Early evening summary
Ken Clarke, a Conservative former chancellor and former lord chancellor, has told peers that, while he supported the government’s last Rwanda bill, he cannot support the new one because overturning a supreme court judgment is a “very dangerous constitutional provision”. (See 5.42pm.)
An inquiry has concluded that some of the decisions taken by bodies involved in the Teesworks redevelopment “do not meet the standards expected when managing public funds”. (See 5.44pm.)
Updated
Ben Houchen, who as Conservative Tees Valley mayor has facilitated and championed the Teesworks redevelopment scheme, claims it has been vindicated by the report published this afternoon because it says that there is no evidence of corruption and illegality – despite what has been suggested by some media reports, and by Labour.
@TeesworksUK Independent Review published
👉 In black and white, “no evidence to support allegations of corruption or illegality”.
Confirms land was not sold for £100, but instead a wider deal was done worth £39m.
❌@AndyMcdonaldMP LIED and cost Teesside investment & jobs.
🚨 @TeesworksUK Independent Review published
— Ben Houchen (@BenHouchen) January 29, 2024
👉 In black and white, “no evidence to support allegations of corruption or illegality”.
Confirms land was not sold for £100, but instead a wider deal was done worth £39m.
❌@AndyMcdonaldMP LIED and cost Teesside investment & jobs. pic.twitter.com/40Ckkblef0
Inquiry finds some Teesworks redevelopment decisions 'do not meet standards expected' for managing public funds
The government has just published its Tees Valley review, the report into the Teesworks redevelopment including the Teesside freeport. Here is the 96-page report, and here are the executive summary and recommendations.
The summary says:
The review panel has now completed its work within the scope of the terms of reference. Based on the information shared with the panel, we have found no evidence to support allegations of corruption or illegality. However, there are issues of governance and transparency that need to be addressed and a number of decisions taken by the bodies involved do not meet the standards expected when managing public funds. The panel have therefore concluded that the systems of governance and finance in place within TVCA [the Tees Valley Combined Authority] and STDC [the South Tees Development Corporation] at present do not include the expected sufficiency of transparency and oversight across the system to evidence value for money.
Updated
Ken Clarke says he can't support new Rwanda bill as he did last one because overturning supreme court 'very dangerous'
Last year, when the House of Lords was debating the illegal migration bill, the original legislation underpinning the Rwanda policy, there was a suprise intervention from Ken Clarke, the Conservative former chancellor. Despite being seen as a leading figure on the liberal wing of the Tory party, Clarke told peers he was backing the policy because he did not think anyone had a better solution to the problem caused by small boats.
But there is bad news for the government. In a speech this afternoon in the second reading debate, Clarke revealed that he had switched sides.
He said that he still thought the public needed to be reassured that the government was in control of its borders, and he still thought it was acceptable to remove migrants to a safe third country.
But he said the proposal to send them to Rwanda hit a “brick wall” when it was vetoed by the supreme court. And the government’s response was “quite startling”, he said. He went on:
They have decided to bring an act of parliament to overturn a finding of fact made by the supreme court of this country, and if we pass this bill, we are asserting as a matter of law that Rwanda is a safe country for this purpose, that it is always going to be a safe country for this purpose until the law is changed, and the courts may not even consider any evidence brought before them to try to demonstrate that is not a safe country.
This is a very dangerous constitutional provision. I hope it will be challenged properly in the courts because we have an unwritten constitution, and it gets more and more important that we do ensure that powers in this country are controlled by some constitutional limits, and are subject to the rule of law.
Somebody has already said in this debate that parliament apparently, claiming the sovereignty of parliament, can claim that the colour black is the same as the colour white, or dogs are cats.
Clarke said he agreed with all peers saying the legislation should be conditional on Rwanda actually showing that it has complied with the treaty it has signed saying it will implement safeguards to its immigration system. As the bill went through the Lords, he would probably back some “startling amendments”, he said.
He said the government had placed far too much faith in the Rwanda policy. But he urged the Lords not to block the bill. That would just allow the government to blame the Lords for it not being able to stop the boats, he said. It would “save this government from what are I think are its follies in crashing on with this particular policy in this way, and I hope we won’t fall into that trap.”
Updated
Scotland's former health secretary Jeane Freeman says Covid care home policy 'not as adequate as I would have wished'
Back at the UK Covid inquiry in Edinburgh, Jeane Freeman, who was health secretary in the Scottish government during Covid, said this afternoon that she will regret for the rest of her life any deaths in care homes that occured because of what the government did. She said:
I would like to say at this point – I have said it before, but I want it read into the record here – that I was personally very concerned about our care sector, both our residential care sector and the care at home sector for adults, and regret very much, and will do for the rest of my life, any deaths that occurred there because of action that the Scottish government didn’t take or did take but could have done better.
As PA Media reports, Freeman said the issue of discharging patients from hospital to care homes without testing them for Covid was a “complex issue”.
She said that while 348 care homes had outbreaks of Covid, “some care homes that received discharges did not have outbreaks”. She went on:
I am not saying that the discharge from hospital without a test had no impact, what I am saying is that it was one of the factors.
When Jamie Dawson KC, counsel for the inquiry, put it to Freeman that the Scottish government’s response to the problem of Covid in care homes was “completely inadequate”, Freeman replied:
It was not as adequate as I would have wished it to be.
I believe it was all that could be done with the resources available to us at that point, and that improved as time passed.
Updated
Households in England face above-inflation £2bn council tax raid
Households across England are facing an inflation-busting £2bn council tax raid this spring despite Rishi Sunak’s promise of pre-election giveaways to save his premiership, Richard Partington reports. In a deal to address the worsening financial crisis hitting town halls across the country, officials in Michael Gove’s levelling up department have told council bosses they expect a maximum possible 4.99% increase in April.
Here is Richard’s story in full.
Post Office chair sacked over current issues, not Horizon scandal, minister tells MPs
The minister with responsibility for the Post Office has said its chair was summarily sacked over the weekend because of current issues with the organisation rather than the failures over the Horizon IT system, and that the news was rushed out in case it leaked.
Answering an urgent Commons question on the dismissal of Henry Staunton, announced on Saturday evening, the business minister Kevin Hollinrake said the decision was “about governance going forward” rather than the Horizon scandal, which long pre-dated Staunton’s time in the job.
Hollinrake said his department “exercised its right to remove the chairman” over worries about governance, which he could not detail for confidential HR reasons.
Asked about the timing of the news – some had speculated it was done because Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, was undertaking Sunday’s government media round – Hollinrake said the department wanted to inform Staunton formally in case the news emerged via other means.
Updated
Lord Blunkett, the Labour former home secretary, told peers that the Rwanda bill had “nothing to do with finding solutions”. Instead, it was all about “virtue signalling” to a particular segment of the electorate, and scapegoating groups – in particular, the oppositon, the courts and the Lords.
He also claimed that Giorgia Meloni, the far-right Italian prime minister, was proposing an immigration policy to African nations that would see claims being processed offshore, but some migrants being readmitted to Italy afterwards. He said the UK version of this policy, the Rwanda policy, was even more extreme, because it did not envisage any migrants returning. “What sort of country are we?” he asked, if the UK had become more extreme than the Brothers of Italy (Meloni’s party, which has historic links to a postwar neo-fascist party).
Updated
Rwanda bill 'leading nation down damaging path', archbishop of Canterbury tells peers
Justin Welby, the archbiship of Canterbury, is speaking.
He says that almost every tradition of faith and humanism in the world stresses the dignity of the individual.
And at the heart of the Christian tradition is that strangers are welcomed. “Jesus said: ‘I was a stranger and you invited me in’,” he says.
He says we as a nation can do better than this bill. It will undermine the rule of law, and damage the reputation of the country.
He says he is glad that small boat crossing numbers are coming down.
He says the world needs a global strategy for dealing with the problems caused by migration.
And he says, although he views Rwanda as a wonderful country, the UK should not be outsourcing its legal and moral responsibility for refugees to it.
But he ends by saying that he will not be voting with the Lib Dems to vote down the bill at this point. He says he wants to wait until a third reading, after amendments have been made to the bill, before deciding whether or not it should pass.
UPDATE: Welby said:
We can, as a nation, do better than this bill.
With this bill the government is continuing to seek good objectives in the wrong way, leading the nation down a damaging path …
We need a wider strategy for refugee policy which involves international cooperation and which equips us for the far greater migration flows, perhaps 10 times greater in the coming decades, as a result of conflict and climate change and poverty. Instead this bill offers only ad hoc, one-off approaches.
Rwanda is a country I know well, it is a wonderful country and my complaint is not with Rwanda, nor with its people. It has overcome challenges that this house cannot begin to imagine.
But this bill continues, wherever it does it, to outsource our legal and moral responsibilities for refugees and asylum seekers, with other countries far poorer already supporting multitudes more than we are now, and to cut back on our aid.
Updated
Lib Dem peer Lord German urges peers to vote down Rwanda bill at second reading
Lord German, the Lib Dem peer, was the third peer to speak in the Lords debate. He said that he felt this was one of the rare occasions when the Lords would be justified in voting down a bill at second reading.
He proposed his amendment, which gives five reasons why peers should reject the bill. It says:
As an amendment to the motion that the bill be now read a second time, to leave out from “that” to the end and insert “this House declines to give the bill a second reading because it
(1) places the United Kingdom at risk of breaching its international law commitments;
(2) undermines the rule of law by ousting the jurisdiction of the courts;
(3) will lead to substantial costs to the taxpayer;
(4) fails to provide safe and legal routes for refugees; and
(5) fails to include measures to tackle people-smuggling gangs.”
Updated
In the Lords Lord Ponsonby, a shadow Home Office minister, confirmed that Labour would not be voting for the amendment to the motion tabled by the Lib Dem peer Lord German saying the bill should not get a second reading.
He described the bill as unworkable and inhumane, and said Labour did not support it.
But he said that the bill passed all its stages in the House of Commons. The role of the Lords was not to undermine the will of the elected house, he said. Instead, the Lords should treat the bill in the usual manner, scrutinising the detail and suggesting changes, he said. And it should give the Commons the chance to think again.
Updated
Labour chair of Commons business committee says Teesside freeport scheme inquiry to show 'significant loss to taxpayer'
The government is expected to publish this afternoon the results of the inquiry ordered by Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, into allegations that there has been corruption in the Teesside freeport and redevelopment project.
In an interview on Radio 4’s World at One, Liam Byrne, the Labour chair of the Commons business committee, said he did not think the report would provide evidence of corruption. But he said he thought people would be shocked by what had been allowed to happen legally. He said:
I’ve got a nasty feeling that what is going to surprise us is what was actually legal.
Because it would appear, certainly looking at the accounts that we’ve pored over, it does look like here you’ve got a company that was basically given the option to buy public land at about £1 an acre, we’ve given away shares in a company that did this so that 90% are now owned by these two businesspeople, and they were then able to go on and sell all of the scrap metal on the site for about £50m. They then leased the land that they’d been given to help build a windfarm factory, then sold that lease for £75m. So the developers have basically made about £124m in a couple of years without putting any money of their own in and, it would have been, without creating any jobs themselves …
At first blush, it does look like there’s been quite a significant loss to the taxpayer.
Updated
Lord Carlile, a crossbench peer, intervenes in Lord Stewart’s speech, and asks if the minister will explain how the government is responding to the report from the Lords international agreements committee saying the UK-Rwanda treaty should not be ratified until Rwanda has implemented the reforms required to make it safe for small-boat refugees from the UK. And he asks if the government intends to start sending people to Rwanda before those reforms have been implemented.
Stewart does not address the point, but he says he expects this to be addressed during the debate.
Updated
Peers start debate on second reading of Rwanda bill
In the House of Lords peers have just started the second reading debate on the safety of Rwanda (asylum and immigration) bill.
Here is the list showing which peers will be speaking, and in what order.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton, the advocate general for Scotland, is opening the debate.
He starts by saying that he will be speaking as a government minister, and not as a law officer. (The advocate general for Scotland is the equivalent of the attorney general for Scottish law purposes.) Asked to clarify, he says he means he will be advocating government policy but sticking to the convention that law officers cannot give details of their legal advice to government.
Updated
George Freeman says he resigned from government because he could not pay increased mortgage on ministerial salary
George Freeman has said he resigned last year as a government minister because he could not afford rising mortgage repayments on a ministerial salary of nearly £120,000, PA Media reports. PA says:
Freeman resigned as science minister in November amid Rishi Sunak’s cabinet reshuffle.
In a Substack blogpost last week, he wrote: “Why did I stand down?
“Because … I was so exhausted, bust and depressed that I was starting to lose the irrepressible spirit of optimism, endeavour, teamwork & progress which are the fundamentals of human achievement.
And because my mortgage rises this month from £800pcm to £2,000, which I simply couldn’t afford to pay on a ministerial salary.
“That’s political economy 2.0.
“We’re in danger of making politics something only Hedge Fund Donors, young spin doctors and failed trade unionists can afford to do.”
Freeman, who has been the MP for Mid Norfolk since 2010, would have been receiving an annual salary of around £118,300.
He held a number of ministerial posts in successive Conservative governments and pocketed severance payments after departing.
He received £7,920 when he quit Boris Johnson’s government in July 2022, before returning to his role as science minister under Sunak 16 weeks later, according to Labour analysis.
Updated
Sunak says he fasts regularly at start of week so he can indulge in 'sugary treats' on other days
Yesterday the Sunday Times ran a story saying Rishi Sunak fasts for 36 hours a week. In her story, Caroline Wheeler said:
Friends of the prime minister say he does not eat from 5pm on a Sunday afternoon until 5am on Tuesday morning. “He is incredibly disciplined,” said one.
Sunak, 43, has spoken before about fasting, which is an integral part of his Hindu religion. But this is the first time the true extent of his abstemiousness has emerged.
A source close to the PM said: “It’s true, he doesn’t eat anything at all on a Monday. It’s remarkable really given that he is often on visits or doing PMQ prep on a Monday. It’s a real testament to the discipline, focus and determination that he shows in all aspects of his life and work.”
Intermittent fasting is said to bring various health benefits.
When asked about his habit by the BBC’s health editor, Hugh Pym, Sunak said fasting was “an important discipline for me”.
But he also implied this was about allowing him to indulge his sugar habit at other times during the week. He said he had “a weakness for sugary things” and he explained:
I tend to try and do some fasting at the beginning of every week as part of a general balanced lifestyle but everyone will do this differently … It means that I can then indulge myself in all the sugary treats I like for the rest of the week.
Updated
Gove claims Scottish government's handling of Covid sometimes motivated by partisan, pro-independence concerns
During his evidence to the UK Covid inquiry in Edinburgh this morning, Michael Gove, who was Cabinet Office minister during the pandemic, in charge of relations with the devolved governments, and who is now levelling up secretary, repeatedly sought to downplay claims that relations between the UK and Scottish governments during Covid were fractious or dysfunctional. (See 11.37am.)
But even Gove could not claim it was all sweet harmony. Here are some of the excerpts from his evidence about the tensions.
Gove said the SNP did not want inter-governmental relations to work. Mark Drakeford, the Welsh first minister, did, he said. But he went on: “With the best will in the world the SNP don’t want inter-government relations to work.”
He said that at times the Scottish government was acting in a partisan manner. When it was put to him that the relationship between the two governments was “completely dysfunctional”, he replied:
No, I don’t believe they are politically motivated in everything they do. I think, I have great respect for the professionalism with which many [Scottish government] ministers conducted themselves. I do believe their overwhelming motivation was to protect the people of Scotland from a virus.
However, there are and were occasions when the [Scottish government] was thinking politically, as we can see, and of course it is the case the SNP has a political mission to achieve Scotland’s independence, ie destroy the United Kingdom and it would be naive not to be aware that highly skilled politicians, including those at the top of the Scottish government, might well see what they perceive to be political advantage at certain points.
He said some of the Scottish government’s language was motivated by a desire for “differentiation”. He said:
Some of the language used, the desire to have ‘a good old-fashioned rammy with the UK government’ and some of the other language used, which I shan’t repeat now, does lead me to believe that at that point, there was a desire to pursue differentiation for the sake of advancing a political agenda.
He said it was an understatement to say that Boris Johnson and Nicola Sturgeon were not soulmates. In his witness statement Gove said Sturgeon, the then first minister, and Johnson, the then PM, were not soulmates. Asked if this was “something of an understatement”, Gove replied:
Understatement is sometimes the most effective means of communication.
He said Sturgeon caused “irritation” in No 10 when she announced on 12 March 2020 that she wanted to ban gatherings of more than 500 people in Scotland. He said that was “divergent” from what had been agreed at an earlier UK Cobra meeting.
Updated
Starmer welcomes endorsement from Iceland boss and former Tory donor Richard Walker
Keir Starmer has hinted that the Iceland supermarket boss Richard Walker could play a role supporting a Labour government.
He made the comment as he visited a branch of Iceland in Warrington, after Walker, a former Tory donor, used an article in the Guardian to decare his support for Labour.
Commenting on Walker’s endorsement, Starmer said:
I’m delighted at the reason he’s come out for the Labour party, because he recognised that we’re a changed Labour party, that we’re pro-working people, we’re serious about the cost-of-living crisis and about stability and long-term strategy.
I think it further cements the real profound way in which the Labour party has changed under my leadership, as we go into this all-important year of the general election.
Asked about a potential job for Walker in a Labour government, Starmer replied:
Richard Walker is wanting to work with us. He’s made it absolutely clear why he supports us and we’ll continue to talk to him.
Starmer claims Sunak needs support of 'grown-up in room' Labour party to ensure Commons passes gradual smoking ban
Keir Starmer has criticised Rishi Sunak for not imposing a ban on disposable vapes earlier. Asked if he supported the PM’s announcement, Starmer told journalists:
Yes, I support the banning of disposable vapes, not least because of the impact they have on children.
We’ve been calling for this for two years. So I do have a question for the government, which is why has it taken two years to get to this stage? We’ve wasted two years.
Starmer also suggested that Rishi Sunak was only allowing his MPs a free vote on this because he could not get them to back him. He said:
I’ve also got concerns that apparently the prime minister is going to give his MPs a free vote, because he doesn’t think that he’s able to hold his own team together.
Luckily the Labour party will always act in the national interest. We will vote for it and so this measure will go through. It’ll only go through because the Labour party is the grown-up in the room and is prepared to act in the national interest and vote for this important measure.
Sunak argues that, in allowing his MPs a free vote, he is following precedent. (See 11.13am.)
Updated
No 10 says it will not be providing further aid to UNRWA while claims about links to Hamas being investigated
Downing Street said this morning that it did not think any UK aid funding had gone to Hamas.
Asked about claims that up to a dozen staff at the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), which is part-funded by Britain, were involved in the Hamas massacre of Israelis on 7 October, the PM’s spokesperson said:
We have tight controls and agreements and due diligence on how the funding is used, as you would expect, but it’s right in light of these allegations that we conduct a further investigation with our allies and seek the reassurance that will be required in order to allow funding to continue.
The spokesperson said that the UK committed £16m to UNRWA after the Hamas attack, but that that money had now been disbursed. He said no further money would be allocated while the Hamas link was being investigated.
Updated
Inquiry into allegations of corruption at Teeswork development due to be published
An independent inquiry into claims of corruption and illegality linked to the finances at the controversial Teesworks development is expected to be published later today, PA Media reports. PA says:
Rishi Sunak appeared to confirm the report’s imminent release during a visit to the north-east, saying it would be “published later on”.
It comes amid speculation the long-awaited review will clear Teesworks and the region’s Conservative mayor Ben Houchen of wrongdoing.
The prime minister defended the “rigorous process” behind the government-commissioned probe, which has faced criticism over the lack of involvement of the public spending watchdog.
The National Audit Office (NAO) was not tasked with leading the investigation ordered by levelling up secretary Michael Gove last year, with an independent panel made up of three local authority officers from elsewhere in the country set up instead.
The conclusion of the inquiry has been delayed several times, having initially been expected last summer.
At the No 10 lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson said the UK agreed with the US’s assessment that the drone attack on the US base in Jordan, which killed three people and left more than 24 injured, was carried out by “radical Iran-backed militant groups operating in Syria and Iraq”.
Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, is one of more than 70 peers on the list to speak in the second reading debate in the Lords on the Rwanda bill. He is a fierce critic of the government’s Rwanda bill and when peers were debating the illegal migration bill last year (a precursor of the bill being debated today, subject to very similar legal and human rights objections), he denounced it as immoral.
Asked how the government would respond if he made similar comments today, the PM’s spokesperson said:
This bill is a key part of how we stop violent criminal gangs targeting vulnerable people that has led to too many deaths in the English Channel.
That is the right thing to do, it is also the fair thing to do, both for taxpayers and for those individuals seeking to come here through safe and legal routes who see their place jumped by those who can afford to make crossings on small boats.
We’ve worked very carefully both on the bill and the treaty in coordination with the Rwanda government and we continue to believe that this bill is the right way forward to get the flights off the ground and to stop the boats.
Updated
No 10 says it is disappointed rail companies not using new minimum service levels law to reduce impact of rail strikes
One of the most controversial bills passed last year was the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, which is designed to ensure that in key public services, if unions stage a strike, some staff will have to carry on working to ensure that a basic level of service is provided. The legislation was partly designed to minimimise the disruption caused by rail strikes.
But, in the rail industry at least, the legislation is not working as planned. It relies on employers, not the government, deciding to activate the MSL powers and, in strike action starting today, the train companies have decided not to, because they don’t want to further antagonise the unions.
As Gwyn Topham explains in his story:
The set of strikes was expected to be the first test of the minimum service levels legislation, designed to allow train operators to run 40% of the normal timetable. Only LNER, one of the three operators directly run by the Department for Transport, planned to use the new powers to demand that drivers break the strike. An immediate escalation by Aslef, which called five additional days of strikes at LNER, prompted a climbdown.
Rail industry bosses as well as unions had made clear their reservations in consultations and select committee hearings ahead of the strike laws being introduced, which could also be applied in health, education and firefighters disputes. Labour has said it will immediately repeal the laws if elected.
This has particularly enraged the Daily Mail, which has splashed on a story about rail bosses getting big bonuses despite not using the new law.
MAIL: Strike hell on trains as chiefs cash in #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/ZeBouQbZ5A
— Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) January 28, 2024
At the Downing Street lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson said rail companies should be using the MSL powers. Asked if the government was disappointed that they were not being used, the spokesperson replied:
Yes. It is obviously something that we, and the public, expect to be used.
It is ultimately up to train operators to effectively manage their services. We have been as clear as possible they should be ready to use all powers available to them to reduce the impact of rail strikes on passengers.
Updated
Veterans who left the armed forces before December 2018 can now apply online for a veteran’s card, the government has announced. After testing, a digital application website has gone live. The card enables veterans “to easily verify their veteran status to access support and services from government, charities, and local authorities”.
In his Inside Politics briefing for the Financial Times, Stephen Bush argues that a gradual ban on smoking will be Rishi Sunak’s most lasting legacy. He explains:
Given that the median UK voter is very fond of bans, I think it is unlikely, to put it mildly, that these changes will ever be reversed by a future government. Certainly they are not going to be overturned by a Labour administration: on the whole, Labour MPs are much more supportive of these measures than Conservative counterparts. (If you want to get a Labour MP to say something nice about the prime minister, ask them what they think of his anti-smoking measures.)
The depth of support for these policies on the opposition benches is one reason why they will a) pass into law and b) come with the risk of a large Tory rebellion. It’s a free hit in lots of ways if you are a Conservative MP who wants to show a bit of libertarian leg.
But regardless, these measures will overcome the opposition and endure. Don’t bet on either libertarian Conservatives or liberal Labour MPs having the numbers or influence to turn around what will almost certainly be Sunak’s most lasting legacy on the UK.
Sunak urges Iran to de-escalate tensions in Middle East
Rishi Sunak has urged Iran to de-escalate tensions in the Middle East after three US troops were killed in a drone strike in Jordan, PA Media reports. Speaking to broadcasters this morning, Sunak said:
We are concerned and would urge Iran to continue to de-escalate tensions in the region.
We absolutely condemn what has happened over the past couple of days.
My thoughts are with all of those impacted, those who lost their lives, their families and those that are injured.
We stand resolutely with our allies to bring stability and peace to the region.
And that’s what we’ll continue to work towards.
Martin Belam has more coverage on our Middle East crisis live blog.
More than 1,000 migrants have arrived in the UK so far this year after crossing the Channel, PA Media reports. PA says:
Home Office figures show more than 300 people made the journey at the weekend, with 112 recorded in two boats on Saturday and 276 on Sunday in five boats.
This takes the provisional total for 2024 to date to 1,057.
The highest number to cross in a single day so far this year was 358 in eight boats on 17 January.
Updated
Gove claims relations between UK and Scottish governments during Covid 'for most part constructive'
Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, has been giving evidence to the UK Covid inquiry in Edinburgh this morning. The inquiry is currently looking at governance and decision-making issues, and the Edinburgh hearings have focused on aspects relating to Scotland.
The inquiry has already heard considerable evidence about disputes in Covid policy between the UK and Scottish governments – last week it emerged Nicola Sturgeon, the then first minister, regarded Boris Johnson, the then prime minister, as a “fucking clown”, but this morning the main thrust of Gove’s evidence has played down all talk of tensions and insisted that relations, overall, were good. As the Cabinet Office minister at the time, he was the UK government minister responsible for liaising with the devolved governments.
At one point he was asked about an exchange of messages he had with Matt Hancock, the then UK health secretary, in which Hancock objected to the devolved governments being consulted about a report from the Joint Biosecurity Centre.
Hancock said:
I’ve now read that sub [submission], I’m very unhappy with it. The JBC was designed to be a UK institution that gathers and analyses data. There is no need to run it through a committee of four nations. We wouldn’t put English local authorities on the board!
When it was put to Gove that this was indicative of London’s attitude to the Scottish government, he replied:
No, I don’t believe so. Naturally there were some within the UK government who found it irksome that the Scottish government may have taken a different view, but overall the way in which the UK government worked was respectful of and inclusive towards the Scottish government.
And, at another point in his evidence, talking generally, he said:
Of course there were differences in approach and of course we had different political parties operating, but day-to-day management and day-to-day responsibilities exercised by ministers in devolved admins and in UK government was for the most part constructive.
Updated
Sunak hits back at Truss over gradual smoking ban, saying there is nothing unconservative about protecting children
Rishi Sunak has rejected Liz Truss’s claim that his plan to gradually ban all cigarette sales – by raising the legal age for buying them by one year every year, so that today’s 14-year-olds can never buy them legally – is unconservative.
Speaking to broadcasters this morning, he said:
I don’t think there’s anything unconservative about caring about our children’s health.
But he also stressed that Conservative MPs would be offered a free vote on this. He said:
On smoking, there’s been a long tradition in parliament of these being free votes which aren’t party political. People will have their own views on that. That’s the same as it’s been in the past.
But I think this is the right long-term thing for our country. Smoking causes one in four cancer deaths. It’s responsible for a hospitalisation every minute. And if we don’t do something about it, hundreds of thousands of people will die in the coming years.
We do have a chance to do something about it. And if we raise the smoking age incrementally, that will mean people will stop smoking. The vast majority of people take up smoking when they are young. If we can stop that start, we will be well on the way to making sure we have the first smoke-free generation in our country.
Sunak was referring to votes like the one in 2006 to ban smoking in pubs, and the one in 2014 to ban smoking in cars containing children, both of which were free votes.
Updated
Rwanda bill 'undermines universality of human rights', says Equality and Human Rights Commission
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has also expressed concerns about the legality of the Rwanda bill. The commission has repeatedly raised doubts about the lawfulness of the government’s Rwanda policy and, in a briefing paper for peers before the second reading debate in the Lords this afternoon, it says:
The bill:
– risks breaching the UK’s legal obligations under the European convention on human rights (ECHR) and other international human rights treaties by subjecting individuals to the risk of refoulement and other breaches of their human rights;
– undermines the fundamental principle of the universality of human rights and damages our human rights legal framework; and
– has regressive implications for the rule of law and the separation of powers.
A spokesperson for the commission said:
Human rights are universal and must be guaranteed for all.
The Human Rights Act (HRA) has significantly improved human rights protections for everyone in the UK, but the safety of Rwanda bill undermines the universality of human rights by disapplying core provisions of the HRA.
On the face of the bill, the home secretary was unable to confirm that it complies with the European convention on human rights. By disapplying sections of the HRA and seeking to prevent courts from considering the risk of refoulement, this bill could expose people to harm and breaches of their right to life, their rights to be free from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and their right to effective remedy.
Updated
Rwanda bill will breach international law to combat human trafficking, says thinktank
With peers preparing to debate the government’s safety of Rwanda (asylum and immigration) bill this afternoon, new claims have been made that it breaches human rights law.
While other critiques have focused on whether the legislation is compliant with international law relating to refugees, the latest report focuses on its relationship to international law relating to human trafficking and modern slavery.
The 17-page analysis has been published by the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre (Modern Slavery PEC), a specialist thinktank linked to the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law.
In a summary of the report, Modern Slavery PEC said:
This analysis has found that the removal to Rwanda of people who either are confirmed victims of modern slavery or human trafficking or there are reasonable grounds to believe they may be victims raises serious issues under both the European convention on human rights (ECHR) and the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings (ECAT), irrespective of any claim they may have under international refugee law.
It concluded that, in its current form, neither the Rwanda treaty nor the safety of Rwanda bill comply with the UK’s international legal obligations.
The legal analysis has found that removing to Rwanda people who received a positive ‘reasonable grounds’ decision (the first stage of a process formally identifying people as victims of modern slavery), without completing the identification process – as envisaged by article 13 of the Rwanda treaty – will automatically and in all cases put the UK in breach of article 4 ECHR (prohibition of slavery and forced labour), as well as article 10 ECAT (obligation to identify and assist every victim of modern slavery and human trafficking).
In addition, removing identified victims of modern slavery and human trafficking without conducting an individualised assessment of the risk of re-trafficking would breach the operational duty under article 4 ECHR.
Lastly, removing potential or confirmed victims of modern slavery and human trafficking risks interfering with an obligation to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of modern slavery and human trafficking contained in article 4 ECHR and article 27 ECAT.
Marija Jovanovic, a law lecturer at Essex University and a trafficking/modern slavery specialist who wrote the report, said:
Unlike international treaties designed to protect asylum seekers and refugees, the anti-trafficking instruments expressly require states not to remove suspected victims of human trafficking before their status is determined.
Drafted over half a century after the 1951 refugee convention, these obligations are much more explicit, concrete and demanding when it comes to protection requirements.
The Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings (ECAT) was only agreed in 2005.
Updated
A reader asks:
Is it true what Liz Truss says that the NZ govt are rolling back their plans for a smoking ban? Why?
She is right. And it’s because a Labour government was replaced by a rightwing coalition. There are more details here.
Adam Bienkov, from Byline Times, says one problem for Liz Truss in trying to get Tory MPs to oppose the gradual ban on all cigarette sales, is that the move is popular with the public.
A good example of why the Sunak plotters are getting nowhere. The smoking ban is one of the only significant policies the Government has which is actually popular with the public and in particular, Conservative voters. pic.twitter.com/1fzL9VDBuf
— Adam Bienkov (@AdamBienkov) January 29, 2024
Updated
Shares in vaping firms plummet as government confirms disposable vapes to be banned
Shares in vaping firms tumbled this morning as disposable vapes are set to be banned in Britain, PA Media reports. PA says:
Chill Brands saw shares slide by as much as 35% in early trading as a result, while rival business Supreme saw shares drop around 12%.
Chill’s market value had fallen by over £3m, with over £10m knocked off Supreme’s valuation during the morning trading session.
The announcement forms part of the government’s response to its consultation on smoking and vaping, which was launched in October last year.
The ban is expected to come into force at the end of 2024 or the start of 2025.
On Monday, Chill Brands, which makes nicotine-free vapes as well as CBD products, stressed that it is “committed to strict compliance with all relevant laws”.
Callum Sommerton, the chief executive of Chill, said it will continue to sell its products across UK and US retailers but they are prepared to adjust to rule changes.
He said: “The vaping landscape is constantly evolving, creating opportunities for businesses that are able to navigate the regulatory environment. The Chill brand has gained rapid traction with the support of major retailers, and I am confident that it will continue to do so as we move forward with our plans to launch reusable pod system vapes.
“Chill Brands Group is an agile company, and we are prepared to adjust to any legislation that may be enacted.”
Rival Supreme, which has brands including 88Vape, has yet to comment on the latest announcement, but it said in October that it was “fully supportive of any further legislation in the sector”.
Updated
Liz Truss says Sunak’s plan to gradually ban cigarette sales is ‘absurd' and 'profoundly unconservative’
Good morning. Two weeks ago Rishi Sunak saw off the Tory rebels wanting him to toughen up the Rwanda bill, and last week the former cabinet minister Simon Clarke was shouted down by colleagues when he called for a new leader, but the turmoil in the party never really goes away these days, and today Liz Truss, Sunak’s predecessor, is fomenting revolt on another issue.
Truss has delivered a withering attack on Sunak’s proposal to gradually ban the next generations from ever being able to buy cigarettes. She opposed the idea as soon as Sunak announced it at the Conservative party conference last year, but today she has gone further, describing the proposal as “absurd” and “profoundly unconservative”. In a statement, she said:
While the state has a duty to protect children from harm, in a free society adults must be able to make their own choices about their own lives.
Banning the sale of tobacco products to anyone born in 2009 or later will create an absurd situation where adults enjoy different rights based on their birth date.
A Conservative government should not be seeking to extend the nanny state. This will only give succour to those who wish to ban further choices of which they don’t approve.
The newly elected National government in New Zealand is already reversing the generational tobacco ban proposed by the previous administration.
The government urgently needs to follow suit and reverse this profoundly unconservative policy.
Truss was responding to an announcement from the Department of Health and Social Care saying that, following a consultation, the government intends to go ahead with plans to ban the sale of disposable vapes, to take other steps to halt already illegal vape sales to children, and to ban cigarette sales permanently for anyone born on or after 1 January 2009.
The DHSC said legislation to do this (a tobacco and vapes bill was promised in the king’s speech) would be introduced “shortly”.
The DHSC announcement covers England and Wales, but the Scottish government has said it will do the same, and legislation is due to cover Northern Ireland too.
Victoria Atkins, the health secretary, has been giving interviews this morning and she has defended the plan to increase the legal age for buying cigarettes by one year every year, so that 14-year-olds never get the chance to buy a cigarette legally.
In response to Truss’s comments, she told BBC Breakfast:
I’m old enough to remember a time when you could walk into a pub and it was filled with smoke and everybody at the time when that [banning smoking in pubs] was being debated said: ‘Oh, this will never work’. Nowadays of course you would be astonished if somebody tried to spark up a cigarette in a pub or a public facility.
And she told LBC:
I think it’s rather like the debate that we had a decade ago about whether adults should be able to smoke in cars with their children. There was a lot of debate about that. But are we honestly saying now, 10 to 12 years later, that we would go back? Of course not.
Labour is supporting the legislation, so there is no risk of the bill not being passed. But there may be dozens of Tory MPs who agree with Truss, and who might be willing to vote against the government. When Atkins was asked on the Today programme if she was confident Conservative MPs would back the bill, she sidestepped the question, saying:
We have the support of mums and dads and smokers across the country. Smokers keep coming up to me saying I wish I’d never taken up smoking.
We will be hearing from Sunak on this later.
Here is the agenda for the day.
Morning: Rishi Sunak is on a visit in the north-east of England.
10am: Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary and former Cabinet Office minister, gives evidence to the UK Covid inquiry in Edinburgh. (During Covid he was the UK minister in charge of liaising with the devolved administrations.)
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
Morning: Keir Starmer is visiting a branch of Iceland in the north-west of England. The Iceland boss, Richard Walker, a former Tory donor, has used an article for the Guardian to endorse Labour.
After 3pm: Peers begin debating the second reading of the safety of Rwanda (immigration and asylum) bill. More than 70 peers are on the list to speak.
If you want to contact me, do try the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a laptop or a desktop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting, too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line; privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate); or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.
Updated
