forthcoming next week. He told Sky News: “On Monday, you’ll get from the levelling up secretary, you’ll get the programme that will allow people to come in, so (if) people want to welcome (refugees) into their own homes, they can do so.”Speaking about the sponsorship scheme, the technology minister Chris Philp also added on Friday: “We’re going to be making announcements in the very near future about a scheme for UK local authorities, and indeed UK families, to welcome Ukrainian refugees, we’ve announced that principle and the details of how that scheme works will be laid out in the very near future.”The move comes after Ms Patel was urged to do more to make it easier for those coming to the UK through the existing family route and yesterday announced in a U-turn that from Tuesday people will be able to apply online for a visa and will no longer have to go to a processing centre to give their biometrics.But experts have warned there are still “major gaps” in the scheme and refugees would still have to go through a “chaotic and frustrating” online process.It also not clear how many of the 2.5 million Ukrainians to have fled the conflict so far have access to a passport.The British Red Cross said the quickest way of fixing the problem would be to remove the requirement for a visa — a move backed by the Ukrainian ambassador in London — while the Refugee Council said Ms Patel’s announcement “does not go anywhere near far enough”.A No 10 spokesperson told reporters on Friday: “We will set out details of the humanitarian sponsorship scheme soon… that will allow those Brits who can and want to, help and support Ukrainians to do so.“The Department for Levelling Up are working incredibly closely with the Home Office to make sure we can have up and running and soon as possible.“We want to make sure we can facilitate those Brits who kindly want to host Ukrainians, as well as businesses and charities to be able to sponsor people to come to the UK. Both departments are working tirelessly to do that”.The Independent has a proud history of campaigning for the rights of the most vulnerable, and we first ran our Refugees Welcome campaign during the war in Syria in 2015.Now, as we renew our campaign and launch this petition in the wake of the unfolding Ukrainian crisis, we are calling on the government to go further and faster to ensure help is delivered. To find out more about our Refugees Welcome campaign, click here. To sign the petition click here. If you would like to donate then please click here for our GoFundMe page. More

The underrepresentation of women and minority groups in parliament must be tackled, MPs have warned.A report, carried out by the Women and Equalities Committee, said the government must introduce measures to ensure a “generation of women in politics” is not lost.The study found a meagre 6 per cent of all 650 MPs sitting in the House of Commons are women from minority ethnic backgrounds. Meanwhile, only around a third of all MPs are women – with researchers noting this is a smaller proportion of female MPs than comparable European nations.Caroline Nokes, who is chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, noted the job of MPs is ultimately to represent their constituents, adding that racial and gender inequalities mean “at present, we simply don’t”.The MP for Romsey and Southampton North added: “It is within our power to improve this. Part of encouraging women into any profession is making that workspace inclusive. “Women are disproportionately carers in society; catering to the needs of parents and other caregivers is an easy win for the House of Commons and a journey upon which they have already embarked. But they must go further and faster.“The most glaring problem is the shocking abuse and misogyny which all women in politics, and especially minority ethnic women, suffer. This must not become an accepted part of the job. Viscous abuse, including rape and death threats, is totally unacceptable.”Ms Nokes called for measures to be rolled out to safeguard female MPs and political candidates, warning women could be put off pursuing political careers if this issue is not addressed.The report argues “vicious misogynistic abuse must not be accepted as an inevitable fact of a woman’s life in politics,” and draws attention to the fact harassment leads to the “poorer retention rate of female MPs” in comparison to male politicians.Cross-party MPs involved in the report urged the government to introduce section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, which would force respective political parties to reveal the ethnic and gender diversity of parliamentary candidates. Ministers were also asked to use the Online Safety Bill to bolster “sanctions” against individuals who threaten or abuse female politicians on social media.It comes after a recent study found about seven in 10 women say they would not become a politician because of fears of facing abuse or harassment in the role.The research conducted by the Fawcett Society, a leading gender equality charity, discovered almost six in 10 women think sexism in local politics is a barrier to pursuing a political career.Seven in 10 said problems juggling work as an MP or councillor with other responsibilities in their lives would be an obstacle, and six in 10 said a lack of confidence to offer themselves up held them back. More

A new government plan aimed at improving farm animal welfare must not distract from ministers’ backtracking on a ban on fur and foie gras, critics have warned.Farmers will be encouraged to keep cows, pigs and sheep healthier and in better conditions under the “animal health and welfare pathway” plan from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.The payment-by-results scheme will include annual visits by a vet paid for by the government, and grants will be available for equipment and technology or to upgrade housing for cattle to reduce lameness and calf mortality.Farmers will be encouraged to improve biosecurity to control pig diseases and improve the feather cover of laying hens, the government says.Laying hens often suffer bald patches where they are repeatedly pecked by others through frustration caused by overcrowding, and pigs have their tails and teeth routinely cut for similar reasons.The government also pledged for the first time to implement the better chicken commitment (BCC), which requires slower-growing breeds and lower stocking densities.Hidden cameras inside chicken barns that supply supermarkets have repeatedly shown birds struggling to breathe and collapsing under their own weight because they are bred to grow exceptionally rapidly. And dying birds are also cannibalised by others or trodden underfoot because of crowded conditions.The Humane League, which has long lobbied supermarkets, chefs and caterers to adopt the better chicken commitment, welcomed the official policy as “a really significant and welcome milestone”.But spokeswoman Hannah Yates added: “It should not serve to distract from the concerning backtracking on the fur and foie gras legal ban”.The government is reportedly set to ditch plans in the Animals Abroad Bill to outlaw fur and foie gras imports after cabinet members Jacob Rees-Mogg, Brandon Lewis and Ben Wallace objected.It has prompted a furious response across the UK, with animal-welfare organisations uniting to condemn the decision while hoping the ban can be introduced through another bill.Naturalist Chris Packham has launched a petition against dropping the ban, saying: “In a civilised society, freedom of choice cannot be allowed to trump moral decency.”A new academic analysis of public attitudes to fur sales has found 83.4 per cent disapproved of imports.The study, based on nine opinion polls between 1997 and 2021, also found 78.4 per cent backed a total ban on fur imports and sales in the UK.Footage and testimonies from inside fur farms have shown mink, raccoon dogs and foxes suffering infected, painful wounds and mental torture from being caged.Ms Yates added: “The fact that the government is willing to help fund the transition towards the BCC begs the question of why supermarkets are still laggards when it comes to improving chicken welfare.“While leading companies in other sectors such as KFC, Nestlé, Kraft-Heinz, and Sodexo have all committed to the BCC, only Waitrose and M&S have signed up from the retail sector.“Supermarkets should be investing their profits into raising the baseline standards of animal welfare, especially as taxpayers are going to pay for these improvements.”The Independent has asked the British Retail Consortium to comment. More