Connect with us

Published

on

Rishi Sunak has insisted he will “ignore” international law in order to ensure asylum seekers get deported to Rwanda.

The prime minister managed to get his controversial policy through its latest parliamentary stage last night after days of rebellions from Conservative MPs, who want to see the bill toughened up.

But despite two rebel sources telling Sky News’ political editor Beth Rigby that ‘no confidence’ letters had now been submitted over his leadership, he insisted his party was “completely united in wanting to stop the boats”.

Mr Sunak also claimed his plan to stop small boat crossings in the Channel was “working” – despite government figures showing a further 358 asylum seekers arrived in the UK on Wednesday.

Politics live: Sunak warns peers not to ‘frustrate will of the people’

Government legal advice states that failing to comply with so-called section 39 orders from European courts – used previously to stop deportation flights taking off before additional court hearings – would be a breach of international law.

Rule 39 orders are issued by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on an exceptional basis, where there is a “real risk of serious and irreversible harm”.

More on Conservatives

Asked a press conference whether he would be willing to ignore such rulings, Mr Sunak said: “I’ve been crystal clear repeatedly that I won’t let a foreign court stop us from getting flights off and getting this deterrent up and running.

“The bill specifically contains a power that makes clear that ministers are the ones that make these decisions. Parliament has supported that.

“[The bill also] makes it perfectly clear that the domestic courts should respect that decision.”

He added: “I would not have put that clause in the bill if I was not prepared to use it. So, look, if you’re asking me are there circumstances in which I will ignore rule 39, then answer is clearly yes.”

Politics Hub with Sophy Ridge

Politics Hub with Sophy Ridge

Sky News Monday to Thursday at 7pm.
Watch live on Sky channel 501, Freeview 233, Virgin 602, the Sky News website and app or YouTube.

Tap here for more

The prime minister insisted at the end of last year that the first flights to Rwanda would take off “in the spring”.

Asked if this was still the case, Mr Sunak said: “I want to see this happen as soon as practically possible. Of course I do.”

But he threw the deadline to the House of Lords – where the bill will face its next round of scrutiny and is expected to be bitterly opposed by numerous peers.

He said: “The question is will the House of Lords understand the country’s frustration, see the will of the elected House [the Commons] and move as quickly as we have to support this legislation so we can it on the statue books and then get flights up and running?”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Sky News captured footage of a boat carrying migrants across the Channel on Wednesday

The prime minister also said he was “proud of the progress” the government had made on tackling small boat crossings, and claimed his plan was “working” – albeit admitting there was “not one single silver bullet that will fix it”.

But shortly after the press conference, the latest statistics showed 358 people in eight boats had made the dangerous journey to the UK shore alone on Tuesday, bring the total for 2024 so far to 621.

Sunak ignores party drama to focus ire on the Lords


Amanda Akass is a politics and business correspondent

Amanda Akass

Political correspondent

@amandaakass

The prime minister began his press conference by attempting to dismiss all the drama and debate of the past few days – the questions about his leadership, the doubts the policy would work – with the optimistic claim “the Conservative Party has come together.”

That’s highly debatable on a morning in which rebels are claiming to have submitted ‘several’ letters of no confidence.

Rather than dwelling on the internal divisions within his party, however, he optimistically wanted to project himself as a man intent on tackling the “biggest challenges that face the country”, that he’s getting on with the job, and that his plan is working.

But the key focus was to lecture the House of Lords on the importance of passing the legislation as soon as possible – urging them to “get on board and do the right thing” and “move as quickly as we have” – stressing the “appointed” nature of members of the Upper House compared to the “elected” Commons.

He’s singling out the “opposition” in the Lords – and while it’s true that Labour categorically oppose the plan, it’s worth remembering the last time the scheme was debated there, the most stinging criticism came from the archbishops and law lords, who are non-affiliated.

While you’d expect a Conservative prime minister to focus his attacks on Labour for “sniping from the side-lines” of his policy, taking on the Lords more broadly is an odd strategy.

Some of the language used – suggesting they might “try and frustrate the will of the people” – was reminiscent of the Brexiteer condemnation of Supreme Court judges as “enemies of the people”.

Mr Sunak has found it hard enough to keep his MPs on board. He certainly doesn’t have the same power over the Lords – but he’s come out fighting.

It seems he is pre-emptively seeking to blame the Lords for any further delay to the plan too.

Repeatedly asked by journalists whether he’s sticking to his pledge to see deportation flights taking off by the spring, he was unable to repeat that previous commitment – indeed, he wasn’t even able to say planes would take off before the next general election, which seems likely to be in the Autumn.

The controversial Rwanda bill is designed to send asylum seekers arriving in the UK on small boats to the African nation, and act as a deterrent to others from making Channel crossings.

Around 60 Tory MPs defied the government by voting for amendments to toughen up the law – including proposals to limit appeals and stop interventions against deportation flights from international courts.

But none of the changes were approved in the Commons, and when it came to a vote on the bill in its entirety, only 11 Conservatives – including former home secretary Suella Braverman and ex-immigration minister Robert Jenrick – chose to rebel.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Moment Rwanda plan clears Commons

In fact, several of the prominent figures who publicly argued the legislation needed to be tougher fell into line when the crunch vote came late last night – with two MPs who resigned their party posts in order to back rebel amendments walking through the yes lobby.

However, Ms Braverman, who was fired as home secretary in Mr Sunak’s last reshuffle, posted on X that the Rwanda bill would “not stop the boats” in its current form and “leaves us exposed to litigation and the Strasbourg court”.

She added: “I engaged with the government to fix it but no changes were made. I could not vote for yet another law destined to fail.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Starmer: Rwanda policy a ‘farce’

Despite overcoming disquiet on his backbenches, Mr Sunak is not out of the woods yet, with Tory rebel sources telling Sky News’s political editor Beth Rigby that “several” MPs had submitted no confidence letters in the prime minister as a result of the internal row.

Asked by Sky News what his message was to those Tories who had voted down his bill in parliament last night, Mr Sunak said: “The plan is working right across the board. You can see that progress is being made. And our job is to stick to that plan, deliver for the country.”

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