Dominic Raab has said he did not call Afghanistan’s foreign minister when he was on holiday as he was prioritising securing Kabul airport so that evacuation flights could depart.
“On Friday afternoon, 13 August, advice was put to my private office (around 6pm Afghan time) recommending a call to the Afghan foreign minister. This was quickly overtaken by events,” it reads.
Image: The RAF have been helping people to evacuate from Kabul airport. PIC: MoD
“The call was delegated to a minister of state because I was prioritising security and capacity at the airport on the direct advice of the director and the director general overseeing the crisis response.
“In any event, the Afghan foreign minister agreed to take the call, but was unable to because of the rapidly deteriorating situation.
Advertisement
“The government’s approach to prioritise security at the airport was the right one. As a result, 204 UK nationals and their families, Afghan staff and other countries citizens were evacuated on the morning of Monday 16 August.”
Posting on social media, the foreign secretary said his statement was “responding to the inaccurate media reporting over recent days”.
More on Afghanistan
Mr Raab is continuing to resist calls to resign as foreign secretary after he declined to speak with his Afghan counterpart while on holiday as the Taliban closed in on Kabul.
Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and Plaid Cymru are mounting pressure on Mr Raab to depart his ministerial role and say Prime Minister Boris Johnson should sack the foreign secretary if he does not stand aside himself.
Image: Armed forces minister James Heappey says government officials have been ‘working their backsides off’ to evacuate people
But Downing Street say they have “full confidence” in Mr Raab.
And asked by reporters on Thursday morning if he plans to resign over the matter, the foreign secretary replied: “No.”
Speaking to Sky News on Friday, defence minister James Heappey came to Mr Raab’s defence and said people at all levels in the UK government are “working their backsides off” to evacuate people.
But Labour say the foreign secretary’s position has become “untenable”.
Earlier this week, shadow foreign secretary Lisa Nandy told Sky News that “not picking up the phone to the Afghan foreign minister seems to me to be absolutely shameful on the government’s part”.
In a statement released later, she added: “If Dominic Raab doesn’t have the decency to resign, the prime minister must show a shred of leadership and sack him.”
Image: Taliban fighters have taken over Kabul in recent days. Pic: AP
Labour’s deputy leader Angela Rayner added: “Dominic Raab should resign. If he won’t resign, Boris Johnson should sack him.”
In a post on social media, Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said: “Raab must go.”
Reiterating the same position, SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford said: “Dominic Raab has failed to perform his basic duties as foreign secretary, and he has put people’s lives at risk. His position is completely untenable and he must resign, or be sacked.”
And Plaid Cymru’s Westminster leader, Liz Saville Roberts said Mr Raab “no longer commends respect” and “should resign or be removed from post”.
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has also defended Mr Raab, telling Kay Burley that “one phone call is not the reason we are where we are” in terms of the current situation in Afghanistan.
Image: Mr Raab said the government are ‘working tirelessly’ to evacuate people from Kabul. Pic: Simon Dawson/Downing St
He added that he had “no problem” in dealing with the foreign secretary while he was abroad.
Mr Raab has been accused of failing to ask Hanif Atmar for urgent assistance in evacuating Afghan interpreters who had worked for UK military personnel during the 20-year conflict in the country.
The foreign secretary was on holiday when senior officials advised he should speak with Mr Atmar as the Taliban headed for Kabul, the Afghan capital.
It was important the call was made by Mr Raab, rather than a junior minister, the officials had said.
But they were told Mr Raab was unavailable and that Lord Goldsmith, the Foreign Office minister on duty, could speak to Mr Atmar instead.
On Wednesday, a Foreign Office spokesperson said: “The foreign secretary was engaged on a range of other calls and this one was delegated to another minister.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Shadow foreign secretary Lisa Nandy says Mr Raab’s position has become ‘untenable’
Reports later transpired that the phone call was not made by the junior foreign office minister either.
Mr Raab reportedly did not speak with his Afghan counterpart until at least the next day, after the Afghan foreign ministry refused to set up a call with the more junior UK minister.
This meant crucial time was lost before the Taliban took control of Kabul on Sunday, prompting a desperate scramble to evacuate thousands of Britons and the interpreters that is still ongoing.
Shadow home secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds accused Mr Raab of a “dereliction of duty”.
Meanwhile, a No 10 spokesperson confirmed the prime minister will chair a COBR meeting on Friday afternoon to discuss the current situation in Afghanistan.
Nigel Farage has said he would take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if Reform win the next election.
The party’s leader also reaffirmed his pledge to repeal the Human Rights Act and disapply three other international treaties acting as “roadblocks” to deporting anyone entering the UK illegally.
In a speech about tackling illegal migration, he said a Reform government would detain and deport any migrants arriving illegally, including women and children, and they would “never, ever be allowed to stay”.
Sky News looks at what the ECHR is, how the UK could leave, and what could happen to human rights protections if it does.
What is the ECHR?
On 4 November 1950, the 12 member states of the newly formed Council of Europe (different to the EU) signed the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – otherwise known as the ECHR.
It came into force on 3 September 1953 and has since been signed by an additional 34 Council of Europe members who have joined, bringing the total to 46 signatories.
The treaty was drafted in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Holocaust to protect people from the most serious human rights violations. It was also in response to the growth of Stalinism in central and Eastern Europe to protect members from communist subversion.
The treaty was the first time fundamental human rights were guaranteed in law.
Sir Winston Churchill helped establish the Council of Europe and was a driving force behind the ECHR, which came from the Charter of Human Rights that he championed and was drafted by British lawyers.
Image: Sir Winston Churchill was a driving force behind the ECHR
To be a signatory of the ECHR, a state has to be a member of the Council of Europe – and they must “respect pluralist democracy, the rule of law and human rights”.
There are 18 sections, including the most well-known: Article 1 (the right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression).
The ECHR has been used to halt the deportation of migrants in 13 out of 29 UK cases since 1980.
ECHR protections are enforced in the UK through the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates most ECHR rights into domestic law. This means individuals can bring cases to UK courts to argue their ECHR rights have been violated, instead of having to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Article 8 is the main section that has been used to stop illegal migrant deportations, but Article 3 has also been successfully used.
Image: The ECHR is interpreted by judges at this court in Strasbourg, France. File pic: AP
How is it actually used?
The ECHR is interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) – you’ll have to bear with us on the confusingly similar acronyms.
The convention is interpreted under the “living instrument doctrine”, meaning it must be considered in the light of present-day conditions.
The number of full-time judges corresponds to the number of ECHR signatories, so there are currently 46 – each nominated by their state for a non-renewable nine-year term. But they are prohibited from having any institutional ties with the state they come from.
An individual, group of individuals, or one or more of the signatory states can lodge an application alleging one of the signatory states has breached their human rights. Anyone who have exhausted their human rights case in UK courts can apply to the ECtHR to have their case heard in Strasbourg.
All ECtHR hearings must be heard in public, unless there are exceptional circumstances to be heard in private, which happens most of the time following written pleadings.
The court may award damages, typically no more than £1,000 plus legal costs, but it lacks enforcement powers, so some states have ignored verdicts and continued practices judged to be human rights violations.
Image: Inside the European Court of Human Rights. File pic: AP
How could the UK leave?
A country can leave the convention by formally denouncing it, but it would likely have to also leave the Council of Europe as the two are dependent on each other.
At the international level, a state must formally notify the Council of Europe of its intention to withdraw with six months’ notice, when the UK would still have to implement any ECtHR rulings and abide by ECHR laws.
The UK government would have to seek parliament’s approval before notifying the ECtHR, and would have to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 – which would also require parliamentary approval.
Would the UK leaving breach any other agreements?
Leaving the ECHR would breach the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, a deal between the British and Irish governments on how Northern Ireland should be governed, which could threaten the peace settlement.
It would also put the UK’s relationship with the EU under pressure as the Brexit deal commits both to the ECHR.
The EU has said if the UK leaves the ECHR it would terminate part of the agreement, halting the extradition of criminal suspects from the EU to face trial in the UK.
Image: Keir Starmer has previously ruled out taking Britain out of the ECHR
How would the UK’s human rights protections change?
Certain rights under the ECHR are also recognised in British common law, but the ECHR has a more extensive protection of human rights.
For example, it was the ECHR that offered redress to victims of the Hillsborough disaster and the victims of “black cab rapist” John Worboys after state investigations failed.
Before cases were taken to the ECtHR and the Human Rights Act came into force, the common law did not prevent teachers from hitting children or protect gay people from being banned from serving in the armed forces.
Repealing the ECHR would also mean people in the UK would no longer be able to take their case to the ECtHR if the UK courts do not remedy a violation of their rights.
The UK’s human rights record would then not be subject to the same scrutiny as it is under the ECHR, where states review each other’s actions.
Image: Two victims of John Worboys sued the Met Police for failing to effectively investigate his crimes using Article 3 of the ECHR. Pic: PA
How human rights in the UK would be impacted depends partly on what would replace the Human Rights Act.
Mr Farage has said he would introduce a British Bill of Rights, which would apply only to UK citizens and lawful British citizens.
He has said it would not mention “human rights” but would include “the freedom to do everything, unless there’s a law that says you can’t” – which is how common law works.
Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg said this would simply confirm the rights to which people are already entitled, but would also remove rights enjoyed by people visiting the UK.
Over a quarter of Brits said they’d add crypto to their retirement portfolios, while 23% would even withdraw existing pension funds to invest in the space.