Rishi Sunak says migrants crackdown needed as current system ‘unfair on British people’
Rishi Sunak has said the crackdown on small boats crossing the Channel is needed as the current system that is being exploited is “unfair on the British people”.
The prime minister described the new Illegal Migration Bill as “tough, but it is necessary and it is fair”.
“This will always be a compassionate and generous country… but the current situation is neither moral nor sustainable, it cannot go on. It is completely unfair on the British people.”
As Mr Sunak spoke, the UN Refugee Agency said it is “profoundly concerned” by the government’s plans which it said would “amount to an asylum ban”.
But Mr Sunak insisted “we have tried it every other way, and it hasn’t worked”.
The prime minister was speaking from Downing Street after Suella Braverman, the home secretary, unveiled new legislation that will mean people arriving on small boats in the UK will be detained and removed and banned from ever returning.
Mr Sunak confirmed that the rules would apply retrospectively, affecting everyone arriving in the UK illegally from Tuesday.
Speaking earlier in Dover to mark the announcement, he said removals could happen “within weeks”.
“We will detain those who come here illegally and then remove them in weeks, either to their own country if it is safe to do so or to a safe third country like Rwanda,” he said.
The government has admitted the bill might not be compatible with international human rights laws – but the prime minister told the press conference he is “up for the fight” in the courts “and we are confident we will win”.
Responding to a question by Sky News about where predecessors went wrong and why this policy is different, Mr Sunak said: “This is not about dwelling on the past because the situation has just got far worse.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Sky’s Ali Fortescue questions Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on his plans to stop migrant boats crossing the English Channel illegally
“In the last two years the numbers of people crossing the Channel illegally has more than quadrupled. That is the scale of what is happening.
“It’s not just us, this is happening across Europe… that’s because globally this is a challenge.”
When pressed on what success would look like, the prime minister refused to set specific targets, saying it is “us stopping the boats” and “having a system where people coming here illegally are returned”.
“And if we can get that working… we will see the numbers come down,” he said.
Home secretary accused of ‘inflammatory language’ – live politics updates
Under the proposed plan:
- People arriving on small boats will be detained within the first 28 days without bail or judicial review and can be detained after that if there is a reasonable prospect of removal
- The onus to remove those who enter illegally will be on the home secretary – to “radically” narrow the number of challenges and appeals
- Only those under 18, those medically unfit to fly or at “real risk” of serious harm in the country they are removed to will be able to lodge an appeal to stop them from being deported
- Any other claims, including the right to private or family life, will be heard remotely after they have been removed
- People will be prevented from using modern slavery laws to oppose their removal
- Deportation can only be deferred for modern slavery when a person is cooperating with law enforcement agencies in trafficking investigations
- An annual cap on the number of people entering via safe routes – to be set by parliament – will “ensure an orderly system”
- A lifetime ban on settlement, citizenship and re-entry to the UK for those removed under the scheme.
UN: ‘Bill amounts to asylum ban’
The bill has attracted a wave of criticism from charities, opposition MPs and human rights lawyers.
The UN’s refugee agency, the UNHCR, said in a lengthy statement that if the legislation is passed it “would amount to an asylum ban – extinguishing the right to seek refugee protection in the United Kingdom for those who arrive irregularly, no matter how genuine and compelling their claim may be, and with no consideration of their individual circumstances”.
The statement said this would “be a clear breach of the Refugee Convention and would undermine a longstanding humanitarian tradition of which the British people are rightly proud”.
Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, suggested the plans were “more akin to authoritarian nations” such as Russia and insisted the proposals would not stop desperate people crossing in small boats but would instead leave “traumatised people locked up in a state of misery being treated as criminals and suspected terrorists without a fair hearing on our soil”.
He added the new legislation “ignores the fundamental point that most of the people in small boats are men, women and children escaping terror and bloodshed from countries including Afghanistan, Iran and Syria”.
Read more:
Do refugees have a ‘safe and legal’ route to the UK?
PM will hope trying to stop Channel crossings will show voters Tories are tough on immigration
Earlier, Ms Braverman told the Commons that she “can’t say definitively” if the new bill complies with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which the UK is part of.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Asylum seeker says new Illegal Migration Bill will have ‘negative effect’
Mr Sunak insisted there is “absolutely nothing improper or unprecedented” about pursuing legislation with a warning that they may not be compatible with the ECHR, adding: “We believe we are acting in compliance with international law, in compliance with the ECHR, and if challenged… we will fight that hard because we believe we’re doing the right thing and it is compliant with our obligations.”
Officials indicated hopes of the bill being passed by the end of the year, which could see it in force ahead of any anticipated 2024 election.
Mr Sunak has staked his premiership on curbing Channel crossings, among four other priorities.
In 2022, a record 45,755 migrants arrived in the UK after crossing the Channel, while more than 3,000 have made the journey so far this year.
UK
Prince Andrew insisted on ‘gag order’ to stop allegations spoiling Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, memoir claims
Prince Andrew insisted his accuser, Virginia Giuffre, sign a one-year gag order – to prevent details of her allegations tarnishing the late Queen’s platinum jubilee, her memoirs have claimed.
Andrew relinquished his Duke of York title and remaining honours on Friday evening.
It came after discussions with King Charles, in consultation with the Prince of Wales, both of whom wanted to bring an end to the long-lasting scandal.
But, according to The Telegraph, Ms Giuffre’s book, which is due out on Tuesday, is focusing further attention on the sexual assault allegations and the prince’s friendship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, which led to the royal’s downfall.
She tells how Andrew’s “disastrous” Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis was like an “injection of jet fuel” for her legal team, and it raised the possibility of “subpoenaing” his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson, and daughters Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie and drawing them into the legal case.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Prince Andrew’s ’embarrassed’ Royals ‘for years’
The Telegraph also reports Ms Giuffre’s claims that she got “more out of” Andrew than a reported £12m payout and $2m (around £1.4m) donation to her charity because she had “an acknowledgement that I and many other women had been victimised and a tacit pledge to never deny it again”.
The former duke paid to settle a civil sexual assault case with Ms Giuffre in 2022, despite insisting he had never met her.
Ms Giuffre alleged she was forced to have sex with the prince when she was 17, after being trafficked by Epstein. Andrew continues to vehemently deny her allegations.
Read more:
Andrew giving up title is ‘Victory for Virginia’
Everything we know about Andrew losing titles
Prince Andrew: A timeline of events
Queen Elizabeth II was celebrating her platinum jubilee in 2022 – the first British monarch to reach the milestone – as the civil case against her son was gathering pace.
It was settled nine days after she reached the 70th anniversary of her accession.
According to the Telegraph, Ms Giuffre, who died in April, reveals in her book: “I agreed to a one-year gag order, which seemed important to the prince because it ensured that his mother’s platinum jubilee would not be tarnished any more than it already had been.”
Parades, processions, concerts and street parties were held across the UK in celebration of the Platinum Jubilee. Pic: PA
In January 2022, a US judge ruled the civil case against Andrew could go ahead, and the Queen went on to strip him of his honorary military roles, with the prince also giving up his HRH style.
‘Devastating’ interview
His 2019 Newsnight interview, which he hoped would clear his name, backfired when he said he “did not regret” his friendship with convicted paedophile Epstein, who trafficked Ms Giuffre.
Prince Andrew and Virginia Giuffre (then Roberts) in 2001 – a picture the prince claimed had been doctored. Pic: Shutterstock
Andrew also said he had “no recollection” of ever meeting Ms Giuffre and added he could not have had sex with her in March 2001 because he was at Pizza Express with his daughter Beatrice on the day in question.
Ms Giuffre, whose book is called Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice, 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.”
‘Amazed he was stupid enough’
She also told how Andrew had “stonewalled” her legal team for months before settlement discussions began moving very quickly when his deposition was scheduled for March 2022.
Ms Giuffre also wrote she was “amazed” that a member of the royal family would be “stupid enough” to appear in public with the convicted paedophile, after a photo of the pair walking in New York emerged.
Andrew, who remains a prince and continues to live in the Crown Estate property Royal Lodge, said on Friday 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”.
It’s not the first seismic statement I’ve had to deal with from the Royal Family late into the evening.
But what I have learnt from past experience is that when they do come in this way, it’s because the decision has been made to act now and act fast.
Which inevitably has us all wondering, why now?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Prince Andrew: ‘Too much of a distraction’
The latest stories about Prince Andrew and his email to Jeffrey Epstein were again a sign of just how close he’d been to the convicted paedophile, and an extract released from the late Virginia Giuffre’s book was heartbreaking and excruciatingly seedy.
And yes, the full book is released on Tuesday.
But in some ways, we have heard a lot of these lurid details before, albeit allegations that Prince Andrew denies.
Which is why it feels like this time, the family had just had enough.
It’s framed as a personal statement from Andrew, but the involvement of his relatives could not be any clearer: “In discussion with the King, and my immediate and wider family,” he writes, followed up by, “with His Majesty’s agreement, we feel I must now go a step further”.
It has always been hard to get a full picture of how much the King has engaged in the problems with his brother.
Prince Andrew speaks with King Charles as they leave Westminster Cathedral Pic: Reuters
Speak to those who know the family well and they’ll tell you our current monarch “doesn’t like confrontation”, just like Queen Elizabeth II.
And while there has always remained “a warm familial feeling between the two brothers” which we’ve seen through Andrew’s appearance at family events, it is “tempered by the King’s responsibilities as head of state to be entirely separate from the perceived, real or alleged activities of the Duke of York”.
In the end, as head of the institution, and not as his brother, the King would have had to lead the discussions about the Andrew problem, but I suspect with heavy involvement from his eldest son and wife.
William, only in recent weeks, has told us there will be change when he becomes monarch, his advisors stressing he isn’t afraid to question why the Royal Family continues to do things in a certain way.
His very visible unease at standing next to Prince Andrew at the Duchess of Kent’s funeral showed us how uncomfortable he felt about his uncle being there at such a public moment.
His involvement in those discussions behind the scenes and making sure the institution was seen to be taking action against Andrew is likely to have been considerable.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
A timeline of allegations against Andrew
I know that Queen Camilla is also a quiet but hugely powerful influence behind palace walls.
She is her husband’s listening ear, sounding board, but also not afraid to tell him when she believes there needs to be change.
Her own work to break taboos around sexual violence and encourage survivors to speak out must have made it even more difficult for her to read the stories about Andrew’s links to Epstein, and the sexual allegations against her brother-in-law, even though he has always vehemently denied them.
And then there are those closest to the Prince.
You have to have sympathy with his daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. Did they tell their father that he needed to do something for their sake to try and shut down the noise?
His ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, has also been burned in recent weeks by her association with Epstein – a spectre who, despite his death, has continued to haunt the royal family.
So what of Prince Andrew? How will this impact him?
Any sense he might have a chance at returning to some kind of public life has truly evaporated. We wait to see if, with time, he is again allowed to appear at least for family occasions.
I’ve always been told “he is robust and self-contained and always has been”.
Interpret that how you will – arrogance that he could ride it out, or a very strongly-held conviction that he has never done anything wrong?
Either way, he clearly believes he has been unfairly punished by the court of public opinion.
One thing a source did tell me is that there is a sense he’s never really needed the affirmation of his family.
Read more from Sky News:
Andrew named in Epstein files
Harry denies fight with Andrew
Author: Andrew has no public future
He may not need their emotional support, but in the end, we have again seen how no member of the family is bigger than the institution.
Protecting the reputation of “the firm” has to come first.
Prince Andrew may feel that he has done the right thing, even done his family a favour, by personally relinquishing the use of his titles and honours, but this, in the end, was not just his choice.
No longer to be known as HRH or the Duke of York, he is now Prince Andrew only – ultimately forced to fall on his sword by his own family.
Prince Andrew has announced he is giving up his royal titles, including the Duke of York.
The decision is understood to have been made in close consultation with King Charles and other members of the Royal Family.
Prince Andrew said continued accusations against him were distracting from the King’s work.
He had been accused by Virginia Giuffre, who died in April, of sexual assault. He denies this.
Which titles is he giving up?
Prince Andrew is giving up his Duke of York title. Sky News understands this will be immediate.
He will also give up his knighthood as a Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order (GCVO) and his Garter role as a Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter.
He will retain the dukedom, which can only be removed by an Act of Parliament, but will not use it.
Prince Andrew will also remain a prince, as the son of Queen Elizabeth II.
Virginia Giuffre had accused Prince Andrew of sexually assaulting her before her death. Pic: AP
Why is this happening now?
Ms Giuffre, who was one of billionaire paedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s victims, alleged Prince Andrew sexually assaulted her on three occasions when she was 17, and sued him in 2021.
In her posthumous memoir Nobody’s Girl, due to be published on Tuesday, she alleged he was “entitled” and “believed having sex with me was his birthright”.
Prince Andrew has always denied the allegations.
He has also always claimed that a well-known image of them together was doctored. Before her death, which her family said was by suicide, the case was settled outside of court for a sum believed to have been around £12m.
Ms Giuffre’s posthumous memoir goes on sale a week after an email emerged showing Andrew told Epstein “we are in this together”.
The email was reportedly sent three months after he said he had stopped contact with the convicted sex offender.
Flight logs released by a US committee from Epstein’s estate name Prince Andrew. Pic: House Committee on Oversight and Government
On Friday evening, the US House Oversight Committee also released documents from Epstein’s estate showing “Prince Andrew” listed as a passenger on the financier’s private jet – the so-called Lolita Express – from Luton to Edinburgh in 2006, alongside Ghislaine Maxwell.
He was also listed on another flight to West Palm Beach, Florida, in 2000.
The flight logs have been reported on for years but the release may have added to pressure.
“The situation has become untenable and intolerable, and this week in particular, the tipping point had been reached,” said royal correspondent Laura Bundock.
It is understood that the changes will take effect immediately.
The Giuffre family has called for the King to go further and “remove the title of Prince”.
Prince Andrew’s decision to relinquish his titles also comes following increased pressure over his relationship with an alleged Chinese spy.
The move will not impact the Princesses, including Princess Beatrice, here.
Will this affect his ex-wife and daughters?
Sky News understands that Andrew will continue to live at the Windsor Estate at the Royal Lodge. His ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, will also remain living at the Royal Lodge.
But for the second year running, he will not attend the Royal Family’s annual Christmas celebrations at Sandringham, it is understood.
Andrew’s ex-wife will also no longer use her Duchess of York title.
She was dropped by numerous charities last month after it emerged that she wrote to convicted sex offender Epstein, calling him a “supreme friend”, despite publicly disowning him in the media.
The decision over Andrew’s titles will not impact on the position of his daughters, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie, it is understood.
Sky News royal correspondent Rhiannon Mills says the move may not stop the influx of negative stories about him.
She said: “This ends the questions on what more the monarch could do to show how the family felt about the accusations, the upset and the embarrassment caused.
“Will it stop the stories, the allegations and the interest in Prince Andrew? That is far less certain. But in what is the prince’s first public statement since that ill-fated Newsnight interview in 2019, it is striking that he signs it off by saying, ‘I vigorously deny the accusations against me’.”
Prince Andrew made the decision to give up his titles in close consultation with King Charles, it is understood. Pic: Reuters
What did Prince Andrew say in his statement?
In his statement, Prince Andrew said: “In discussion with The King, and my immediate and wider family, we have concluded the continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the Royal Family.
“I have decided, as I always have, to put my duty to my family and country first. I stand by my decision five years ago to stand back from public life.
“With His Majesty’s agreement, we feel I must now go a step further. I will therefore no longer use my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me.
“As I have said previously, I vigorously deny the accusations against me.”
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.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024