Labour warned tough laws against people smugglers in new bill could penalise asylum seekers – UK politics live | Politics
Campaigners warn tough laws against people smugglers in new bill could penalise asylum seekers
Rajeev Syal
People seeking asylum on small boats who refuse to stop for the French authorities could receive sentences of up to five years under a new bill meant to disrupt irregular Channel crossings that has just been published.
A bill introduced to parliament will also allow people smugglers to be jailed for up to 14 years for handling small boat parts and strengthen police powers to seize laptops, financial assets and mobile phones from suspected smugglers.
The new powers, included within the border security, asylum and immigration bill, are inspired by powers used to combat terrorism, officials have said. It is understood that the Home Office is targeting “hundreds not thousands” of individual gang members believed to be responsible for the cross-Channel trafficking route.
Refugee groups have criticised the new powers, saying that they will criminalise legitimate asylum seekers who are forced to help gangs whilst en route to the UK and could make the cross-Channel route more dangerous.
They have also expressed concern that the new bill maintains some of the draconian powers introduced by the last Conservative government such as curbing the use of modern slavery laws by asylum seekers and powers to impose a cap on the number of asylum seekers allowed to settle in the UK.
Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, said:
We are very concerned that by creating new offences, many refugees themselves could also be prosecuted, which has already been happening in some cases. This would be a gross miscarriage of justice.
Criminalising men, women and children who have fled conflicts in countries such as Sudan does not disrupt the smuggling gangs’ business model. When a refugee is clambering into a boat with an armed criminal threatening them, they are not thinking about UK laws but are simply trying to stay alive.
Labour hopes the new legislation will help turn the tide against people-smuggling networks that have facilitated more than 150,000 small boat arrivals in the UK since 2018. More than 1,000 people have arrived in the UK since the start of this year.
The bill will make it an offence to “endanger another life during perilous sea crossing to the UK”. Anyone involved in coercive behaviour, “including preventing offers of rescue”, will face prosecution and an increased sentence of up to five years in prison.
As part of Keir Starmer’s pledge to ‘smash the gangs’, those caught selling or handling small boat parts could also be jailed for up to 14 years as the Home Office will make it “illegal to supply or handle items suspected of being for use by organised crime groups”.
Where someone is suspected of selling or handling small boats parts or sharing suspect information online, officials believe the new bill will allow them to apply these offences against people smugglers and make an arrest.
Current rules mean law enforcement are unable to intervene until after a small boat crossing.
Campaigners have continued to criticise Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, for claiming that sustainable aviation fuel is a “game changer” that means a third runway at Heathrow can go ahead without climate targets being breached. (See 8.15am.)
Stay Grounded, a network representing groups campaigning to reduce flying on climate grounds, said in a statement:
Expanding Heathrow Airport in the midst of a climate crisis is a disastrous decision for people and planet. The claim that so-called “sustainable” aviation fuels can mitigate the climate impact of the expansion is completely misleading.
So called “sustainable” aviation fuels are nowhere close to being available at the scale that would be needed and would take clean energy away from the people and sectors that really need it. Instead the government must manage demand with measures such as a frequent flying levy.
Other campaigners and experts have made the same argument. See 10.19am, 10.32am and 10.53am.
MPs and peers call for review into claims policing of recent pro-Palestinian march in London was oppressive
Haroon Siddique
More than 50 MPs and peers have called on the home secretary to commission an independent review into policing of the recent Palestine solidarity demonstration in London and to repeal “anti-protest” legislation.
In a cross-party letter signed by the likes of Diane Abbott, Sian Berry and Clive Lewis, they say they are “deeply troubled ... by the obstacles put in place by the Metropolitan police ahead of the demonstration of 18 January, as well as the policing on the day”.
The Met police arrested 77 people at the demonstration, accusing protesters of breaching police lines after it banned them from gathering outside the BBC’s London headquarters, citing its proximity to a synagogue and the fact it was taking place on the Sabbath.
The letter claims that footage posted by the organisers of the march, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, calls into question the Met’s account of what happened. It says:
There is a direct conflict in the respective positions of officers facilitating the progress of a delegation to lay flowers, and the allegation by police that their lines had been forcibly breached. Clearly being invited to proceed is wholly inconsistent with the allegation of a forcible breach.
It also says the signatories were “aghast” to learn that Met commissioner Mark Rowley said publicly the day after the protest that “his force imposed unprecedented restrictions” at the protest. Charges should be dropped against those “unjustly arrested or unjustly charged”, the parliamentarians say.
Labour MP Andy McDonald, one of the signatories, said:
There is a strong case for the home secretary to establish an independent investigation into the police’s decisions on Saturday 18 January, but also a wider review of public order legislation which Labour in opposition said would erode historic freedoms of peaceful protest.
Commander , the Met officer who led the policing operation, previously said:“We saw a deliberate effort, including by protest organisers, to breach conditions and attempt to march out of Whitehall.”
Andy Burnham's night time economy adviser steps down over Covid grant application inaccuracies
Raphael Boyd
Sacha Lord has stepped down from his role as an adviser to Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham following the decision by the Arts Council to request a repayment for a grant issued to one of his companies.
The Arts Council granted £400,000 to Primary Event Solutions, a company which Lord is the director of, from the culture recovery fund in 2021 in the wake of the Covid-pandemic.
Following a report by the Manchester Mill last year that the grant was obtained through what the online newspaper called a series of “highly misleading claims” , the Arts Council began to investigate the nature of Lords’ application.
Lord, the co-founder of the Manchester based festival Parklife and club night series Warehouse Project, has consistently denied any wrongdoing, with the Mill claiming that they were threatened with legal action for publishing the claims.
Yesterday the Arts Council announced that they had found inconsistencies in the original application. A spokesperson said:
Following a thorough review of the application that Primary Event Solutions submitted to the culture recovery fund in 2021, our decision is to withdraw the grant that was awarded and we are seeking to recover this money.
Lord had occupied the role of night time economy adviser for Greater Manchester since being appointed to the position by Burnham in 2018. Burham said that he had accepted Lord’s resignation “with regret” and questioned the decision.
In a statement Burnham said that Lord had “accepted there were inaccuracies in a grant application”, and believed that “there was no intention to mislead and that he made no personal gain from the grant”.
Primary Event Solutions, the company to which the grant was given, entered liquidation in September 2023, leaving the fate of the £400,000 and the chances of repayment in doubt.
Reeves claims she is 'not bothered' after being challenged about sexist insults about her qualifications
In at least two interviews this morning Rachel Reeves was asked about the essentially bogus claims that she exaggerated her CV when referring to her experience before becoming an MP. On ITV’s Good Morning Britain she insisted that she was “qualified to do this job” and that she was proud of her economics background. (See 8.47am.) In an interview with Times Radio, she also said she was “not bothered” about the abuse she received over this. She said:
Before I became an MP I worked as an economist at the Bank of England and then I worked in the private sector in financial services. I’m proud of the jobs that I did before I became an MP. I’m really not that bothered about what people think about the jobs I did before I became a politician.
In both interviews she was asked about being dubbed “Rachel from accounts” – a jibe that is blatantly sexist, but widely used in the Tory papers.
Reeves must feel aggrieved about this because she has a post-graduate qualification in economics (a master’s from the LSE). Arguably this makes her better qualified to be chancellor than any of her predecessors since Hugh Dalton and Hugh Gaitskell, who were both academic economists. Rishi Sunak had an MBA from Stanford, which isn’t pure economics (although may perhaps be more useful as training for running a government department). And Kwasi Kwarteng had a PhD in economic history. But he wrote his dissertation on a currency crisis from the seventeenth century, which may help to explain why his Treasury career was swiftly destroyed by the 21st century bond market.
Kim Leadbeater denies claim assisted dying bill could be watered down to remove need for judicial sign-off
Jessica Elgot
The Times has splashed this morning on a story saying the assisted dying bill could be amended to take out the requirement for a judge to sign off applications for an assisted death to be allowed. The story says:
Assisted dying campaigners are to look at dropping a requirement for a High Court judge to decide whether people should be allowed to end their own lives, amid concerns about the impact on Britain’s struggling court system.
Under plans being examined by MPs who support a change in the law to let people end their own life, a panel of experts, rather than a High Court judge, would decide whether to approve an assisted death.
The move follows private warnings from senior judges that the courts do not have the capacity to deal with the expected caseload. Family courts have seen a significant increase in delays in recent years, with cases taking an average of more than 40 weeks to be resolved. There are concerns that these delays could be increased if the family division in the High Court has to also deal with assisted dying cases.
But Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP who tabled the private member’s bill and who is leading the effort to get it through its remaining Commons stages, has denied the story. A spokesperson for Leadbeater said:
There is no proposal or amendment on the table on this. Kim is very clear that the bill has the strongest protections and safeguards anywhere in the world and she would not support any changes that would weaken the bill.
There were suggestions during the oral evidence this week that a multi-disciplinary panel of some kind could bring in other experts like social workers and psychiatrists where necessary which the committee would look at if a proposal was tabled but Kim would not support anything that removed the judicial element. So, in short, if it strengthens the bill it might be acceptable to Kim but if not then she wouldn’t support it.
Starmer joins many key figures from Labour in Hull for John Prescott's funeral
Many of the most senior figures in Labour politics are in Hull for the funeral of John Prescott. Here are some pictures of the mourners arriving.
Crime up 12% in England and Wales in year ending September 2024, crime survey says
Danny Shaw, the home affairs commentator and former BBC journalist, has been posting more key figures from the ONS crime statistics on social media.
BREAKING Crime in England/Wales has gone up by 12% 12% , according to latest survey data for the year ending in September 2024. Police figures show record levels of shoplifting - up 23%. Knife crime and robbery both up 4%.
Crime Survey of England/Wales is regarded as most reliable indicator of crime trends. The 12% rise has been driven by a 19% increase in fraud - with 3,858,000 incidents. Other increases in violence & theft are said by @ONS to not be ‘statistically significant’.
The number of knife crimes recorded by police is now back to pre-pandemic levels. There were 55,008 offences in the year to end of September 2024, compared to 55,170 offences in the 12 months to the end of March 2020.
Almost half of all knife crime is in London, West Midlands & Greater Manchester.
In year to September 2024, knife crime rose 18% in London & 4% in Manchester - driving the overall increase.
There was a 6% reduction in knife crime in West Midlands.
NEW Sexual offences recorded by police are at all-time high - almost 200,000 crimes in year to September 2024 (199,445).
This is 5% up in a year, more than double the figure a decade ago, nearly treble the number of sex offences 16 years ago.
Rapes also at record level.
Correction: Sexual offences recorded by police are almost *4* times the number 15 years ago.
April 2008 - March 09: 50,185
Oct 2023 - Sept 24: 199,445
This represents a huge shift in police caseload & one reason why there’s been a fall in overall charge rates.
Increase in police-recorded sex offences may in part be due to a genuine rise.
In year to March 2024, 2.6% of people aged 16-59 said they’d been sexually assaulted (including attempted offences).
Ten years earlier it was 1.5%.
Figures from @ONS Crime Survey of England/Wales
Here is the ONS report. And this is how it summarises its findings.
Crime against individuals and households has generally decreased over the last 10 years with some notable exceptions, such as sexual assault. The latest Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) estimated 9.5 million incidents of headline crime (which includes theft, robbery, criminal damage, fraud, computer misuse, and violence with or without injury) in the survey year ending (YE) September 2024. This was 12% higher than last year’s survey (8.5 million incidents in YE September 2023), mainly because of a 19% rise in fraud (to around 3.9 million incidents). This was similar to levels of fraud estimated in YE March 2020.
Experiences of domestic abuse, sexual assault, stalking and harassment among people aged 16 years and over are presented separately in our statistics as prevalence estimates (the proportion of all people who were victims in the previous 12 months). Over the last decade, there has been a gradual decrease in domestic abuse, but an increase in sexual assault. Latest estimates from the CSEW for YE September 2024 showed no statistically significant change in these experiences compared with YE March 2023, except for stalking.
Shoplifting at record high, with almost 500,000 incidents in England and Wales last year, ONS says
Nearly half a million shoplifting offences were recorded by police in England and Wales in a year, the highest 12-month total on record, PA Media reports. PA says:
A total of 492,914 offences were logged by forces in the year to September 2024, up 23% from 402,220 in the previous 12 months.
The figure is the highest since current records began in the year to March 2003, according to a report from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
Shoplifting levels had already reached a 20-year high last year, the ONS said.
Police recorded 1.8 million theft offences in the year to September, a 2% increase driven by shoplifting and a 22% rise in crimes involving theft from a person (146,109), according to the data published today.
It comes amid warnings that shoplifting is “spiralling out of control” after a survey by the British Retail Consortium (BRC) suggested there were more than 2,000 incidents a day, with staff facing assault, being threatened with weapons, and racial and sexual abuse.
The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, which supports informed debate about climate issues, says Rachel Reeves’ claims about sustainable aviation fuel making Heathrow expansion compatible with climate goals are unrealistic. It posted this on social media this morning.
Commenting on Reeves’ announcement of support for construction of a third runway at Heathrow, @colin-walker.bsky.social, @eciu.net said:
“The Government’s hopes that sustainable aviation fuel will offset the extra emissions from Heathrow’s expansion are unrealistic.”
The ECIU put out a fuller statement on this yesterday.
Other experts have also made the same point. See 10.19am and 10.32am.
And here are some quotes from a Guardian report on this topic last week.
Reeves is understood to have told cabinet colleagues that boosting the amount of sustainable fuels airlines are mandated to use will offset any emissions. But Alethea Warrington, the head of aviation at the climate charity Possible, said: “For the government to try to claim that so-called ‘sustainable aviation fuels’ can undo the climate harm caused by new runways is a fantasy. The supply of genuinely sustainable fuels for aviation will be extremely small, and nowhere close to sufficient to supply even aviation’s current demand, let alone new runways. Any higher costs should fall on frequent flyers and those who can afford to fly in first class, rather than on the majority of people, who already fly rarely, if at all” …
Alex Chapman, a senior economist at the New Economics Foundation, said: “We need emission reductions across the economy now and aviation cannot be given a get-out-of-jail-free card on the basis of unsustainable fuels and shaky arguments of growth. Instead of unsustainable aviation fuels, the government should look to managing the demand for flying through ideas such as a frequent flyer levy.”
Damian Carrington, the Guardian’s environment editor, has also been posting on Bluesky about Rachel Reeves’ claim that sustainable aviation fuel is a “game changer” in the debate about the Heathrow third runway. (See 10.19am.)
UK chancellor Rachel Reeves thinks sustainable aviation fuels are a “gamechanger” - so show us the evidence that it can deal with the huge increase in flights she is backing ...
Amazingly, I appear to agree with Ryanair’s Michael O’Leary, who called the Heathrow a “dead cat” He said: “Talking about a 3rd runway gives the impression she’s doing something about growth, when she knows the runway will not be delivered for 15-25 years”
On the Today programme this morning Rachel Reeves claimed that sustainable aviation fuel was a “game changer” in the debate about whether it is possible to expand airports without breaking carbon targets. (See 8.15am.)
Asked why Labour ministers who voted against Heathrow expansion in the past were now in favour, she replied:
We last voted on this in parliament about six years ago, but a lot has changed in the way that we fly since then. Engines have become much more efficient. And, just at the beginning of this year, this government introduced the mandate for sustainable aviation fuel, which can reduce carbon emissions from flying by 70%. And of course, there’s going to be much more progress on that in the years to come.
When Justin Webb asked if Reeves really believed sustainable aviation fuel completely changed the argument, Reeves replied:
I believe it is a game changer in the way that we fly and the carbon emissions.
We’re also reforming how we use airspace so that we don’t have the problem of planes circling around London. Indeed, having a third runway means that it’s easier for planes to land, rather than circling the vicinity of Heathrow.
Webb asked if the government would be able to produce evidence that showed sustainable aviation fuel really would make that much difference. Reeves replied:
We’ve asked Heathrow to come forward with plans for that third runway by the summer, and we’ve said that it needs to meet strict rules about environmental and carbon emissions … I do believe they can. And Heathrow believes that they can as well.
But the claim that sustainable aviation fuels are really a game changer to the extent that Reeves alleges is not supported by experts. Damian Carrington, the Guardian’s environment editor, explained why in an analysis published yesterday. He says:
The government is only planning for 10% of jet fuel to be sustainable by 2030, which its official advisers, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), says is already ambitious.
The CCC says overall UK emissions must fall by 63% by 2035, compared with 2019. But there is agreement among analysts that building an SAF supply chain to displace much of the existing demand for jet fuel, let alone that from a big expansion in flights, will be slow and difficult. SAF created by using renewable electricity is expensive and there is a limited supply of the waste fat that is used to make SAF. The government’s own forecast is that SAF will only cut emissions by 6.3m tonnes by 2040.
Small electric planes exist that can travel short distances but it will be many years, if ever, before large long-haul planes can be powered by batteries. Aircraft are becoming more fuel efficient but the rate of improvement is marginal compared to the increase in flights a third runway would bring.
The full article is here.
And Iain Soutar, an environmental scientist at the University of Exeter has posed this on Bluesky, pointing out that the Climate Change Committee says that, while sustainable avaition fuels can help, on their own they would not compensate for the increase in carbon emissions caused by rising demand for flights.
The @thecccuk.bsky.social has suggested that SAFs may play a role in the future, but that demand will have to be constrained to meet aviation ghg targets.
In short, supporting another runway at Heathrow would mean that commensurate capacity will have to be reduced from airports elsewhere.
Reeves says she will release her tax return, because she did not know past chancellors had when she ruled it out yesterday
In the Q&A after her speech yesterday, Rachel Reeves was asked by GB News if she would release her tax returns. She said that previous chancellors had not done that, and she was not planning to do it either.
But previous chancellors, like Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt, have published their tax returns, and today Reeves told Times Radio she would be publishing hers. She said:
I wasn’t aware that previous chancellors had released their tax return. I’m very happy to release my tax return in accordance with what’s happened in the recent past and I’ll be doing that alongside the prime minister in due course.
Keir Starmer published his tax returns when he was Labour leader, and yesterday his spokeperson said he would continue to do that as PM, as Sunak also did when he was PM.
Asked if she thought Kemi Badenoch should also release her tax return, Reeves said:
That’s the matter for Kemi Badenoch, but the prime minister and I will be releasing ours.
Reeves says survey shows two thirds of firms more confident following growth speech
Rachel Reeves is now being interview on GB News.
She says a survey suggests two thirds of businesses are more confident as a result of what she announced in her speech yesterday.
She seems to be referring to this.
Q: But businesses are cutting jobs, and saying that your policies are to blame.
Reeves says businesses have to make their own decisions about jobs.
The measures in yesterday’s speech will create jobs, she says. She says a third runway at Heathrow would create 100,000 jobs.
Q: Can you rule out emergency tax increases in your spring statement to ensure that you meet your fiscal rules.
Reeves says she has already set out plans to address the £22bn black hole she inherited. She says the Office for Budget Responsibility will give an update on 26 March and she will set out her plans then.
Q: There is speculation you are going to get rid of the seven-year tax rules, which means gifts given seven years before someone dies are not covered by inheritance tax. Are you?
Reeves says she is not planning to do that.
And that’s the end of that interview.
Reeves says she is no longer opposed to the expansion of Leeds Bradford airport
In her Today programme interview Rachel Reeves, a Leeds MP, was asked about her previous opposition to the expansion of the Leeds Bradford airport. Kemi Badenoch raised this at PMQs yesterday, claiming it showed that Labour minister were “hypocrites”.
Reeves replied:
If Leeds Bradford came back with plans to expand, I would support those, because I think that things have changed significantly in the last few years, and the cabinet supports these plans.
We’ve already, as a government, signed off expansion at Stansted and City Airport, because we know that we need the economic growth, and we know that sustainable aviation and economic growth go hand in hand.
Reeves claims cabinet is 'united' in backing Heathrow third runway plan
In an interview on LBC Rachel Reeves was asked if Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, was fully behind the plans for Heathrow expansion. She replied:
Yes, we are all united as a cabinet backing these plans.
We know that we have to grow our economy, we can’t keep saying no to big infrastructure projects.
Miliband is seen as the cabinet minister most sceptical about the third runway, and whether it can be built without wrecking the UK’s climate commitments. It has been widely reported that he threatened to resign over this when he was in Gordon Brown’s cabinet as energy secretary, and Brown was committing his government to a third runway. Miliband’s biographers say that is not quite right, and that instead he was just focusing on getting the best possible mitigations.
Madeley goes on to ask about the stories before Christmas alleging Reeves exaggerated her experience as an economist in her CV. He says he is doing that because this is the first time she has been on the programme since then.
He says:
You told [a magazine] that you’d worked at the Bank of England for a decade. In fact, it was, it was only six years, and one of those years was at the London School of Economics doing a Master’s course. So that’s five years and not a decade. And in biographies that you’d actually endorsed it was stated that you worked as an economist at the Bank of England, the British Embassy in Washington, and, latterly, at the Halifax Bank of Scotland. But according to your former colleagues in your actual job, you actually worked in a support department at Scottish bank … and that’s all earned you the nickname of Rachel from accounts. Did you? Did you enhance your CV to make yourself look better qualified to be the chancellor of the exchequer if you won the election?
And Reeves replies:
I’m really proud of the jobs that I did before I became a member of parliament.
I worked at the Bank of England in the international area, working on investment and productivity. I worked as the second economic secretary at the British embassy in Washington. I’ve done an undergraduate degree in PPE and masters from the London School of Economics in economics, and then I worked in the private sector, where I worked for Halifax Bank of Scotland, working in Halifax, in West Yorkshire, and around the country.
Reeves says she is “qualified to do this job”.
But she goes on:
In the end, people are going to judge me, am I growing the economy? Am I improving their living standards? And I’m determined to do just that.