Connect with us

Published

on

A minister has told Sky News he would like staff in his department to be coming into the office “at least” two or three days a week, after the government insisted it would follow a “cautious” approach to civil servants returning to their desks.

Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng was asked about his views on people working from home amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Live COVID updates from the UK and around the world

EMBARGOED TO 0001 FRIDAY APRIL 9 File photo dated 04/03/20 of a woman using a laptop on a dining room table set up as a remote office to work from home. Fewer than one in seven leaders in some of the UK's biggest companies have said they expect a full-time return to offices by the end of this year, according to a new survey. Issue date: Friday April 9, 2021.
Image:
Current government guidance says that ministers are ‘no longer instructing people to work from home if they can’

It comes after an unnamed minister was quoted by one newspaper as saying officials should have their pay reduced if they refuse to come back to the office.

Speaking to Kay Burley, Mr Kwarteng said: “I think we should try to come in maybe 2-3 days a week at least.

“But it’s a gradual process, no-one is being forced back against their will.

“You’ve got to make the environment very safe but I think it is probably quite a good thing to spend more time in the week at work, that’s just a personal view.”

More on Covid-19

Mr Kwarteng added that ministers would not “dictate” to businesses when it comes to working arrangements, but stressed the benefits of “flexibility” and being able to go into the office or workplace.

“I think if you’re trying to make a career it probably makes sense to actually meet colleagues and build a network and learn from other people and I think that’s probably best done in the workplace,” he added.

Chancellor Rishi Sunak last week spoke of the benefits of working in an office, stressing the positive impact it had on his early career.

Follow the Daily podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Spreaker

Current government guidance, which came into effect when most COVID restrictions were lifted on 19 July, states that ministers are “no longer instructing people to work from home if they can, so employers can start to plan a return to workplaces”.

“During this period of high prevalence, the government expects and recommends a gradual return over the summer,” it adds.

“You should discuss the timing and phasing of a return with your workers.”

But a minister quoted by the Daily Mail advocated a more hardline approach to ending home working.

“People who have been working from home aren’t paying their commuting costs so they have had a de facto pay rise, so that is unfair on those who are going into work,” they reportedly said.

“If people aren’t going into work, they don’t deserve the terms and conditions they get if they are going into work.”

Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak after delivering his 'Mansion House' speech at the Financial and Professional Services Address, previously known as the Bankers dinner, at Mansion House in the City of London. Picture date: Thursday July 1, 2021.
Image:
The chancellor has recently spoken of the benefits of working in an office

The minister also suggested that “people who want to get on in life will go into the office because that’s how people are going to succeed”.

A union leader criticised the comments, describing them as “insulting” and a demonstration that ministers are “out of touch with modern working practices”.

Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA civil service union, said: “What should matter to ministers is whether public services are being delivered effectively, not where individual civil servants are sitting on a particular day.”

At the weekend it was reported that plans to require staff at the Department of Health and Social Care to be based partly in the office from next month have been scrapped.

According to The Guardian, the department had put staff on notice that from September the “minimum expectation” would be that they should be in the office for a minimum of four and maximum of eight days a month, unless there was a business or wellbeing reason.

But the department’s director of workplace and director of HR told staff on Thursday that “it’s clear that we cannot proceed with this phase on the planned timescale”.

A government spokesperson said: “The Civil Service continues to follow government guidance, as we gradually and cautiously increase the number of staff working in the office.

“Our approach, which builds on our learning during the pandemic, takes advantage of the benefits of both office and home-based working across the UK.”

Continue Reading

Politics

US Supreme Court will not review IRS case involving Coinbase user data

Published

on

By

US Supreme Court will not review IRS case involving Coinbase user data

US Supreme Court will not review IRS case involving Coinbase user data

A lower court ruling will stand in a case involving a Coinbase user who filed a lawsuit against the IRS after the crypto exchange turned over transaction data.

Continue Reading

Politics

First US staking ETF to launch Wednesday, giving investors exposure to Solana

Published

on

By

First US staking ETF to launch Wednesday, giving investors exposure to Solana

First US staking ETF to launch Wednesday, giving investors exposure to Solana

REX Shares will launch the first US staked crypto ETF this week, giving investors direct exposure to SOL with staking rewards.

Continue Reading

Politics

Government accused of ‘stark’ contradiction over position on Gaza genocide allegations

Published

on

By

Government accused of 'stark' contradiction over position on Gaza genocide allegations

The government has won a long-running legal challenge about its decision to continue allowing the sale of spare parts for F-35 fighter jets to Israel, while suspending other arms licences over concerns about international humanitarian law in Gaza.

But a key part of its case has highlighted mixed messaging about its position on the risk of genocide in Gaza – and intensified calls for ministers to publish their own assessment on the issue.

PM braced for pivotal vote – politics latest

Lawyers acting for the government told judges “the evidence available does not support a finding of genocide” and “the government assessment was that…there was no serious risk of genocide occurring”.

Therefore, they argued, continuing to supply the F-35 components did not put the UK at risk of breaching the Genocide Convention.

This assessment has never been published or justified by ministers in parliament, despite numerous questions on the issue.

Some MPs argue its very existence contrasts with the position repeatedly expressed by ministers in parliament – that the UK is unable to give a view on allegations of genocide in Gaza, because the question is one for the international courts.

For example, just last week Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner told PMQs “it is a long-standing principle that genocide is determined by competent international courts and not by governments”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Situation in Gaza ‘utterly intolerable’

‘The UK cannot sit on our hands’

Green MP Ellie Chowns said: “The government insists only an international court can judge whether genocide is occurring in Gaza, yet have somehow also concluded there is ‘no serious risk of genocide’ in Gaza – and despite my urging, refuse to publish the risk assessments which lead to this decision.

“Full transparency on these risk assessments should not be optional; it is essential for holding the government to account and stopping further atrocity.

“While Labour tie themselves in knots contradicting each other, families are starving, hospitals lie in ruins, and children are dying.

“The UK cannot sit on our hands waiting for an international court verdict when our legal duty under the Genocide Convention compels us to prevent genocide from occurring, not merely seek justice after the fact.”

‘Why are these assessments being made?’

“This contradiction at the heart of the government’s position is stark,” said Zarah Sultana MP, an outspoken critic of Labour’s approach to the conflict in Gaza, who now sits as an independent after losing the party whip last summer.

“Ministers say it’s not for them to determine genocide, that only international courts can do so. Yet internal ‘genocide assessments’ have clearly been made and used to justify continuing arms exports to Israel.

“If they have no view, why are these assessments being made? And if they do, why refuse to share them with parliament? This Labour government, in opposition, demanded the Tories publish their assessments. Now in office, they’ve refused to do the same.”

Read more:
‘All I see is blood’
‘It felt like earthquakes’
MPs want Ukraine-style scheme for Gazans

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Routes for Palestinians ‘restricted’

Judges at the High Court ultimately ruled the case was over such a “sensitive and political issue” it should be a matter for the government, “which is democratically accountable to parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not the court”.

Dearbhla Minogue, a senior lawyer at the Global Legal Action Network, and a solicitor for Al-Haq, the Palestinian human rights group which brought the case, said: “This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the government, but rather a restrained approach to the separation of powers.

“The government’s disgraceful assessment that there is no risk of genocide has therefore evaded scrutiny in the courts, and as far as we know it still stands.”

Palestinians inspect the damage at an UNRWA school sheltering displaced people that was hit in an Israeli air strike, in Gaza.
Pic Reuters
A Palestinian woman sits amid the damage at an UNRWA school sheltering displaced people. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Pics: Reuters

What is the government’s position?

Government lawyers argued the decision not to ban the export of F-35 parts was due to advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the whole F-35 programme and have a “profound impact on international peace and security”.

The UK supplies F-35 component parts as a member of an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets. As a customer of that programme, Israel can order from the pool of spare parts.

Labour MP Richard Burgon said the ruling puts the government under pressure to clarify its position.

“This court ruling is very clear: only the government and parliament can decide if F-35 fighter jet parts – that can end up in Israel – should be sold,” he said.

“So the government can no longer pass the buck: it can stop these exports, or it can be complicit in Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

“On many issues they say it’s not for the government to decide, but it’s one for the international courts. This washing of hands will no longer work.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Dozens dead in Gaza after Israeli strikes

Israel has consistently rejected any allegations of genocide.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu branded a recent UN report on the issue biased and antisemitic.

“Instead of focusing on the crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by the Hamas terrorist organisation… the United Nations once again chooses to attack the state of Israel with false accusations,” he said in a statement.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Gaza disinformation campaign is deliberate’

The UK government has not responded to requests for comment over its contrasting messaging to parliament and the courts over allegations of genocide.

But in response to the judgement, a spokesperson said: “The court has upheld this government’s thorough and lawful decision-making on this matter.

“This shows that the UK operates one of the most robust export control regimes in the world. We will continue to keep our defence export licensing under careful and continual review.

“On day one of this Government, the foreign secretary ordered a review into Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL).

“The review concluded that there was a clear risk that UK exports for the IDF (Israel Defence Forces) in the Gaza conflict might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of IHL.

“In contrast to the last government, we took decisive action, stopping exports to the Israeli Defence Forces that might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza.”

Continue Reading

Trending