Braverman’s letter to PM – and Sunak’s response, in full

Published

2 years ago

May 24, 2023

admin

Suella Braverman and Rishi Sunak have exchanged letters about the home secretary’s actions after she was fined for speeding last summer.

The letters come after Ms Braverman faced accusations of breaking the ministerial code by involving civil servants in her efforts to avoid a group speeding awareness course.

In a three-page letter to the prime minister, Ms Braverman laid out her version of events, and Mr Sunak responded by saying “further investigation is not necessary”.

Read the full letters below.

From Suella Braverman to Rishi Sunak

Dear Prime Minister,

I am writing to provide further information in relation to my receipt and handling of a speeding ticket, which has been the subject of recent media interest.

Around June 2022, while Attorney General, I was found to be speeding. I received notification that I could take a group speed awareness course or receive a fine and three points on my licence, which was clean at the time. I opted to take the course and booked a date in Autumn.

After arriving at the Home Office in September as Home Secretary, I informed officials in my Home Office Private Office (PO) about the course and asked whether it was appropriate given my new role. This reflected my lack of familiarity with protocol relating to my newly acquired official status as a ‘protected person’, which means I am required to have a close protection security team overseeing my movements, and with me always in public. This involves close protection having knowledge of and involvement in many areas of what would otherwise be considered my ‘private life’, not related to my work as a Minister or Member of Parliament.

In discussions with my Principal Private Secretary (PPS) I was advised that the Cabinet Office’s Propriety and Ethics Team (PET) would be the best source of advice on whether it was appropriate to seek to do the course in a way that protected my privacy, security, and was least disruptive to the course participants and provider. I readily agreed to this suggestion. Consequently, on 28 September 2022 my PPS discussed this with the Permanent Secretary’s Office. The Permanent Secretary’s Office, at the request of the Permanent Secretary, then asked PET for guidance (noting that their own initial view was that this was not a matter for civil servant involvement) and asked if they were aware of any precedents and for any advice. PET advised it was not an appropriate matter for civil servants to take forward. My PPS also rightly pointed out that I needed to be mindful to ensure that I did not ask a company to change their rules due to my position, which neither I, nor to the best of my knowledge anyone acting on my behalf, ever sought to do. My PPS confirmed that I could continue discussing the matter with Special Advisers, and asked them to pick up with me. I made no further requests of officials.

I therefore later engaged with Special Advisers about how we would enable my participation in a way that would maintain my security and privacy. This was to determine whether there were other options possible within the overall framework and rules of the provider.

My preference at this point, following consultation with my Special Advisers, was to attend a group course in person rather than online due to privacy concerns. Participation in a speed awareness course is supposed to be private, and Special Advisers raised concerns about the risk of me being covertly recorded while participating online, and the political ramifications of this. PO and the Permanent Secretary’s officials also had previously advised that participating online risked generating media interest.

However, Special Advisers raised concerns about the difficulties of ensuring the appropriate security arrangements for an in-person course. Their concerns included that my protective Security team might need to join me in the room or be unable to undertake appropriate vetting of other course participants owing to third party privacy concerns.

Special Advisers then contacted the course provider to better understand the range of appropriate options that might be available – and consistent with the course provider’s rules, policies and practices. Based on this further information, I concluded that none of these could satisfactorily address the aforementioned security, privacy and political concerns. I therefore opted to take the points and pay the fine, which I did in November.

I accept that I was speeding and regret doing so. At no point did I try to avoid sanction. My actions were always directed toward finding an appropriate way to participate in the speed awareness course, taking into account my new role as Home Secretary and the necessary security and privacy issues that this raised. My interactions with officials intended to provide appropriate clarification of the options available to me in my role as Home Secretary. Whenever I was informed that a possible option was not available, I accepted that. At no point did I instruct officials to behave contrary to the advice that was provided.

I considered the involvement of my Special Advisers appropriate, given the logistical, security, privacy, media, and therefore political considerations involved. I regret that my attempt to find a way to participate in the course in a manner that would have satisfied these concerns has enabled some to construe a potential conflict of interest. With hindsight, I acknowledge that the better course of action would have been to take the points and fine upfront.

The Ministerial Code sets out that Ministers must provide a list of all interests which might be thought to give rise to a conflict. It does not define what should be included, but it does specify the different types of interests. These are all framed around the responsibility for avoiding a conflict of interest between Ministers’ public duties and their private interests, and tend to relate to ongoing circumstances or relationships. Recognising the importance of integrity and transparency, I approach my declarations with great care and consideration.

The purpose of the form is to declare anything which might interfere, or be perceived to interfere, with a Minister’s integrity when making decisions in the public interest. I did not consider that a speeding infringement or attending a speed awareness course, needed to be disclosed. It is not an ongoing situation with the potential to influence my decisions. In general, minor driving offences tend to be excluded from official forms. For example, barristers are not required to inform the regulator of minor speeding infractions; similarly, these are excluded if you are asked about any criminal history when you apply for a visa to the UK, or in the annual security questions asked of civil servants in the Home Office with heightened security clearance. I note that PET has, since November 2022, introduced references to fixed penalty notices in their introductory discussions with new ministers, recognising that the position was unclear given these are not currently explicitly covered by Ministerial interest forms. I am grateful for this clarity, and in the future would declare any similar speeding course or fine.

As I outlined, I informed my officials of the speeding and driving course, and the Permanent Secretary’s office was involved in the conversations as described above, determining whether it was appropriate for civil servants to engage with the security and logistics of me attending this course. It was never suggested by anyone in my PO or the Permanent Secretary’s Office that I needed to disclose the situation on an updated form. I also understand that, despite being aware of events at the time, at no point did the Permanent Secretary or Cabinet Office suggest that my actions resulted in a conflict of interest or merited any investigation.

I am deeply committed to all the Nolan Principles of Public Life, including honesty, integrity and openness, and I regret that these events have led some to question my commitment. I have at all times been truthful and transparent, and taken decisions guided by what I believed was right and appropriate given my office, not by any personal motivation. Another principle, of course, is leadership: Ministers must hold themselves – and be seen to hold themselves – to the highest standards. I have always strived, and will continue to strive, to do this.

As I say, in hindsight, or if faced with a similar situation again, I would have chosen a different course of action. I sought to explore whether bespoke arrangements were possible, given my personal circumstances as a security-protected Minister. I recognise how some people have construed this as me seeking to avoid sanction – at no point was that the intention or outcome. Nonetheless, given the fundamental importance of integrity in public life, I deeply regret that my actions may have given rise to that perception, and I apologise for the distraction this has caused.

I hope this clearly sets out my involvement in this matter and provides you with all relevant information. Should you require any further information, I will of course be happy to provide it.

Yours sincerely,

Suella Braverman

From Rishi Sunak to Suella Braverman

Dear Home Secretary,

Thank you for your letter and for your time discussing these matters with me.

Integrity, professionalism and accountability are core values of this Government and it is right and proper that where issues are raised these are looked at professionally to ensure the appropriate course of action is taken.

I have consulted with my Independent Adviser. He has advised that on this occasion further investigation is not necessary and I have accepted that advice. On the basis of your letter and our discussion, my decision is that these matters do not amount to a breach of the Ministerial Code.

As you have recognised, a better course of action could have been taken to avoid giving rise to the perception of impropriety.

Nevertheless, I am reassured you take these matters seriously. You have provided a thorough account, apologised and expressed regret.

It is vital that all those in Government maintain the high standards the public rightly expects. I know you share this view, just as we are committed to delivering on the issues that matter to the British people – from making our streets safer and reducing net migration to stopping the boats.

Yours ever,

Rishi Sunak

World

Russian forces creep through disused gas pipeline in attempt to launch surprise attack on Ukrainian soldiers

Published

6 hours ago

March 9, 2025

admin

Russian forces creep through disused gas pipeline in attempt to launch surprise attack on Ukrainian soldiers

Russian special forces crept through a disused gas pipeline for several miles to launch a surprise attack on Ukrainian soldiers in the Kursk region, Ukraine’s military and pro-Moscow war bloggers have said.

Footage circulating on the Telegram app claims to show the elite soldiers crouching as they make their way through the darkness of the pipe to the town of Sudzha.

Some can be heard cursing in Russian and complaining about the commanders who sent them on the mission.

One of the soldiers is heard saying: “F*****g hell, where the f*** are we, boys?”

Another says: “Where does the pipe go? To Sudzha, for f**** sake, that’s f***ing crazy.”

Later in the clip a soldier is heard saying: “We’ll get there of course, but indignantly, because we’re f*****g sick of the f*****g command.”

He later adds: “They took our f*****g assault rifles too.”

Two of the soldiers are seen smoking cigarettes while a separate image shared on Telegram shows an operative wearing a gas mask.

Ukraine war live updates

The special forces soldiers walked around nine miles (15km) through the pipeline which Moscow had until recently used to send gas to Europe, according to Telegram posts by Ukrainian-born pro-Kremlin blogger Yuri Podolyaka.

In the footage, the soldiers suggest the mission requires them to walk seven miles through the pipe.

Mr Podolyaka says some of them spent several days in the pipeline before striking Ukrainian units from the rear near Sudzha.

The operation formed part of efforts by Russia to recapture areas of Kursk which were seized by thousands of Ukrainian soldiers in a shock offensive in August last year.

Another pro-Russian war blogger, who uses the alias Two Majors, said a major battle is under way in Sudzha after Moscow’s special forces crept through the pipe.

Meanwhile, Ukraine’s general staff confirmed on Saturday that Russian soldiers had used the pipeline in an attempt to gain a foothold, but airborne assault forces promptly detected them, and they responded with rocket, artillery and drone attacks that destroyed Moscow’s units.

“The enemy’s losses in Sudzha are very high,” the general staff reported.

It comes as Ukraine’s Air Assault Forces shared a video on Telegram on Saturday which it claims shows Kyiv’s forces repelling Russian forces in Kursk with airstrikes.

Sky News has not independently verified the footage.

Months after Kyiv’s forces seized parts of Kursk, Ukrainian soldiers are weary and bloodied by relentless assaults of more than 50,000 Russian troops, including some from Moscow’s ally North Korea.

Tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers run the risk of being encircled, open-source maps of the battlefield showed on Friday.

Meanwhile, Russia’s defence ministry said this morning that it had captured a settlement in Kursk and another in Ukraine’s Sumy region.

Russia also launched heavy aerial attacks overnight on Ukraine into Saturday – with at least 22 people killed, including 11 in the frontline town of Dobropilla in Ukraine’s embattled eastern Donetsk region.

Ukrainian president Voldymyr Zelenskyy described the attacks as a “vile and inhumane intimidation tactic” by Russia.

The attacks come after the US paused military aid and the sharing of intelligence with Ukraine this month after a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Mr Zelenskyy descended into a confrontation in front of the world’s media.

The Trump administration’s stance on Ukraine and apparent favouring of Moscow has sparked concern among European leaders.

Latvian President Edgars Rinkevics told Sky News on Sunday that European countries should “absolutely” introduce conscription as he conceded the continent was “quite weak” militarily in the face of the Russia threat.

Meanwhile, Russian officials have been criticised after presenting mothers of soldiers killed in Ukraine with gifts of meat grinders on International Women’s Day.

Russia is often accused of throwing its troops into a “meat grinder” with little regard for their lives.

The local branch of government in the northwestern Russian town of Polyarniye Zori defended itself against the backlash, saying critics were making “callous and provocative interpretations” of the gifts.

World

Who are the candidates to become Canada’s next prime minister?

Published

6 hours ago

March 9, 2025

admin

Who are the candidates to become Canada's next prime minister?

Canada is set for a new prime minister as the ruling Liberal Party prepares to announce Justin Trudeau’s replacement as leader.

Mr Trudeau, who has been prime minister since 2015, announced he was stepping down in January after facing calls to quit from a chorus of his own MPs.

The 53-year-old’s popularity had declined as food and house prices rose.

The Liberal Party will announce its new leader tonight following a vote by around 140,000 members.

A former Bank of England governor has emerged as the frontrunner as the country deals with the impacts of tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump.

The next prime minister will also have to decide when to call a general election – which must be held on or before 20 October.

As the Liberal Party prepares to choose its new leader, we take a look at the candidates.

Mark Carney

The 59-year-old will be a familiar face to many in the UK as he served as governor of the Bank of England between 2013 and 2020.

He was formerly the head of Canada’s central bank and was praised after the country recovered from the 2008 financial crisis faster than many other countries.

Mr Carney has picked up one endorsement after another from cabinet ministers and MPs since he declared his candidacy in January.

He did not serve in Mr Trudeau’s government but was named as the chair of a government task force on economic growth last September.

Daniel Beland, a political science professor at McGill University in Montreal, said Mr Carney’s calm demeanour and outstanding resume make him a reassuring figure to many Canadians at a time when Mr Trump is “going after their country’s economy and sovereignty”.

Chrystia Freeland

Ms Freeland, a former deputy prime minister and finance minister of Canada, was leading in the polls to replace Mr Trudeau shortly after he announced his resignation.

However, her long association with the outgoing prime minister and the threat of Mr Trump’s tariffs have since tipped things in Mr Carney’s favour.

The 56-year-old was born in the west Canadian province of Alberta to a Ukrainian mother.

Before entering politics in 2013, Ms Freeland worked as a journalist covering Russia and Ukraine for several years.

Mr Trudeau told Ms Freeland that he no longer wanted her as finance minister in December but that she could remain deputy prime minister and the point person for US-Canada relations.

She stepped down shortly after and released a scathing letter about the government which increased pressure on Mr Trudeau ahead of his resignation.

Karina Gould

Ms Gould is the youngest woman to serve as a minister in Canada and has advocated for a tough stance on Mr Trump.

The 37-year-old, who has served as minister of democratic institutions and minister of international development, has previously branded herself as part of a “generational shift” and said the Liberal Party “needs to embrace this shift too”.

Ms Gould has reportedly proposed an increase in corporate taxes on large companies earning more than CAN$500m (£270m) a year to encourage them to reinvest in business and productivity.

She was serving as house leader until January 2025 when she left the cabinet to run for party leader.

Frank Baylis

Mr Baylis, a businessman from Montreal, served as a Liberal Party politician between 2015 and 2019.

The 62-year-old has reportedly proposed creating two pipelines that would transport natural gas to international markets in Europe and Asia to reduce dependence on America.

Mr Baylis criticised Mr Trudeau for travelling to meet Mr Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort in November.

He said: “Anybody’s that ever dealt with a bully successfully know you don’t give an inch.”

What’s next for Canada?

The new leader of the Liberal Party is expected to call a general election shortly after they take up the role.

After decades of bilateral stability, Canada’s next election is expected to focus on who is best equipped to deal with the United States.

Mr Trump’s trade war and his talk of making the country the 51st state have infuriated Canadians, who are booing the American anthem at NHL and NBA games.

Some are cancelling trips south and many are avoiding buying American goods when they can.

Pierre Poilievre, the leader of the main opposition Conservative Party, has embraced a populist approach not unlike Mr Trump’s.

He attacks the mainstream media and has vowed to put “Canada First”.

Before Mr Trump’s inauguration, the Conservatives were widely expected to win the country’s next election.

However, the US president’s threats against Canada have led to a surge in popularity for the Liberal Party in the polls.

World

Zelenskyy condemns ‘vile and inhumane’ Russian attacks after one of year’s deadliest days for Ukrainian civilians

Published

21 hours ago

March 9, 2025

admin

Zelenskyy condemns 'vile and inhumane' Russian attacks after one of year's deadliest days for Ukrainian civilians

Volodymyr Zelenskyy has thanked Ukraine’s allies for condemning Russian strikes after one of the deadliest days for civilians in his country so far this year.

Ukraine’s president described the attacks as a “vile and inhumane intimidation tactic” by Russia.

While a warning by Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin to stop “pounding” Ukraine or else, appears to have fallen on deaf ears.

Russia launched heavy aerial attacks overnight into Saturday after the White House administration suspended intelligence sharing with Ukraine.

The US has been piling pressure on President Zelenskyy’s government to cooperate in convening peace talks with Russia.

American aerospace company Maxar Technologies said on Friday it had disabled access to its satellite imagery for Kyiv. Its ability to strike inside Russia and defend itself from bombardment is very much diminished without such images.

At least 22 people were killed in multiple Russian attacks, including 11 in the frontline town of Dobropilla in Ukraine’s embattled eastern Donetsk region.

Russia fired two ballistic missiles into the town centre, then launched a strike targeting rescuers who responded, according to Mr Zelenskyy. Forty-seven people, including seven children, were injured in the attack.

“It is a vile and inhumane intimidation tactic to which the Russians often resort,” he said.

The president added: “It was one of the most brutal strikes, a combined one. The strike was deliberately calculated to cause maximum damage. Missiles, along with a Shahed drone, targeted the central part of the town.

“Nine residential buildings were hit. Also, the shopping centre and stores were struck.”

Another seven people were killed in four towns close to the frontline where Russian troops have been making steady advances, said regional governor Vadym Filashkin.

Three others died when a Russian drone hit a civilian workshop in the northeastern Kharkiv region, emergency services reported. And one man was killed by shelling in the region.

The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine said it was one of 2025’s deadliest attacks for Ukrainian civilians.

Some 24 hours earlier, Russia struck Ukrainian energy facilities using dozens of missiles and drones.

The attacks hampered Ukraine’s ability to supply power to its citizens and run weapons factories vital to its defences.

When asked on Friday if Russian President Vladimir Putin was taking advantage of the US pause on intelligence-sharing to attack Ukraine, Mr Trump responded: “I think he’s doing what anybody else would.”

Mr Zelenskyy did not mention intelligence-sharing on Saturday, but said he welcomed Mr Trump’s proposal to bring in banking sanctions and tariffs on Russia until a ceasefire and final peace settlement is reached.

Mr Zelenskyy also said: “I am grateful to all the leaders, all those diplomats of our partner countries, all public figures who support Ukraine, who have condemned these Russian strikes and who call all things by their proper names.

“And it is essential that we continue coordinating all our efforts with our partners to ensure that our defence works effectively and that we do everything to bring peace closer.”

Mr Zelenskyy has said he and other senior Ukrainian officials will go to Saudi Arabia next week to discuss proposals aimed at ending the war.

In a post on X, he wrote he was set to meet Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on Monday, and his team would remain in the country to have talks with US officials.