Connect with us

Published

on

Rishi Sunak has introduced emergency legislation in a bid to salvage his embattled Rwanda asylum plan and deliver on his pledge to “stop the boats”.

The goal is to ensure those not entering the UK by legal means face being sent on a one-way trip to the east African country.

But last month, the Supreme Court ruled the policy unlawful and could not go ahead as it was, concluding there was a real risk genuine refugees sent to Rwanda could be returned to their home country, where they would face “ill-treatment”.

Politics news – latest

In a bid to address the concerns, Home Secretary James Cleverly travelled to the country’s capital Kigali to sign a fresh deportation treaty before setting out the details of a proposed bill, which faces its first parliamentary test on Tuesday.

What is the latest Rwanda plan?

It is made up of two parts, aimed at making the deal legally watertight and so avoiding further setbacks, which have so far blocked all deportation flights amid soaring costs of the stalled policy.

The treaty, which needs to be ratified by the UK and Rwandan parliaments to make it internationally binding, centres on providing assurances to the Supreme Court that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda will not be removed and sent to another country where they face persecution.

As part of this a new appeals process will be established to deal with exceptional cases, such as if someone living in the country under the scheme commits a crime.

British and Commonwealth judges, as well as Rwandan judges, will preside over the appeal hearings and decide whether the individual remains in Rwanda or is sent back to the UK.

Meanwhile, the legislation is designed to enable parliament to confirm Rwanda is a “safe country”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Rwanda scheme ‘will do the job’

In a bid to reduce the scope for domestic court hold-ups, the legislation gives ministers the powers to disregard sections of the Human Rights Act, but does not go as far as allowing them to dismiss the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The UK was among the first to ratify the international treaty which commits its 46 signatories to abide by rules on rights to life, liberty and expression, and protection from torture, degrading treatment and slavery.

It is not linked to the European Union, so Brexit did not affect the UK’s obligations.

Why does this matter?

Because Tory hardliners argue without making the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill more robust and allowing ministers to ignore asylum rulings by both domestic judges and the European Court of Human Rights, which makes binding judgments on the convention, the policy is destined to fail.

It led to the resignation of immigration minister Robert Jenrick, who argued the legislation was “a triumph of hope over experience”.

At the same time, centrist Conservative MPs are insisting the government respects the rule of law and the UK’s international obligations.

The public divisions causes a further headache for Mr Sunak as he seeks to take the legislation through parliament and reassert his authority over fractious backbenchers.

Read more on Sky News:
What is the European Court of Human Rights?
UK government’s veto of Scotland’s gender reform bill ruled lawful by Scottish court

Police close investigation into alleged Tory lockdown party in parliament
Visa changes will harm family relationships, warns Archbishop of Canterbury

As well as differing positions on the ECHR, the Conservatives’ poor showing in the polls has heightened the tensions within the party.

A number of Tory MPs believe reducing immigration, and particularly ending the scenes of asylum seekers arriving on Kent’s beaches, will be key to narrowing Labour’s lead and want to see the government do everything possible to achieve that.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘My patience has worn thin, right?’

Although the government argues the proposed bill goes as far as it can as the Rwandan government will pull out of a deal that involves leaving the ECHR altogether, ministers have hinted at compromises with rebels.

Is party infighting the only problem facing the government?

No. As well as having to navigate the bill through the Commons, it also has to clear the House of Lords, where the Tory administration does not have a majority.

Any move to relax human rights safeguards are likely to encounter stiff opposition, not least among the many leading lawyers who sit on the red benches.

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

The inability of the home secretary to guarantee the proposed law is compatible with the ECHR will only fuel concerns.

As the Rwanda plan was not a manifesto commitment, critics in the unelected chamber will also argue the usual convention of not delaying the delivery of an election pledge does not apply.

With an upcoming election, the timing also means the government cannot use powers under the Parliament Act to force through the legislation.

Continue Reading

UK

No 10 backs Chancellor Rachel Reeves and says she ‘is going nowhere’ after tearful appearance in Commons

Published

on

By

No 10 backs Chancellor Rachel Reeves and says she 'is going nowhere' after tearful appearance in Commons

Rachel Reeves has not offered her resignation and is “going nowhere”, Downing Street has said, following her tearful appearance in the House of Commons.

A Number 10 spokesperson said the chancellor had the “full backing” of Sir Keir Starmer, despite Ms Reeves looking visibly upset during Prime Minister’s Questions.

Politics latest: ‘A moment of intense peril’ for PM

A spokesperson for the chancellor later clarified that Ms Reeves had been affected by a “personal matter” and would be working out of Downing Street this afternoon.

Politics latest: Reeves looks visibly upset in Commons

UK government bond prices fell by the most since October 2022, and the pound tumbled after Ms Reeves’s Commons appearance, while the yield on the 10-year government bond, or gilt, rose as much as 22 basis points at one point to around 4.68%.

Downing Street’s insistence came despite Sir Keir refusing to guarantee that Ms Reeves would stay as chancellor until the next election following the fallout from the government’s recent welfare U-turn.

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch branded the chancellor the “human shield” for the prime minister’s “incompetence” just hours after he was forced to perform a humiliating U-turn over his controversial welfare bill.

Emotional Reeves a painful watch – and reminder of tough decisions ahead

It is hard to think of a PMQs like it – it was a painful watch.

The prime minister battled on, his tone assured, even if his actual words were not always convincing.

But it was the chancellor next to him that attracted the most attention.

Rachel Reeves looked visibly upset.

It is hard to know for sure right now what was going on behind the scenes, the reasons – predictable or otherwise – why she appeared to be emotional, but it was noticeable and it was difficult to watch.

To read more of Ali Fortescue’s analysis, click here

Speaking at Prime Minister’s Questions, Ms Badenoch said: “This man has forgotten that his welfare bill was there to plug a black hole created by the chancellor. Instead they’re creating new ones.”

Turning to the chancellor, the Tory leader added: “[She] is pointing at me – she looks absolutely miserable.

“Labour MPs are going on the record saying that the chancellor is toast, and the reality is that she is a human shield for his incompetence. In January, he said that she would be in post until the next election. Will she really?”

Not fully answering the question, the prime minister replied: “[Ms Badenoch] certainly won’t.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Welfare vote ‘a blow to the prime minister’

“I have to say, I’m always cheered up when she asks me questions or responds to a statement because she always makes a complete mess of it and shows just how unserious and irrelevant they are.”

Mrs Badenoch interjected: “How awful for the chancellor that he couldn’t confirm that she would stay in place.”

The prime minister’s watered-down Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill, aimed at saving £5bn, was backed by a majority of 75 in a tense vote on Tuesday evening.

A total of 49 Labour MPs voted against the bill – the largest rebellion in a prime minister’s first year in office since 47 MPs voted against Tony Blair’s Lone Parent benefit in 1997, according to Professor Phil Cowley from Queen Mary University.

After multiple concessions made due to threats of a Labour rebellion, many MPs questioned what they were voting for as the bill had been severely stripped down.

They ended up voting for only one part of the plan: a cut to Universal Credit (UC) sickness benefits for new claimants from £97 a week to £50 from 2026/7.

Ms Badenoch said the climbdown was proof that Sir Keir was “too weak to get anything done”.

Read more:
The PM faced down his party on welfare and lost
Labour welfare cuts ‘Dickensian’, says rebel MP

Ms Reeves has also borne a lot of the criticism over the handling of the vote, with some MPs believing that her strict approach to fiscal rules has meant she has approached the ballooning welfare bill from the standpoint of trying to make savings, rather than getting people into work.

Experts have now warned that the welfare U-turn, on top of reversing the cut to winter fuel, means that tax rises in the autumn are more likely – with Ms Reeves now needing to find £5bn to make up for the policy U-turns.

Asked by Ms Badenoch whether he could rule out further tax rises – something Labour promised it would not do on working people in its manifesto – Sir Keir said: “She knows that no prime minister or chancellor ever stands at the despatch box and writes budgets in the future.

“But she talks about growth, for 14 years we had stagnation, and that is what caused the problem.”

Continue Reading

UK

Prosecutors consider more charges against Lucy Letby

Published

on

By

Prosecutors consider more charges against Lucy Letby

Prosecutors are considering whether to bring further criminal charges against Lucy Letby over the deaths of babies at two hospitals where she worked

The Crown Prosecution Service said it had received “a full file of evidence from Cheshire Constabulary asking us to consider further allegations in relation to deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women’s Hospital”.

“We will now carefully consider the evidence to determine whether any further criminal charges should be brought,” it added.

“As always, we will make that decision independently, based on the evidence and in line with our legal test.”

Letby, 35, was found guilty of murdering seven children and attempting to murder seven more between June 2015 and June 2016 while working in the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester Hospital and is currently serving 15 whole-life orders.

lucy letby
Image:
Letby worked at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women’s Hospital

She is understood to have carried out two work placements at Liverpool Women’s Hospital, where she trained as a student, between October and December 2012, and January and February 2015.

Police said in December that Letby was interviewed in prison as part of an investigation into more baby deaths and non-fatal collapses.

A Cheshire Constabulary spokesperson said: “We can confirm that Cheshire Constabulary has submitted a full file of evidence to the CPS for charging advice regarding the ongoing investigation into deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the neo-natal units of both the Countess of Chester Hospital and the Liverpool Women’s Hospital as part of Operation Hummingbird.”

Detectives previously said the investigation was looking into the full period of time that Letby worked as a nurse, covering the period from 2012 to 2016 and including a review of 4,000 admissions of babies.

Letby’s lawyer Mark McDonald said: “The evidence of the innocence of Lucy Letby is overwhelming,” adding: “We will cross every bridge when we get to it but if Lucy is charged I know we have a whole army of internationally renowned medical experts who will totally undermine the prosecution’s unfounded allegations.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Three managers at the hospital where Lucy Letby worked have been arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter.

On Tuesday, it was confirmed that three managers at the Countess of Chester hospital had been arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter in a separate investigation.

Read more from Sky News:
‘Catastrophic failure’ that led to Heathrow power outage revealed
Man charged with murder of 93-year-old woman in Cornwall

Police said the suspects, who occupied senior positions at the hospital between 2015 and 2016, have all been bailed pending further inquiries.

There is also an investigation into corporate manslaughter at the hospital, which began in October 2023.

A public inquiry has also been examining the hospital’s response to concerns raised about Letby before her arrest.

In May, it was announced the inquiry’s final report into how the former nurse was able to commit her crimes will now be published early next year.

Earlier this year, Letby’s lawyers called for the suspension of the inquiry, claiming there was “overwhelming and compelling evidence” that her convictions were unsafe.

In February, an international panel of neonatologists and paediatric specialists told reporters that poor medical care and natural causes were the reasons for the collapses and deaths.

Their evidence has been passed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, and Letby’s legal team hopes her case will be referred back to the Court of Appeal.

Continue Reading

UK

More criminal charges being considered over baby deaths at Lucy Letby hospitals

Published

on

By

More criminal charges being considered over baby deaths at Lucy Letby hospitals

The Crown Prosecution Service has said it is considering whether to bring further criminal charges over the deaths of babies at hospitals where Lucy Letby worked.

The CPS said it had received “a full file of evidence from Cheshire Constabulary asking us to consider further allegations in relation to deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women’s Hospital”.

“We will now carefully consider the evidence to determine whether any further criminal charges should be brought,” it added.

“As always, we will make that decision independently, based on the evidence and in line with our legal test.”

Letby, 35, was found guilty of murdering seven children and attempting to murder seven more between June 2015 and June 2016 while working in the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester Hospital and is currently serving 15 whole-life orders.

She is understood to have carried out two work placements at Liverpool Women’s Hospital, where she trained as a student, between October and December 2012, and January and February 2015.

On Tuesday, it was confirmed that three managers at the Countess of Chester hospital had been arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter.

Police said the suspects, who occupied senior positions at the hospital between 2015 and 2016, have all been bailed pending further inquiries.

There is also an investigation into corporate manslaughter at the hospital, which began in October 2023.

A public inquiry has also been examining the hospital’s response to concerns raised about Letby before her arrest.

In May, it was announced the inquiry’s final report into how the former nurse was able to commit her crimes will now be published early next year.

Earlier this year, Letby’s lawyers called for the suspension of the inquiry, claiming there was “overwhelming and compelling evidence” that her convictions were unsafe.

In February, an international panel of neonatologists and paediatric specialists told reporters that poor medical care and natural causes were the reasons for the collapses and deaths.

Their evidence has been passed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, and Letby’s legal team hopes her case will be referred back to the Court of Appeal.

Continue Reading

Trending