Tag: United Kingdom

Matt Hancock today admitted he did not read the minutes of SAGE at the start of the pandemic and instead relied on a summary from Sir Chris Whitty.

The Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies, or SAGE, is an expert group deployed in an emergency to integrate independent scientific research and analysis from across government, academia and industry. 

During the pandemic, SAGE was co-chaired by Sir Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, and Sir Patrick Vallance, then the government’s chief scientific adviser (GCSA).

Hancock told the Covid inquiry: “I asked for [SAGE] at some point in February, to be regularly put in my box. … With hindsight I think I should have gone and listened to directly to the debate in SAGE.”

Pressed by Hugo Keith KC, the chief counsel to the inquiry, on whether the minutes of SAGE were being put before him as the secretary of state responsible for public health, Hancock added:

Not in the first instance, until I asked for them, but also the premise of your question is not correct, they were not the sole and only body, they had subcommittees like SPI-M, there was NERVTAG which reported formally into the department, and of course there was a much wider body of publicly debated scientific advice, so SAGE was an important body but I think it would be wrong to fetishise its existence and role

Former chief adviser to the prime minister Dominic Cummings posted on X (formerly Twitter) in response: “Hancock admits he didn’t read SAGE minutes in Feb – explains a lot”.

Covid inquiry: Matt Hancock labels Dominic Cummings a ‘malign actor’ and cause of ‘toxic culture’ in No 10

In a further exchange, Matt Hancock said it “should have been” a vital moment for the government when SAGE concluded by February 13, 2020, that China had failed to contain Covid.

He said he did not recall when he was told about SAGE’s view.

Lead counsel Hugo Keith KC said: “That was a seminal moment. In the context of this debate, you were told there’s a 50/50 scenario, it’s contained or it’s not. And if it’s not, then subject to sustained community transmission, it’s game over.

“Being told formally, the government machine was informed formally on the 13th of February that China had failed. Would you acknowledge that that was a vital moment?”

Hancock replied: “It certainly should have been.”

Hancock also told the Covid inquiry that locking down three weeks earlier would have saved 90 per cent of lives in the first Covid wave.

The former health secretary said that by the end of February 2020 he had realised that serious action was needed to suppress the virus and, with hindsight, that the country should have locked down on March 2, not March 26 when lockdown measures legally came into force.

“This was the moment that we should have acted. We would have been six doublings ahead and fewer than one tenth would have died in the first wave”, he said.

He told the inquiry that the government’s original pandemic plan never intended to stop infections, only to manage the consequences.

In other revelations today, Hancock said there was a “culture of fear” linked to former chief adviser to the prime minister Dominic Cummings that may have caused former chancellor Sajid Javid to resign.

Hancock claimed Cummings made a “power grab” in early 2020, seizing control of No 10.

Hancock also told the Inquiry he was “blocked” by Whitehall in the early days of the pandemic.

Source

Former chancellor and veteran Labour politician Alistair Darling has died at the age of 70.

Darling served under then-prime minister Gordon Brown from 2007 to 2010 and as a member of parliament from 1987 until he stepped down in 2015.

A statement issued on behalf of his family said: “The death of Alistair Darling, a former chancellor of the exchequer and long-serving member of the Labour cabinet, was announced in Edinburgh today.

“Mr Darling, the much-loved husband of Margaret and beloved father of Calum and Anna, died after a short spell in Western General hospital under the wonderful care of the cancer team.”

Darling became a member of the House of Lords in 2015 as Baron Darling of Roulanish.  However, he retired from the House of Lords in the summer of 2020, citing distance from his home in Edinburgh.

In 2015, Darling joined the Board of the bank Morgan Stanley.

Born on November 28, 1953, in London, Alistair Darling was the son of a Conservative voting engineer and the great-nephew of a Conservative MP.

Despite this background, Darling went on to become a Labour MP in Edinburgh from 1987 to 2015.

His most prominent role in government was as Gordon Brown’s Chancellor of the Exchequer from 2007 to 2010.

Following a string of big personality chancellors, upon Darling’s appointment, it was expected that this trend might be broken. According to commentators at the time, it was suggested that Darling would be something of a “yes man” to the prime minister, himself a former chancellor.

However, during his three-year tenure as Chancellor, Darling never fell in line with these predictions.

In 2007, for the first time since 1860, Britain experienced a run on a bank: Northern Rock. Ultimate responsibility for sorting this crisis fell onto the shoulders of Darling. 

In 2008, Darling warned of the worst financial crisis in 60 years, and he was right. Only a short time later, Lehman Brothers collapsed.

Darling described the “scariest moment” of the resultant financial crash as the hours before he was forced to bail out the Royal Bank of Scotland. 

In 2018, Darling suggested that if not for the bailout, Britain might have come within hours of “the breakdown of law and order“.

During the economic crisis, Darling was viewed as a reassuring figure.  

But amid the turmoil, however, Darling’s relationship with his boss, Gordon Brown, deteriorated.

A crunch moment came in 2009, when Brown reportedly wanted to swap Darling out for ally Ed Balls.

However, after Darling used his support within the party to pressure Brown, any such plan was shelved.

From 2012-2014, Darling served as the Chairman of the “Better Together” campaign, the organisation set up to campaign to keep Scotland in the Union.

As a prominent figure in the independence debate, Darling compared Scottish independence to buying “a one way to ticket to send our children to a deeply uncertain destination”.

Darling argued Scotland could have the “best of both worlds“, with a strong parliament at Holyrood and a secure place in the United Kingdom.

During the lead-up to the independence referendum, Darling took part in two televised debates against then-first minister Alex Salmond.

At the time Salmond was said to have performed better in these debates than Darling, but the former chancellor had the last laugh when 55 per cent of the Scottish electorate choose to remain part of the UK.

In the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections, Darling returned to the fray writing to Conservative voters urging them to vote tactically and support Labour’s Anas Sarwar on the regional list ballot.

Prior to the 1997 election, Darling was first a member of the Opposition Home Affairs Team (1988-1992), then Opposition Spokesman on the City and Financial Services (1992-1996) and, finally, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury (1996-1997).

Following New Labour’s landslide win at the 1997 election, Darling was appointed to the cabinet as Chief Secretary to the Treasury—he held this post until 1998.

Darling is one of only three people to have served in the ‘New Labour cabinet’ continuously from the 1997 election to the party’s defeat in 2010, the other two being Gordon Brown and Jack Straw.

Before being appointed Chancellor in 2007, Darling held the positions of Chief Secretary to the Treasury (1997-1998), Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions (1998-2002), Secretary of State for Transport (2002-2006), Secretary of State for Scotland (2003-2006) and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (2006-2007).

Prior to entering politics, Darling studied law at Aberdeen University.  He worked as a solicitor in Edinburgh before being called to the Scottish Bar.

Alistair Darling Tributes:

Former prime minister Gordon Brown said:

“Alistair will be remembered as a statesman of unimpeachable integrity whose life was defined by a strong sense of social justice and who gained a global reputation for the assured competence and the exercise of considered judgement he brought to the handling of economic affairs.

“He was held in the highest esteem by me and all who worked with him for the way in which he handled the fall of the major banks and negotiated international agreements with fellow finance ministers. I, like many, relied on his wisdom, calmness in a crisis and his humour.”

“Alistair’s family were central to everything he did. I send my deepest condolences to his loving wife Maggie and their children Calum and Anna. He will be missed by all who knew and respected him and benefited from the great work he did.”

Labour leader Keir Starmer said: “I am deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Alistair Darling. My heart goes out to his family, particularly Maggie, Calum and Anna, whom he loved so dearly.

Alistair lived a life devoted to public service. He will be remembered as the chancellor whose calm expertise and honesty helped to guide Britain through the tumult of the global financial crisis.

He was a lifelong advocate for Scotland and the Scottish people and his greatest professional pride came from representing his constituents in Edinburgh.

I consider myself incredibly fortunate to have benefited from Alistair’s counsel and friendship. He was always at hand to provide advice built on his decades of experience – always with his trademark wry, good humour.

Alistair will be missed by all those whose lives he touched. His loss to the Labour party, his friends and his family is immeasurable.

Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar said:

I am heartbroken at the news of the death of Alistair Darling and my thoughts are with his wife – Maggie, his two children and all those who knew and loved him.

Alistair was a giant of the Labour movement, a titanic force for good and a man I was proud to consider a friend and a mentor.

From his time as Secretary of State for Scotland to being the Chancellor that led the UK through the financial crisis, Alistair Darling was dedicated to public service and improving the lives of those less fortunate.

At a time of division for Scotland, Alistair led the Better Together campaign with kindness, intelligence and good humour – it was a job he did not want to do, but he believed he was doing a service for Scotland.

Alistair’s life was one spent in the service of the people of Scotland and the UK – the Labour family and our country will sorely mourn his passing.

Jeremy Hunt wrote on X (formerly Twitter): “A sad day – I want to pay particular tribute to one of my predecessors, Alistair Darling. One of the great Chancellors, he’ll be remembered for doing the right thing for the country at a time of extraordinary turmoil. My deepest sympathies to his family”.

Labour MP for Edinburgh South and shadow secretary of state for Scotland, Ian Murray, said: “I have known Alistair for many years, and he was the most decent, hard working and principled man you could ever meet.

He served our home city of Edinburgh as a councillor and MP diligently over decades, and served our country as Chancellor during the most urgent economic crisis in our lifetimes.

He led the Treasury with the same principle and hard work that he applied to everything in his remarkable life.

Most of all Alistair was my friend and a lovely person to be around.

Alistair will be missed enormously and my thoughts just now are with his wife Maggie and his entire family.

Former Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale reacted:

“I am so desperately sad to read that Alistair Darling has passed away.

“What a giant of a man. Compelling intellect, wicked sense of humour, phenomenal public servant and the most loving father and husband. Such a great, great loss.”

Alex Salmond, who was first minister of Scotland while Alistair Darling was chancellor, said:

“This is very sad news. Alistair Darling was a hugely significant figure in UK politics. I always found him an effective politician. He became Chancellor at an extremely difficult period but he presented as a calm and authoritative figure during the financial crisis.

During the referendum campaign he was a formidable opponent on behalf of the Better Together Campaign. However, outwith the political debates I can say we did not ever exchange a cross word. Alistair was an extremely courteous man.

Condolences go out to his family.”

Former prime minister Theresa May wrote on X:

Sad to learn of the death of Alistair Darling, whom I will remember as a committed public servant, a proud Unionist and a calm, kind and decent man.

He was an asset to our politics and our national life. My thoughts and prayers are with his family

Source

Matt Hancock has rejected accusations that he lied during the pandemic as health secretary. 

Under question at the Covid inquiry, it was put to the former health secretary that a series of senior government officials have made reference in their evidence to “lying, [and] to you getting overexcited and just staying stuff”.

In response, Hancock said: “I was not. You will note that there is no evidence from anybody who worked within the department or the health system that supported those false allegations.”

He adds that “nobody expressed any of these things to my face”.

Questioned about a comment from former chief adviser to the prime minister Dominic Cummings that he was “unfit for the job” of health secretary, he referenced: “The impact of the “toxic culture that was essentially caused by the chief advisor”.

He added:  “Clearly you can now see that … others were brought into [the toxic culture]”. … That was unhelpful”.

He continued: “On the other hand, in the heat of a crisis, people say things, especially on WhatsApp, which is essentially conversational, that may not be their full considered opinion. Because the cabinet secretary also described me as ‘can do’ to the prime minister.

“Also I got along with him very well through the whole thing, outwards, and it’s only because of this inquiry that I’ve seen the language that he was using behind the scenes.

“What is the lesson for the future? I think unfortunately the lesson for the future is that systems need to be in place, so that if there is a malign actor in No 10 — ”.

But before Hancock could finished his sentence, counsel to the inquiry Hugo Keith KC interjected: “Do you mean Mr Cummings?”.

To which the former health secretary responded: “Well in this case that was the example”.

He explained that “there was a culture of fear inculcated by the behaviour of this particular individual”, referencing Cummings’ reported role in the sacking of Sajid Javid as chancellor. 

Criticism of Matt Hancock has been a recurrent theme at the Covid inquiry. 

It was recently revealed that former head of the Civil Service Lord Mark Sedwill said in WhatsApp messages that he wanted Hancock removed as health secretary to “save lives and protect the NHS”.

In his testimony, Lord Sedwill said this was “gallows humour” and that he did not use the work “sack” when speaking to the prime minister about his health secretary.

Sir Patrick Vallance, who was chief scientific adviser from 2018 to 2023, claimed Hancock would say things “he didn’t have a basis for”, which he attributed to “over-enthusiasm”.

He told the Covid inquiry: “I think he had a habit of saying things which he didn’t have a basis for and he would say them too enthusiastically too early, without the evidence to back them up, and then have to backtrack from them days later.”

Helen MacNamara, who was deputy cabinet secretary during the pandemic, said Hancock showed “nuclear levels” of confidence at the start of the Covid pandemic and “regularly” told colleagues in Downing Street things “they later discovered weren’t true”

Former prime minister Boris Johnson will give evidence to the Covid inquiry on Wednesday and Thursday next week.

Source

US secretary of state Henry Kissinger, the last surviving member of Richard Nixon’s cabinet, has died at the age of 100.

The diplomat, who served as secretary of state in multiple administrations, “was a respected American scholar and statesman”, according his consulting firm Kissinger Associates, Inc.

“Henry Kissinger will be long remembered for his many achievements in advancing the cause of peace”, former president Nixon’s daughters Tricia Cox Nixon and Julie Nixon Eisenhower have said in a statement.

Kissinger also served as a national security adviser under president Gerald Ford.

But the former Harvard University faculty member is also remembered for his role in controversial US actions around the world.

He authorised the bombing of neutral Cambodia in the late 1960s and early 1970s, which killed at least 150,000 civilians.

He also helped sculpt the Nixon administration’s attempt to foment a coup to depose Chile’s democratically elected socialist leader, Salvador Allende, in 1973.

He also directed illegal arms sales to Pakistan as it carried out a crackdown on its Bengali population in 1971.

Reacting to the news, UK security minister Tom Tugendhat said Kissinger “literally redefined the totality of what Foreign Affairs means, what diplomacy means”.

Tugendhat, a former chair of the House of Commons foreign affairs select committee, said Kissinger lived “quite remarkable life that literally redefined the totality of what foreign affairs means, what diplomacy means. I mean, it’s quite an extraordinary achievement. 

“This is a man who was born in Germany, left Germany before the war, went back in order — as a US soldier — to hunt Nazis in 1945/46 and then went into public policy”

“And so his perspective was quite remarkable”

Asked on Times Radio where Kissinger lands on a spectrum of “war criminal” to “hero”, Tugendhat responded: “Well, we’re gonna I’m gonna leave it to historians to judge but, I’ve got to be honest, I think when you look at the span of his life, this is a man who brought peace to the Middle East, alongside many others, of course, but he was very key to bring peace to the Middle East in the 70s”

He added: “He was absolutely instrumental to securing America’s interests and he did exactly what he said he would do, which is to put the American people first and commit to the security of the American world order. 

“Now, you’ve got to respect that he was absolutely clear what he said he would do, and he did it. And that I think is is certainly an example in what diplomacy is for, bluntly — diplomacy is not just about being nice to foreigners, it’s about achieving Britain’s aims and Britain’s interests through influence and partnership”.

Former president George W Bush remembered Henry Kissinger for “his wisdom, his charm, and his humour”.

In a statement, he said: “I have long admired the man who fled the Nazis as a young boy from a Jewish family, then fought them in the United States Army. When he later became Secretary of State, his appointment as a former refugee said as much about his greatness as it did America’s greatness.

“He worked in the Administrations of two Presidents and counselled many more. I am grateful for that service and advice, but I am most grateful for his friendship.”

Foreign secretary Lord Cameron has said he was “most saddened” to hear of the news, sharing a photograph of the two together.

He said: “Only a few months ago, we discussed issues as wide ranging as the war in Ukraine, the threat Iran presents and the fresh challenges posed by Russia and China.

“Even at 100, his wisdom and thoughtfulness shone through.

“He was a great statesman and a deeply respected diplomat who will be greatly missed on the world stage.”

Source

Before prime minister’s questions began today, Speaker of the House of Commons Sir Lindsay Hoyle rose to remind members of their responsibility to show restraint in their choice of language. “I just say to everybody, temperate and moderate language is what I want in this chamber”, Hoyle pleaded with MPs.

You can never be too careful with home secretary James Cleverly around; his foul-mouthed chuntering at PMQs last week caused quite the storm, and it would soon prove relevant to today’s proceedings. 

Hoyle also criticised MPs who fail to notify their colleagues when they are visiting their constituencies. “This discourteous way to colleagues is not acceptable”, he said. It was another timely intervention from the Speaker. For Keir Starmer, clutching his papers on the opposition frontbench, was preparing to park his tanks on the Tories’ lawn on migration. 

PMQs pundits have gotten used to the Labour leader taking on Rishi Sunak over issues that Conservative PMs, typically, train most for. But there are few issues Sunak can much rely on in today’s political landscape — certainly not immigration, after figures released last week saw net migration revised up to 745,000 in the year to December 2022. 

With a Conservative civil war rumbling on in the background, Starmer accused the PM of breaking promises from the party’s 2019 manifesto to reduce net migration, in a line of questioning New Conservative doyens Miriam Cates and Danny Kruger would have been proud of. It triggered Sunak’s stock response: “The levels of migration are far too high and I’m determined to bring them back down to sustainable levels”, he said.

He then took aim at the Labour leader: “All we’ve heard up until this moment from the honourable gentleman on this topic is a secret backroom deal with the EU that would see an additional 100,000 migrants here every year”.

In theory, this is a tried a tested strategy: pillory Starmer on his remainer credentials and corral once-concerned backbenchers behind you with a Brexit carrot. The prime minister attempted this in almost every exchange with Starmer in today’s session. It is highly revealing of Sunak’s political woes that his MPs seemed distinctly disinterested. 

And so Starmer continued to hit Sunak where it hurts, this time building in a gag about the PM’s decision to snub the Greek prime minister over his Elgin Marbles stance. “Never mind the British Museum — it’s the prime minister who has obviously lost his marbles”, the Labour leader quipped. 

But his demeanour hardened as he pressed the prime minister on the details of the row: “A fellow NATO member, an economic ally. One of our most important partners in tackling illegal immigration. But instead of using that meeting to discuss those serious  issues, he tried to humiliate him and cancelled at the last minute”.

The rebuke was illustrative of Starmer’s canny decision this PMQs to elide the issues of illegal migration and the Elgin Marbles. It is a skill the Labour leader and his writing team have honed in recent months, as Starmer takes on Sunak armed with a slew of intersecting and overlapping bad news stories.

The Labour leader subsequently accused the 5ft 6 inch prime minister of indulging in “small politics” and waging a “one-man war on reality”. (It’s not the first time Starmer has invoked Sunak’s height at PMQs, having previously suggested the No 10 gig was “too big” for the PM).

Sunak snapped back with another Brexit-soaked riposte: “No one will be surprised that he’s backing an EU country over Britain”, he said of Starmer.

He added: “Just this last week he was asked which song best sums up the Labour Party. What did he come up with? Well, Mr Speaker, he showed his true colours and chose Ode To Joy. Literally the anthem of the European Union. And he will back Brussels over Britain every single time!”.

The Labour leader brushed off the attack, unsupported as it was by Sunak’s backbenches. He said the PM had “lost control” of migration as he broached the Conservatives’ deepening political divides: 

This is a government not just in turmoil, it’s in open revolt. … The immigration minister thinks the prime minister is failing because apparently nobody will listen to his secret plan. The former home secretary thinks he’s failing because of his magical thinking. The current home secretary took time out of his busy schedule insulting the North East to admit he agrees with Labour. 

Then came the Labour leader’s coup de grâce. After accusing the PM of being “lost in La La land”, he explained: “There could be few experiences more haunting for the members opposite than hearing this prime minister claim that he’s going to sort out a problem”.

First, he said he’d get the NHS waiting list down. They went up. He said they’d get control of immigration. It’s gone up. Following that experience, he turned his hand to bringing taxes down. And would you believe it? The tax burden is now going to be higher than ever.

It is ironic, he’s suddenly taken such a keen interest in Greek culture. He’s clearly become the man with the reverse Midas touch.

Former Labour leader John Smith first deployed the line in June 1993 to taunt John Major; but it was more effective here. The decision to invoke Smith, certainly, will highlight fears within the Conservative Party that Sunak is Major’s spiritual successor — destined for a similar electoral routing. 

Keir Starmer: Rishi Sunak has ‘become the man with the reverse Midas touch’

But he also used the quip as an opportunity to mock an already visibly agitated Cleverly. Everything the “reverse Midas” Sunak touches, Starmer started, “turns to [— pause for effect—] maybe the home secretary can help me out here.”

Sunak looked sad, defeated, meek, like he wanted the green benches to swallow him whole. But commons’ green leather pews refused to comply and so, with a final huff of political desperation, he tried to rally his hushed Conservative MPs with a final line. 

“Britain isn’t listening”, he goaded Starmer. No, no they weren’t. With the Speaker already on his feet to call the next questioner, the prime minister’s mic had been switched off. 

It summed up a truly shocking day for Sunak at the despatch box. Maybe next time he should start with the mic off. 

PMQs verdict: Starmer 6, Sunak 0. 

Josh Self is Editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on Twitter here.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website, providing comprehensive coverage of UK politics. Subscribe to our daily newsletter here.

Source

Courts in the United Kingdom and Australia have handed down landmark decisions overturning key government policies on border protection. This rulings have left the Sunak and Albanese governments scrambling for alternatives. This is a significant moment that may mark the beginning of the end of inhumane border policies designed to deter asylum seekers.

This comes as the Australian High Court ruled on 8 November that the indefinite detention of people was illegal and unconstitutional. The Chief Justice, Stephen Gageler stated that “at least a majority” of justices agreed that the Migration Act, which has previously been interpreted to authorise indefinite detention, was beyond the legislative powers of government. 

The Australian Human Rights Commission welcomed the decision, with its president stating last week that “This is a truly historic decision in terms of human rights and social justice in this country, and I thank all the people and organisations who have contributed in their own ways to bringing this about.”

While the indefinite detention of refugees is violation of international law, Australian governments detained refugees indefinitely because of a previous high court decision in 2004 that found it legal under Australian law. Successive Australian governments have used the indefinite detention of refugees and asylum seekers as a punishment for those who make it to Australia and a brutal deterrent for others seeking the same path. 

Most of those detained indefinitely cannot be deported because they were denied an Australian visa and are either stateless or refused to return to their country of origin. Until now they have lived in a state of limbo in Australian detention centres.

After the announcement, immigration minister Andrew Giles revealed that 80 people had been released from immigration detention since the high court ruling. They were granted bridging visas allowing them to stay in Australia. While asylum seekers can still be detained, this effectively spells the end of indefinite detention in Australia.

In a case of sublime timing, the UK Supreme Court on ruled on 15 November that the government’s Rwanda asylum policy was unlawful. The plan was a key part of the UK government’s border policy to tackle asylum seekers arriving by boat and the government has already spent £140 million on the policy. 

The plan has been controversial since its inception under Boris Johnson, with flights prevented from taking off due to court challenges due to human rights concerns. The UK’s highest court agreed, finding the plan leaves people sent to Rwanda open to human rights breaches due to the country’s poor human rights record. Like in Australia, this has effectively ended the policy overnight.

The UK Director of Human Rights Watch welcomed the decision, stating on X (formerly Twitter) that” we (HRW) welcome the UK Supreme Court decision that the UK Rwanda asylum deal is unlawful. As we and many others have made clear, Rwanda is not a safe country to send asylum seekers to and now the highest court in the UK has confirmed this.”

The decisions provided both government with an opportunity to alter their policies in a way consistent with international law. Unfortunately, the early reaction from both governments has shown this isn’t a priority. 

Under pressure from the right-wing opposition, the Albanese Government immediately passed legislation that imposes curfews and ankle bracelets on people released from immigration detention and will make breaching visa conditions a criminal offence. While some of those released do have criminal records, the vast majority don’t, which makes this heavy-handed approach and demonises this group of people.

The Human Rights Law Centre’s acting Legal Director, Sanmati Verma responded to the new laws, saying that “additional restrictions and criminal penalties on people released after years of unlawful detention” would be “substituting one form of punishment for another”.

The new legislation has already been challenged in the courts and human rights groups have warned of further court battles. The Director of Human Rights for All, Alison Battison has argued that new laws may be unconstitutional and amounts to “extrajudicial” punishment.

UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak reacted to the Rwanda decision by promising to introduce emergency legislation that will “confirm Rwanda is safe” and that change was needed to prevent the “merry-go-round” of legal challenges to the policy. 

The Prime Minister has also said the government is working on a “new treaty” with Rwanda that attempts to sidestep legal challenges and has even threatened to block or leave the European Convention on Human Rights.

Both responses are disappointing and represent missed opportunities. There is also wisdom in the idea that actively circumventing court decisions isn’t just a bad look, but also probably means the policies in question are not fit for purpose. The courts have signalled that policies on refugees need to be in-line with international law and humane and both governments would do well to listen.

Australia in particular needs to change. It is infamous for its harsh border policies and has inspired other governments to do the same. In April, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi criticised Australia’s border policies as “myopic” and was “troubled” that the Australian model for asylum seekers was being copied elsewhere, including in the UK.

On being elected in 2022, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese claimed he is “tough on borders without being weak on humanity”. Now is the time to prove it. Australia’s border policies aimed at deterring asylum seekers should be replaced with a model consistent with international law.

If detention is to occur, it should only happen in Australia and only while asylum applications are processed. These applications should be processed quickly and transparently to reduce time in detention. Other inhumane and legally questionable policies, such as boat tow backs and on-water asylum assessments, should be replaced with processes consistent with the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Australia has the advantage of relative isolation, which would allow the government to effectively police its waters while managing any boat arrivals legally and humanely.

The UK is not as lucky, dealing with boat arrivals across the English Channel. But any solution needs to be humane and legal. This means moves to circumvent international law through legislation, a treaty with Rwanda or by leaving the ECHR is simply unhelpful. Such moves would alienate regional partners and will not stop boat arrivals.

The solution is for the UK to work closely with its European partners, particularly France, to monitor and police boat arrivals, and process asylum claims quickly so detention is only required while claims are processed. It’s important to note that most people seeking asylum in the UK are found to be legitimate refugees. These people should be welcomed as per their rights, not demonised.

The courts in the UK and Australia have caused a headache for both government’s in their pursuit of harsh border policies to tackle boat arrivals. But this should be seen as an opportunity, not a hurdle. 

Both should take this opportunity to reform their border policies so they are legal and humane. This isn’t just the right thing to do, but it will also prevent immense human suffering and put both countries on the right side of history.

Source

Has Robert Jenrick gone rogue? Well, that was the charge of shadow immigration minister Stephen Kinnock at least, who rose to interrogate his opposite number at Home Office questions on Monday, the first since Suella Braverman’s unceremonious sacking as the department chief.

Aiming down the barrel of the despatch box, Kinnock said of Jenrick, the number two at the Home Office since his appointment in October last year: “The immigration minister has become a law unto himself”.

“First”, Kinnock contended, “he briefed the media that he has been instructing the prime minister to tear up all our legal obligations to fix the unfixable Rwanda policy.

“Then he set himself on a collision course with his new home secretary by appearing to bet the house on the Rwanda flights taking off”.

“Not at all”, James Cleverly interjected from a sedentary position. Jenrick — who boasts a negative -8.9 per cent approval rating among his party membership, according to Conservative Home’s cabinet ranking —  rocked his head back and forth, before sharing a knowing look with his new boss.

Wry smiles exchanged and collective responsibility attempted, Kinnock continued: “To add insult to injury, he went behind his new boss’s back to present his laundry list to the prime minister, including a cap on social care visas and abolishing the shortage occupation list”.

“Does the immigration minister have any respect whatsoever for the authority of the new home secretary?”, he closed. By this point, Jenrick’s eyes had darted to the high commons ceiling; his vexation was visible. “Once again, we heard absolutely nothing from the Opposition about what they would actually do”, he mustered in response 

It was an effective line of questioning, with a clear underlying narrative: the cabinet-attending immigration minister — a close friend and long-time ally of the prime minister — is taking after his former boss and her freelancing-heavy, collective responsibility-light ways. 

Let’s take Kinnock’s allegations in turn.

First, a report did appear in the Telegraph last week that suggested Jenrick is lobbying for the government to adopt a hardline response after the Supreme Court ruled the Rwanda plan unlawful. The report said that Jenrick is firmly behind “four of the five points” that comprise Braverman’s Rwanda “Plan B” proposal — which had been written up in the same newspaper by the ex-home secretary in the wake of the court ruling. 

In her “Plan B”, Braverman demands that the prime minister’s post-ruling legislation prohibits legal challenges against the policy and disapplies the “entirety” of the Human Rights Act, the ECHR and other relevant legislation or obligations. Given Jenrick told the commons yesterday that it would be him “piloting” the emergency legislation through the House, his reported positioning here is significant.  

Furthermore, on legal migration, it is reported that Jenrick has presented his own five-point plan to No 10 in a bid to force Sunak into adopting a more hardline position. Among the suggestions are a required minimum annual salary of £35,000 in order to receive a work visa, putting a cap on visas for people working in social care and stopping those working in health and social care from bringing dependents with them to the UK.

Jenrick seemed to lean into the reports yesterday as he responded to questions from MPs on the net migration numbers. He told the commons that there were “strong arguments” for an absolute cap on the numbers of immigrants allowed each year, adding: “There are definitely strong arguments for using caps, whether in general or on specific visas — but these are conversations that we need to conclude within government”. 

This was Jenrick essentially admitting the division between himself and the home secretary. Indeed, when Cleverly was asked in his recent Times interview if he supported a cap on foreign care workers, he responded coyly: “I am not going to rush to an answer”.

The Home Office under Rishi Sunak has always been a curious, not entirely unified, department. Earlier this month, of course, it was led by Suella Braverman — who had the Home Office essentially surrendered to her during the October 2022 Conservative leadership contest. 

Braverman has since insisted her endorsement of Sunak was subject to a “deal”, the core tenets of which the prime minister has reneged on. But policy detail notwithstanding, the purported pact gave Braverman free reign in government to freelance and eschew collective responsibility with her rhetoric — including at the National Conservative conference in Westminster and among right-wing wonks in Washington. 

But Braverman’s authority was at every turn tested, prevailing wisdom suggested, by the presence of minister of state Robert Jenrick. The immigration minister was widely considered Rishi Sunak’s “man in the Home Office”, sent in to moderate the views of Braverman and helm the department’s trickiest parliamentary assignments and media assignments. Thus, it was Jenrick — rather than Braverman — who navigated the Illegal Migration Act through its trickiest commons stages and helmed “small boats week” in the summer.

But more than this, and contrary to media expectations, Jenrick did not shy away from the discursive elements of his brief. In April, for example, he told a Policy Exchange event that migration threatened to “cannibalise” British compassion. Those crossing the Channel on small boats, Jenrick explained, “tend to have completely different lifestyles and values to those in the UK” meaning they undermine “cultural cohesiveness”.

I have written before that this suggested Sunak (to whom Jenrick has been fiercely loyal) had decided the best way to silence Braverman was to simply agree with her — or even to outbid her discursively on her own terms. It ensured that the Home Office was not Braverman’s personal fiefdom as the pre-elevation, Granita Pact-esque deal would suggest. Rather, Jenrick’s abiding faith in the government line — coupled with his parliamentary and media conspicuousness — meant he was no less than the de facto home secretary.

A curious dynamic emerged, therefore, which was only ended when the home secretary undertook to follow her most obvious political incentive and fight back. After a period of relative quietude over summer, Braverman soon amped up her posturing, assuming positions that Sunak and other cabinet ministers like Jenrick could not themselves reasonably adopt. She was rewarded with the sack. 

Thus, with Braverman now departed, a rather different dynamic has emerged between Jenrick and new home secretary James Cleverly — but contrary to Sunak’s likely expectations, it is tending to further disunity. 

In fact, it seems the immigration minister has filled the Braverman-shaped hole in the Home Office by putting himself at the head of demands in the Conservative Party for lower migration.

Perhaps Jenrick thinks he should have been rewarded for his dogged loyalty as de facto home secretary with a de jure promotion. He was, of course, one-third of the triumvirate of junior ministers, along with Rishi Sunak and Oliver Dowden, who backed Boris Johnson in 2019 to give him the momentum to become prime minister. Of these three close allies, Jenrick has undoubtedly fared worst in the current government. His record warrants a higher-profile position, he may well conclude. 

But whatever his thinking, the dynamic that has developed between himself and James Cleverly, now mirrors the old dynamic between Suella Braverman and himself. But Jenrick’s position — once considered a moderating force — has entirely reversed. His aggressive agreement with Braverman while he served as her deputy is having a long afterlife, it seems. 

The nature of Cleverly and Jenrick’s dynamic also runs counter to what might be expected from the immigration minister (a former remainer once nicknamed “Robert Generic”) and the home secretary (a barrel-chested Brexiteer and former Boris Johnson loyalist).

But, as a consequence, Jenrick has seen the weight of the Conservative Party right wing swing behind him. During the urgent question yesterday, Suella Braverman’s prime patron and closest ally Sir John Hayes asked: 

Does the minister recognise that many myths about immigration are perpetuated by the unholy alliance of greedy globalist corporate businesses and guilt-ridden bourgeois liberals? … In doing so, will he recognise that we are relying on him to sort this out, because we know that he shares our concern that it is time for British workers for British jobs?

The immigration minister, sidelining his responsibility to stress departmental unity, responded: “My right hon. Friend and I are at one on this issue”.

Meanwhile, Sir Edward Leigh argued that wages in the care home sector must increase to stop mass arrivals from abroad. “We know [the minister’s] on the right side, he’s just got to persuade the PM now”, he declared.

Jenrick replied: “He’s absolutely right and I agree with everything he said”

It underlines that if Sunak thought he could end the disunity at the Home Office by sacking Braverman, he was sorely mistaken. Jettisoning the former troublemaker home secretary has  inspired in Jenrick a new activist tilt. His immigration dilemma, correspondingly, is no less fraught. 

Josh Self is Editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on Twitter here.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website, providing comprehensive coverage of UK politics. Subscribe to our daily newsletter here.

Source