Connect with us

Published

on

For someone who’s supposed to be a details man, Rishi Sunak clearly doesn’t like being subjected to forensic interrogation.

At a painful appearance before the Infected Blood Inquiry on Wednesday, it didn’t help the prime minister’s mood when he was loudly heckled early on by members of the public listening to his evidence.

But it got worse and worse. And the finale, after nearly two hours, was excruciating for Mr Sunak when the inquiry chairman, Sir Brian Langstaff, delivered a powerful lecture that had the PM squirming in his seat.

Politics live: Infected Blood Inquiry ends with applause for chair’s message to Sunak

Actions rather than words were needed, said Sir Brian – a retired judge who has been credited with chairing this inquiry brilliantly.

It was a powerful climax to an afternoon of tension and tetchiness.

In a devastating call for the PM to act on paying compensation without more delay, Sir Brian declared: “Because if it troubles my conscience, I would think it will trouble the conscience of a caring government.”

More from Politics

Ouch!

It was emotional, it was dramatic and it was greeted by a rousing round of applause by the public in the giant hotel ballroom. A chastened and embarrassed Mr Sunak appeared to sink even lower into his seat.

Brian Langstaff
Image:
Sir Brian Langstaff delivered a very powerful message to the prime minister during his evidence session

Throughout Sir Brian’s stirring final words, Mr Sunak had sat like a naughty schoolboy being given a stern lecture by the headmaster.

The best he could say in response at the end was rather feebly to repeat his opening statement, that the blood scandal had been appalling – a statement of the obvious that will have done nothing to reassure those affected by it.

The heckling had come when the PM told the grieving families their long wait for compensation would have to continue.

There were no assurances or promises of a timetable about when the government will pay up.

We’d already seen the tetchy and prickly side to the PM’s character when he appeared before the Liaison Committee of senior MPs in the Commons three weeks ago.

At the beginning of that hearing, he haughtily announced he had a “pressing engagement” – which turned out to be nothing more than a photocall – in 90 minutes’ time.

And throughout that shifty and evasive performance at the committee, Mr Sunak gave the impression he wished he was somewhere else and couldn’t be bothered.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘You haven’t read the report?’

But that was nothing compared to his grumpy and at times surly manner here before the inquiry, in which his derisory body language revealed he was hating every minute.

Once again, like at the Liaison Committee, his answers were evasive. He wouldn’t give any pledges on compensation or promise legislation in the next King’s Speech due in November.

This time, instead of MPs, the PM faced just one interrogator – the counsel to the inquiry, the formidable Jenni Richards KC.

Unlike the theatrical and flamboyant KCs of the criminal courts, there’s nothing flashy about Ms Richards. But she’s just as effective and her probing got right under the PM’s skin.

He shuffled around in his seat, avoided eye contact with her as she asked her questions, looked down at his lap where perhaps he had a phone or iPad hidden from view.

When Sir Brian briefly mentioned the media, Mr Sunak glared at the press benches in the hall.

And, at one point, as the questioning got more and more uncomfortable, horror of horrors, the prime minister appeared to look at his watch. Surely not?

There were no pressing engagements – or even a photocall – to let him escape this time.

It’s never a good look. And an absolute no-no for politicians under pressure.

It was claimed George Bush Senior never recovered from looking at his watch during a TV debate with Bill Clinton in 1992.

Sir Brian’s dramatic peroration, on the other hand, will have enhanced his already well-established reputation as a dedicated and distinguished public servant who takes no prisoners when he’s in the chair.

His impressive chairmanship will also be seen as having created a model for the potentially devastating COVID inquiry to come.

And Mr Sunak will certainly need to be on top of the detail and less evasive when he appears before that inquiry.

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