Connect with us

Published

on

Two deputy chairs of the Conservative Party have resigned from their roles after they both supported rebel amendments to Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda bill.

Lee Anderson and Brendan Clarke-Smith both said they would support proposed changes designed to toughen up Mr Sunak’s bill, which seeks to declare Rwanda a safe country to deport asylum seekers to.

Jane Stevenson, a parliamentary private secretary (PPS) in the Department for Business and Trade, resigned from her role after she supported two key rebel amendments.

On Tuesday night, MPs voted on a series of amendments to the Safety of Rwanda Bill, including one submitted by veteran Tory MP Sir Bill Cash, whose amendment sought to disapply international law with regard to Rwanda being a safe country.

Politics latest: ‘Big’ Tory rebellion on PM’s Rwanda bill will cause ‘jitters’ in Tory high command

In total, 70 MPs backed Sir Bill’s amendment.

Sixty Tories, including two tellers who verify the count, supported the amendment, as did two independent MPs who were formerly in the Conservative parliamentary party – Scott Benton and Andrew Bridgen.

They were joined by eight MPs in the Democratic Unionist Party.

However, the amendment was rejected by 529 votes to 68, leaving a majority of 461.

Jane Stevenson
Image:
Jane Stevenson resigned from her role as parliamentary private secretary to Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch

Among the names who backed the amendment were former prime minister Liz Truss, ex-home secretary Suella Braverman, former immigration minister Robert Jenrick and the leaders of the New Conservatives Miriam Cates and Danny Kruger.

The result represents a significant rebellion and potentially spells trouble for the prime minister ahead of the third reading vote on the whole bill on Wednesday, when rebels may vote against it.

Speaking to Sky News’ political editor Beth Rigby, Tory MP Mark Francois said the numbers “speak for themselves” and that he hoped the government “will listen and take stock” and possibly tighten the bill.

Mr Kruger, the co-chair of the New Conservatives, told the Politics Hub with Sophy Ridge he was “prepared” to vote against the bill at third reading.

Warning signs for the prime minister



Sam Coates

Deputy political editor

@SamCoatesSky

Tory Rwanda rebels have shown their hand.

They have been able to demonstrate their side is willing to go further than before Christmas – and that they have the numbers to defeat the government on Wednesday.

The question now is whether the government is prepared to risk a defeat by going ahead on Wednesday, or whether ministers abandon a plan to hold a vote in fear of defeat.

READ MORE

“I really hope that the scale of the vote in favour of the amendments that were debated today will convince the government that they really should adopt these amendments as their own,” he said.

However, in an illustration of the dilemma Mr Sunak faces in appeasing the various factions of his party, Damian Green, chair of the One Nation group of moderate Tory MPs, said he would vote against the bill if it was toughened up further as the right-wing rebels demand.

But, he said he believed the “high watermark” of the Rwanda rebellion was reached on Tuesday evening.

Mr Sunak had been prepared for a collision with right-wing Tories over the bill, which is aimed at reviving Mr Sunak’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda if they attempt to come to the UK via small boat crossings in the Channel.

The bill, which is designed to enable parliament to confirm Rwanda is a “safe country”, 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) entirely – a demand of some on the right.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘The numbers speak for themselves’

As well as the amendment by Sir Bill, MPs also voted on an amendment by Mr Jenrick which sought to make it more difficult for individuals to make claims against their deportation.

MPs rejected it by 525 votes to 61 votes, among them 59 Tories, including tellers.

In a joint resignation letter, Mr Anderson and Mr Clarke-Smith said they supported the amendments “not because we are against the legislation, but because like everybody else we want it to work”.

“Our support for the party and this government remains as strong as ever and that is why we are so passionate about making this legislation work.

“However, we fully appreciate that with such important roles there is also the issue of being bound by collective responsibility.

“It is with this in mind that we fully appreciate that whilst our main wish is to strengthen the legislation, this means that in order to vote for amendments we will therefore need to offer you our resignations from our roles.”

Read more:
Rwanda bill rebels – full list of Tories who voted for Cash amendment
Robert Jenrick ‘prepared’ to vote down Rwanda bill as Tory divide deepens

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson Alistair Carmichael MP said: “Sunak’s Rwanda scheme just won’t work – and even the deputy chairmen of his own party know it.

“Rishi Sunak has yet again been embarrassed by his own MPs.”

A Downing Street source said Mr Sunak accepted the resignations of Mr Anderson and Mr Clarke-Smith and added: “This is the toughest legislation ever brought before parliament to tackle illegal migration.

“This bill will make it clear that if you come here illegally you will not be able to stay. We must pass this bill to deliver what all Conservatives want – a credible plan to stop the boats.”

Continue Reading

UK

Met Police looks into reports Prince Andrew asked officer to investigate accuser – as William plans ‘ruthless approach’ towards royal

Published

on

By

Met Police looks into reports Prince Andrew asked officer to investigate accuser - as William plans 'ruthless approach' towards royal

The Metropolitan Police is looking into reports that Prince Andrew asked an officer to help with an attempted smear campaign against the woman who accused him of sexual assault.

Andrew reportedly tried to get his personal protection officer to dig up dirt for a smear campaign against Virginia Giuffre back in 2011, according to the Mail on Sunday.

The Met Police said it was “actively looking into the claims made”.

The prince – who gave up his Duke of York title on Friday – has been approached for comment.

Meanwhile, it has been reported Prince William is planning to take a “ruthless approach” towards Andrew when he is king. The Sunday Times suggests William will ban his uncle from “all aspects of royal life” because of the ongoing risk to the Royal Family‘s reputation after a series of damaging revelations.

A US lawyer has predicted the scandal engulfing the royal “is not going away” and more stories will “leak out”.

Gloria Allred, who represents many of the victims of the late Jeffrey Epstein, believes Andrew will not be “let off the hook” over his links to the convicted paedophile.

“This is not going away. Even though he’s no longer a duke, and Sarah Ferguson is no longer a duchess, it’s not going away,” she told Sky News.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Who pushed Andrew to drop his titles?

Andrew relinquished his Duke of York title and remaining honours on Friday evening, after a series of fresh stories linked to the late Ms Giuffre, who was trafficked by Epstein. She died in April, aged 41, with her family saying she “lost her life to suicide”.

Andrew will retain the dukedom, which can only be removed by an Act of Parliament, but will not use it.

Asked whether the government had plans to legislate to remove Andrew’s titles, Energy Security Ed Miliband told Sky’s Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips programme that they would be “guided by the palace” and the Royal Family.

“I think it’s really important as a government minister that we allow the Royal Family to make its decisions on these questions,” he added.

“Prince Andrew has given up these titles by agreement with His Majesty the King and I think that’s, you know, that’s obviously the position.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Prince Andrew urged ‘to come clean’

‘It’s not over’

Ms Giuffre alleged she was forced to have sex with Andrew when she was 17 – allegations he has always denied.

Her posthumous memoirs, which are released on Tuesday, claim Andrew insisted she sign a one-year gag order – to prevent details of her allegations tarnishing the late Queen’s platinum jubilee.

Read more:
Why Andrew hasn’t given up being a prince
Lingering dread over what else could still emerge

And earlier this week, emails emerged showing that Andrew remained in contact with Epstein, several months after he said he had stopped contact.

The former duke paid to settle a civil sexual assault case with Ms Giuffre in 2022, despite insisting he had never met her.

Ms Allred said: “The fact that Virginia is now deceased – may she rest in peace – doesn’t mean it’s over for Prince Andrew. It’s not over. More will come to leak out.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Windsor’s take on Prince Andrew

Reports of attempted smear campaign

It has now been reported that Andrew passed Ms Giuffre’s date of birth and social security number to his taxpayer-funded bodyguard in 2011, asking him to investigate.

He is said to have emailed the late Queen’s then-deputy press secretary and told him of his request to his protection officer, and also suggested Ms Giuffre had a criminal record, the Mail on Sunday reported.

A Met Police spokesperson told Sky News: “We are aware of media reporting and are looking into the claims made.”

The prince’s alleged attempt, on which the Met officer is not said to have acted, came in 2011, hours before the publication of the famous photograph of Andrew with his arm around Ms Giuffre in London, which he has claimed was doctored.

The Mail on Sunday said it obtained the email from disclosures held by the US congress.

“It would also seem she has a criminal record in the states,” Andrew said to the former press secretary, according to one email published by the newspaper. “I have given her DoB and social security number for investigation with XXX the on duty PPO.”

Ms Giuffre’s family responded, the newspaper said, saying she did not have a criminal record.

Read more from Sky News:
How Prince Andrew allegations unfolded
Everything we know about titles decision
William and Camilla’s influential roles

In her book, titled Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir Of Surviving Abuse And Fighting For Justice, she wrote, according to The Telegraph: “As devastating as this interview was for Prince Andrew, for my legal team it was like an injection of jet fuel.

“Its contents would not only help us build an ironclad case against the prince but also open the door to potentially subpoenaing his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, and their daughters, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.”

The Duke of York and the Prince of Wales at the Duchess of Kent's funeral last month. Pic: PA
Image:
The Duke of York and the Prince of Wales at the Duchess of Kent’s funeral last month. Pic: PA

Andrew, who remains a prince and continues to live in the Crown Estate property Royal Lodge, said on Friday that the “continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the Royal Family”.

He insisted he was putting his “family and country first” and would stop using “my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me”.

Ms Allred told Sky News she felt Andrew’s statement on Friday, describing the scandal as a “distraction”, was an “insult” to Epstein’s victims.

“What it’s saying [the statement] is it’s continued bad PR for the monarchy,” she said.

“All right, I’m happy about this small consequence that he has to pay… no longer a duke, but look, he’s living a privileged life while many victims are still suffering from the harm that was done by many people involved with Jeffrey Epstein.”

Ms Giuffre’s family has urged the King to go further and take away Andrew’s prince title.

Continue Reading

UK

Hannah, 22, died after buying poison online – why her death raises serious questions for NHS

Published

on

By

Hannah, 22, died after buying poison online - why her death raises serious questions for NHS

Pete Aitken says his daughter Hannah would still be alive if she hadn’t been sent to a series of “failing” mental health hospitals, which made her increasingly unwell.

Warning: This article contains references to suicide

Hannah Aitken was 22 when she took her own life two years ago. Her death has left her family in turmoil.

“I think about Hannah every hour of every day, more than once, every hour, every day,” her dad Pete said.

Throughout the family home are photos, candles and purple flowers, Hannah’s favourite colour. Her parents have planted a tree in the garden where her beloved trampoline once stood.

Pete Aitken, whose daughter Hannah died by suicide in 2023
Image:
Pete Aitken, whose daughter Hannah died by suicide in 2023

Hannah had autism and ADHD and struggled with her mental health. In 2017, she was sent to Huntercombe Hospital-Stafford. It was in special measures when she arrived.

Pete says the unit made Hannah worse. “I don’t believe that they gave her any care or treatment there that helped her.”

Over a period of four years, Hannah was sent to six different mental health hospitals. The majority were publicly funded and privately run.

Three were rated by the care regulator, the CQC, either ‘inadequate or ‘requires improvement’. Two of the units were closed down while Hannah was a patient.

“That to me is an indication of how bad the system is, and how bad the care that she received was,” Pete said.

“All they could do was… like prison keep her safe, but not give her any quality of life. They took all that away from her.”

'I don't believe that they gave her any care', Pete says
Image:
‘I don’t believe that they gave her any care’, Pete says

Over the years, Sky News has investigated failings within the mental health system, including the Huntercombe Group, which ran a number of hospitals.

Hannah emailed Sky News in 2023 following one of our reports to share her story.

She wrote: “I will never forget what I was put through… I put up with so much and it’s only now I realised it wasn’t right, for years I blamed myself.”

Hannah never fully recovered from her hospital admissions. In September 2023, she took a fatal dose of poison, which she had bought online.

Her family are now campaigning for a change in the law governing poisons.

Family photos of Hannah Aitken, who died in 2023
Image:
Family photos of Hannah Aitken, who died in 2023

Her dad said: “One gram of this poison is lethal. We found out from Hannah’s inquest she ordered a kilogramme of 99.6% purity.

“There is a legitimate use for it, but we understand that the concentration for that is something like less than 1%.”

Hannah’s death once again raises questions about why the NHS outsources mental health services to failing private providers.

Read more from Laura Bundock:
Warning of six million new cancer cases – with these areas worst hit
Hospital accused of ‘covering up’ concerns about suspended surgeon

An NHS England spokesperson said: “Our thoughts are with Hannah’s family at this incredibly difficult time.

“The NHS has repeatedly made clear that all services must provide safe, high-quality care, irrespective of whether they are NHS or independent sector-led, and we continue to work closely with the CQC to monitor, identify and take appropriate action where it is needed.”

Elli Investments Group, the owners of The Huntercombe Group until 2021, has said they regret that these hospitals, which were independently managed, failed to meet expectations

Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK

Continue Reading

UK

Prince William plans ‘ruthless approach’ towards Prince Andrew, as lawyer for Jeffrey Epstein’s victims predicts further leaks

Published

on

By

Prince William plans 'ruthless approach' towards Prince Andrew, as lawyer for Jeffrey Epstein's victims predicts further leaks

Prince William is planning to take a “ruthless approach” towards Prince Andrew when he is king, according to reports, as a US lawyer predicts the scandal engulfing the royal “is not going away” and more stories will “leak out”.

The Sunday Times suggests William will ban his uncle from “all aspects of royal life” because of the ongoing risk to the Royal Family‘s reputation after a series of damaging revelations.

It comes amid reports that Andrew tried to get the Metropolitan Police to dig up dirt for a smear campaign against his sexual assault accuser Virginia Giuffre back in 2011.

Gloria Allred, who represents many of the victims of the late convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, believes he will not be “let off the hook”.

“This is not going away. Even though he’s no longer a duke, and Sarah Ferguson is no longer a duchess, it’s not going away,” the US lawyer told Sky News.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Who pushed Andrew to drop his titles?

Andrew relinquished his Duke of York title and remaining honours on Friday evening, after a series of fresh stories linked to the late Ms Giuffre, who was trafficked by Epstein. She died in April, aged 41, with her family saying said she “lost her life to suicide”.

She alleged she was forced to have sex with Andrew when she was 17, allegations he has always denied.

“The fact that Virginia is now deceased – may she rest in peace – doesn’t mean it’s over for Prince Andrew. It’s not over. More will come to leak out,” Ms Allred added.

Ms Giuffre’s posthumous memoirs, which are released on Tuesday, claim Andrew insisted she sign a one-year gag order – to prevent details of her allegations tarnishing the late Queen’s platinum jubilee.

And earlier this week, emails emerged showing that Andrew remained in contact with Epstein, several months after he said he had stopped contact.

The former duke paid to settle a civil sexual assault case with Ms Giuffre in 2022, despite insisting he had never met her.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Windsor’s take on Prince Andrew

Reports of attempted smear campaign

It has now been reported that Andrew passed Ms Giuffre’s date of birth and social security number to his taxpayer-funded bodyguard in 2011, asking him to investigate.

He is said to have emailed the late Queen’s then-deputy press secretary and told him of his request to his protection officer, and also suggested Ms Giuffre had a criminal record, according to the Mail on Sunday.

Sky News has contacted the Met for comment. A spokesperson for the force told the PA news agency: “We are aware of media reporting and are looking into the claims made.”

The prince’s alleged attempt, on which the Met officer is not said to have acted, came in 2011, hours before the publication of the famous photograph of Andrew with his arm around Ms Giuffre in London, which he has claimed was doctored.

The Mail on Sunday said it obtained the email from disclosures held by the US congress.

“It would also seem she has a criminal record in the states,” Andrew said to the former press secretary, according to one email published by the newspaper. “I have given her DoB and social security number for investigation with XXX the on duty PPO.”

Ms Giuffre’s family responded, saying she did not have a criminal record, the newspaper said.

Read more from Sky News:
How Prince Andrew allegations unfolded
Everything we know about titles decision
William and Camilla’s influential roles

In her book, titled Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir Of Surviving Abuse And Fighting For Justice, she wrote, according to The Telegraph: “As devastating as this interview was for Prince Andrew, for my legal team it was like an injection of jet fuel.

“Its contents would not only help us build an ironclad case against the prince but also open the door to potentially subpoenaing his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, and their daughters, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.”

The Duke of York and the Prince of Wales at the Duchess of Kent's funeral last month. Pic: PA
Image:
The Duke of York and the Prince of Wales at the Duchess of Kent’s funeral last month. Pic: PA

Andrew, who remains a prince and continues to live in the Crown Estate property Royal Lodge, said on Friday that the “continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the Royal Family”.

He insisted he was putting his “family and country first” and would stop using “my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me”.

Ms Allred told Sky News she felt Andrew’s statement on Friday, describing the scandal as a “distraction”, was an “insult” to Epstein’s victims.

“What it’s saying [the statement] is it’s continued bad PR for the monarchy,” she said.

“All right, I’m happy about this small consequence that he has to pay… no longer a duke, but look, he’s living a privileged life while many victims are still suffering from the harm that was done by many people involved with Jeffrey Epstein.”

Continue Reading

Trending