Afternoon summary
A judge who granted a Palestinian family the right to live in the UK after they applied through a scheme originally meant for Ukrainian refugees made the wrong decision, Keir Starmer has said. As Rajeev Syal reports, a family of six seeking to flee Gaza were allowed to join their brother in the UK after an immigration judge ruled that the Home Office’s rejection of their application breached their human rights, it emerged today. Starmer said he did not agree with the decision and the Home Office intended to close the loophole. The family had made their application through the Ukraine Family Scheme. Hugo Norton-Taylor, an upper tribunal judge, allowed the family to come to the UK on the basis of their right to a family life under article 8 of the European convention on human rights (ECHR). Starmer spoke out after Kemi Badenoch raised the story at PMQs. Starmer was widely seen to have come out best during their exchanges (see 1.18pm), but Badenoch later said that Starmer was factually wrong in what he said at one point (see 3.37pm).
Badenoch challenged Starmer on immigration policy at PMQs after it emerged that the Home Office has strengthened guidance so as to make it almost impossible for people arriving in the UK to acquire British citizenship – even if they successfully apply for asylum. (See 9.22am.) The Tories claimed this as a policy win. Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said:
Just days ago, Labour claimed changes to border rules were ‘unworkable’.
But now they’re dancing to our tune with a change in position they have been forced into.
In the House of Lords this afternoon David Blunkett, a former Labour home secretary, expressed concerns about the new guidance, and said parliament should get a vote on it. He suggested it would be bad for social cohesion and unfair on children, and that it could leave people stateless.
It says a lot that even someone like Blunkett is so concerned about the Government's decision to block so many refugees from ever being granted citizenship in the UKhttps://t.co/DjsQ2I0RR6 pic.twitter.com/tZoPqjeSzQ
— Adam Bienkov (@AdamBienkov) February 12, 2025
Reform UK has said that, if it wins the next election, it will impose a £10bn a year tax on the renewable energy sector. (See 4.41pm.) The proposals has been criticsed by Common Wealth, a green energy thinktank. Its director Mathew Lawrence said:
The energy system is at a high-stakes crossroad. Households are still feeling the squeeze. Electricity costs for industry remain too high. The solution isn’t to double down on volatile and expensive fossil fuels. It is to deliver an investment surge that builds out home grown clean power. The most cost-effective and direct way to do that is how we built our energy system in the past: public ownership and investment.
Updated
Asked by ITV News about a report it has produced exposing a white supremacist group called Active Club England, Farage praises ITV for its “good, investigative journalism”. He says extremists have always existed, and probably always will. He says he is not underestimating how unpleasant they are. But he goes on:
It is worth just .. to remind ourselves that in terms of counterterrorism activities, at the moment only 10% of their work is dealing with the far right, 80% is dealing with the Islamist threat. So we just do need to get this into some sense of perspective.
At the Reform UK press conference Nigel Farage, the party’s leader, says he has “no doubt” that Britain’s future lies with nuclear energy.
Tice says Reform UK would ban battery energy storage systems, and ensure energy cables have to go underground
Tice is still speaking. He mentions another proposed sanction for solar energy.
He says Reform UK would scrap the Labour plan to apply inheritance tax to some farms.
But if farmers use their land for solar energy, they would not benefit, he says.
You can’t double dip. If you sell out to the renewables industry, then you would not benefit from that inheritance tax relief. That’s only fair.
Tice says battery energy storage systems pose a risk. So Reform UK would ban them, until it can be shown they are absolutely safe, he says.
And he says cables linking windfarms to the electricity grid would have to be placed underground.
Tice ends by restating his claim that Reform UK intend to win the next elections and says lawyers will have to put “risk warnings” in corporate fundraising documents highlighting the potential costs to firms if his party forms a government.
Reform UK says, if it wins election, it would £10bn a year tax on renewable energy sector, to recover cost of subsidies
Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, is speaking at a press conference now. It is about green energy. There is a live feed here.
Farage introduces Richard Tice, the party’s deputy leader, who is going to set out a policy proposal.
Tice says it is good to be back in the City where he was chief executive of a property company. People in Reform UK know about making money and running companies, he says.
Tice says one of the reasons why the economy is doing badly is net zero. He goes on:
Net zero is, without question, the greatest act of self harm ever imposed on a nation by the people in Westminster. It’s killing jobs, whether it’s in the car industry, whether it’s in the oil and gas industry, whether it’s in the steel industry, whether it’s chemicals industry.
The truth is that decarbonization does mean de-industrialisation and the great lie that’s been told is that somehow renewables are cheaper.
Tice says renewables cannot be cheaper because backup is needed.
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize that the cost of renewables plus backup must be more than the cost of backup. It’s basic common sense.
Tice displays a chart showing that electricity prices in the UK used to be much the same as in the US, but now they are much higher.
So today he is putting the renewables industry on notice, he says. Reform intend to win the next election, he says. And when they do they will impose charges on the renewable sector.
Given that the cost of the subsidies is about £10bn a year … we will be looking to recover that cost of the subsidies from the renewables industry via a number of routes. The first one, the key one, is we will impose a windfall tax on the wind, as well as on the solar, and we will do that, broadly to recover about the cost of the subsidies, primarily through probably a generation-tax based on pounds per megawatt hour.
Here are some of the pictures from PMQs taken by the official Commons photographer.
Starmer confirms judge-led statutory inquiry into Nottingham attacks to take place at meeting with victims' families
Keir Starmer has told the families of those killed in the Nottingham attacks that a judge-led public inquiry will take place in “a matter of weeks”, PA Media reports. PA says:
During an emotionally charged meeting at Number 10, the families of Barnaby Webber, Grace O’Malley-Kumar and Ian Coates were told by Starmer that a “number of different agencies” would be scrutinised by the probe.
Valdo Calocane killed 19-year-old students Webber and O’Malley-Kumar and 65-year-old caretaker Coates before attempting to kill three other people in a spate of attacks in the city in June 2023.
He was sentenced to an indefinite hospital order in January 2024 after admitting manslaughter by diminished responsibility and attempted murder.
Starmer said focusing on just one aspect of the case would not be right as he did not “think that will do justice”.
A retired judge is due to be appointed in due course, with Starmer adding: “As soon as that happens, the process will start.”
The families had called for a statutory inquiry in order for witnesses to be compelled to give evidence, and Starmer said it was important for it to be statutory so witnesses could “answer questions about their actions and their decisions”.
The PM acknowledged it had “taken a long time” to reach a decision on announcing an inquiry, as he sat around the table alongside high-profile ministers such as the health secretary, home secretary and attorney general.
Opening the meeting, Starmer said: “I gave you my word that we would push for a judge-led inquiry. We have looked at the papers… and today I can confirm there will be a judge-led inquiry into this case. More than that, it will be a statutory inquiry.”
Their meeting with the Prime Minister follows the publication of NHS England’s report into the mental health care received by Calocane in the lead-up to the attacks, which found the offer of care and treatment available for him “was not always sufficient to meet his needs”.
Badenoch says Starmer was wrong when he said at PMQs controversial asylum decision taken under last government
Kemi Badenoch says Keir Starmer was wrong when he told MPs at PMQs that the asylum decision she was asking about was made when the last government was in office. She says this shows he “doesn’t tell the truth”.
The Prime Minister misled parliament YET again at PMQs.
— Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) February 12, 2025
He said: "the decision in question was taken under the last Government".
This is untrue. The case was on the 6 January 2025 https://t.co/JjiKgEXJlm
Not on top of his brief.
Can’t answer questions.
Doesn’t tell the truth. pic.twitter.com/NagqjsOKpn
The Prime Minister misled parliament YET again at PMQs.
He said: “the decision in question was taken under the last Government”.
This is untrue. The case was on the 6 January 2025 https://t.co/JjiKgEXJlm
Not on top of his brief.
Can’t answer questions.
Doesn’t tell the truth
Badenoch does seem to be right on this. But it also another example of relitigating PMQs after the event (see 1.18pm), which is always a sign of failure because it is like trying to win on the replay after you’ve lost the match.
Minister challenged to provide assurances over Chinese involvement in North Sea wind project
The government has come under renewed pressure over Chinese involvement in a major North Sea wind project, amid claims it threatens national security, PA Media reports. PA says:
Energy minister Kerry McCarthy said the department had processes in place to ensure any risk in the Green Volt North Sea farm was minimised, as the Conservative party said Labour’s green energy targets came with a “made in China label”.
The project, due to be Europe’s largest floating offshore wind farm, is a joint venture between a Japanese and an Italian-Norwegian company.
The Treasury has reportedly selected Chinese firm Mingyang Smart Energy to supply wind turbines.
Among the concerns raised by government departments was that the Chinese state could switch off the power once the wind farm is operational, or that the platforms could be used as spy sensors, according to the Sun.
During an urgent question, the Lib Dem MP Christine Jardine said the government needed to ensure the software could not be accessed remotely or be at risk of being switched off by others.
She said the government must follow “rigorous processes”, adding: “That must include an assessment of any opportunities for remote access to the turbines, as the software will normally remain in control of the manufacturers, even once commissioned, which would leave them vulnerable to being switched off. We need local control.”
McCarthy said: “We have discussions with a wide range, variety, of international investors, but we do absolutely recognise this needs to be balanced against national security implications, and that is something that we work on constantly across Government. We do want to make sure that the most robust processes are followed as we look at the details of this particular incident.”
Updated
Referral of David Amess's killer to Prevent closed 'too quickly', security minister Dan Jarvis tells MPs
The referral of David Amess’s killer to Prevent was closed “too quickly”, Dan Jarvis, the security minister, told MPs.
Ali Harbi Ali had been referred to Prevent seven years before he killed the veteran MP on October 15 2021, but his case was closed in 2016.
In his statement to the Commons about how the case was handled (see 1.47pm and 1.48pm), Jarvis said:
The reviewer found that from the material reviewed, the assessment in terms of the perpetrator’s vulnerabilities was problematic, and this ultimately led to questionable decision making and sub-optimal handling of the case during the time he was engaged with Prevent and Channel.
“he reviewer ultimately found that while Prevent policy and guidance at the time was mostly followed, the case was exited from Prevent too quickly.
PA Media reports:
Ali was first referred to Prevent by his school, Riddlesdown college, in October 2014, amid concerns over a change in his behaviour.
The learning review found that he “was an engaging student who had performed well at school and appeared to have a bright future”, but then “his demeanour, appearance and behaviour changed during his final two years at school”.
A month after the Prevent referral, in November 2014, he was moved on to the next stage of the anti-radicalisation scheme, Channel, working with experts in Islamist extremism.
By April 2015 he had exited Channel, when his risk of terrorism was assessed to be low.
One year later, he was again assessed as part of a police review and again his risk was found to be low, and his case was closed.
There were no further referrals to Prevent in the five years before Sir David’s murder in October 2021.
Jarvis told the Commons that the learning review found six issues, including “problematic” record keeping; the rationale for certain decisions not being explained; responsibilities between police and the local authority being blurred; an outdated tool for identifying vulnerability to radicalisation being used; a failure to involve the school who made the referral; and only one intervention session being provided instead of two.
He also said a number of issues in Ali’s case would “most likely not be repeated today” as the reviewer found “significant changes” had been made since his referral, such as the introduction of statutory duties for Prevent and Channel under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015.
Full Fact, the fact checking organisation, says Keir Starmer muddled up immigration and net migration at PMQs. In a news release it explains:
At PMQs today Prime Minister Keir Starmer claimed that the Conservatives “presided over record high levels of immigration [which] reached nearly one million.”
Full Fact has determined that these figures aren’t quite right. Immigration (the number of people moving to the UK for 12 months or more) actually reached a record high of approximately 1.3 million under the Conservatives, in the year to June 2023.
The figure of “nearly one million” meanwhile appears to refer to net migration (the number of long-term immigrants to the UK minus the number of long-term emigrants), which in the year to June 2023 is estimated to have reached a record high of approximately 906,000.
At PMQs today Keir Starmer said he agreed with Kemi Badenoch that a Palestinian family from Gaza featured in a Telegraph story should not have had their application for asylum accepted. The Telegraph says they originally applied under the Ukraine scheme because there is no ‘safe and legal’ route for Palestinians (even though the application via the Ukraine scheme does not seem to have been relevant to the final decision).
Ayoub Khan, the independent MP for Birmingham Perry Bar, says there should be a safe and legal’ route for Palestinians.
Today in Parliament I called for the creation of a Palestinian family visa scheme. This should bring Palestinian refugees to safety in the UK through a new safe and legal route, and reunite families desperate for their loved ones to reach safety pic.twitter.com/6EBejTY3X0
— Ayoub Khan MP (@AyoubKhanMP) February 12, 2025
This is from my colleague Pippa Crerar on Bluesky.
Kemi Badenoch’s spokesman has decided to give the usual Tory post-PMQs briefing a miss.
Keir Starmer’s (political) spox tells waiting reporters: “I’m not sure I’d want to follow that either”.
Home Office rule saying small boat arrivals can't claim citizenship just 'new guidance on old policy', minister claims
On Radio 4’s the World at One, Chris Bryant, a minister in the culture and science departments, said that he backed the Home Office guidance saying that people who arrive in the UK on small boats should not normally be allowed to get British citizenship. (See 9.22am.) He claimed this was just
Asked if he was in favour, he replied:
To be precise, it’s a new guidance on an old policy.
The law already says, quite rightly and obviously, that if you’ve arrived and you’ve arrived illegally, and you have acted illegally as part of your arrival, then you may well not get citizenship. That’s always been a provision that’s been available in law, and we’re simply clarifying.
When it was put to him that stopping people being granted asylum from being able to acquire citizenship would be bad for integration, and he was asked how he could justify that, Bryant replied:
Because what I want to do is I want to get these numbers down.
Whether it’s people coming in on small boats, or previously we had different versions of people get illegally into this country, and we need to get those numbers down.
I have corrected the post at 12.17pm because originally it said that the Alliance MP Sorcha Eastwood asked Starmer to back retaliatory tariffs against the US. In fact, she was asking him to agree that tariffs were bad for worker and business. I am sorry for the mistake.
The Home Office has now published the Prevent Learning Review into the David Amess attack. It’s here.
David Amess's killer had been referred to Prevent for two years, MPs told
Ali Harbi Ali, who killed the Conservative MP David Amess in 2021, was referred to the Prevent programme for two years, security minister Dan Jarvis has told MPs.
In a Commons statement, Jarvis said:
The perpetrator had previously been referred to the Prevent programme and subsequently to the specialist Channel programme between 2014 and 2016, between five and seven years before the attack took place.
The minister said publishing the Prevent learning review into the case, completed in February 2022, would “enable public scrutiny of Prevent”.
Jarvis told MP:
The perpetrator of the attack on Sir David became known to Prevent in October 2014, when he was referred by his school after teachers identified a change in his behaviour.
The case was adopted by the Channel Mutli-Agency Early Intervention Programme in November of 2014. An intervention provider who specialised in tackling Islamist extremism was assigned to work with him. The perpetrator was exited from Channel in April 2015 after his terrorism risk was assessed as low.
A 12-month post-exit police review in 2016 also found no terrorism concerns. The case was closed to Prevent at that point. There were no further Prevent referrals in the five years between the case being closed and the attack.
Shabana Mahmood confirms MoJ warned about impact of assisted dying bill on courts before judicial signoff dropped
The Ministry of Justice sent Kim Leadbeater an impact assessment warning about the effect of the assisted dying bill on the criminal justice system if each case had to be signed off by a high court judge.
Officials have pointed out that the MoJ has previously expressed concerns about the shortage of judges, and hinted that any advice to Leadbeater would have pointed out that it could add to the backlog of cases in Egland and Wales’ highest courts. The MoJ has previously expressed concern about the low number of high court judges, an insider said.
This week, in response to these concerns, and similar points made by witnesses giving evidence to the committee looking at the bill, Leadbeater announced that she was dropping the plan in the bill for all assisted dying applications to be signed off by a judge.
Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, told journalists:
It is my job and that of my ministers and my officials to engage with the substance of the bill after the second reading and to make recommendations and to put options in front of the person who owns a bill, Kim Leadbetter, about what is and what is not operable.
There were a number of options that she could have taken. It remains a decision for her about what options she chooses, what amendments she thinks she wants to make to the bill. And our job was to give dispassionate, neutral advice about what the thought could work in practice and what the ramifications of those options would be.
PMQs - snap verdict
It is always good to be charitable in life and so, for reasons to be explained in a moment, it is worth pointing out that that was not quite as bad for Kemi Badenoch as it looked. But that’s little consolation, because it looked dire. Possibly her worst yet.
As expected, Badenoch started by asking about the Telegraph splash. This is what she said:
The Conservative government established the Ukraine family scheme, and in total over 200,000 Ukrainians, mostly women, children and the elderly, have found sanctuary in the UK from Putin’s war. However, a family-of-six from Gaza have applied to live in Britain using this scheme, and a judge has now ruled in their favour.
This is not what the scheme was designed to do. This decision is completely wrong. It cannot be allowed to stand. Is the government planning to appeal on any points of law, and if so, which ones?
And this is how Keir Starmer replied:
I do not agree with the decision. She’s right, it’s the wrong decision. She hasn’t quite done her homework, because the decision in question was taken under the last government according to the legal framework for the last government.
But let me be clear, it should be parliament that makes the rules on immigration. It should be the government that makes the policy, that is the principle, and the Home Secretary is already looking at the legal loophole which we need to close in this particular case.
Badenoch picked up on the point that Starmer had not specifically answered her question about an appeal, and she kept pursuing this. She also asked if it was possible to stop people, like the Palestinian family mentioned in the Telegraph story, from using the right to family life to make a case for coming to the UK, without leaving the European convention on human rights. Just now CCHQ has been tweeting about Starmer dodging the appeal question. And that says it all. Because if you have to start spinning your messsage to the media after a debate, or after a PMQs, it is a giveaway that you failed to land it at the time. Badenoch’s mistake was that she would not take yes for an answer. The intricacies of whether or not the government is appealing are far less important than the main point, which was whether or not Starmer was willing to condemn the decision, and once he did Badenoch should probably have moved on.
But she didn’t, and that allowed Starmer to deploy this answer in response to her third question.
She complains about scripted answers and questions, her script doesn’t allow her to listen to the answer.
She asked me if we’re going to change the law and close the loophole in question one, I said yes. She asked me again in question two, and I said yes. She asked me again in question three, it’s still yes.
It was not entirely fair, and there was some straw man reasoning taking place here. Badenoch’s first question was about an appeal, not about changing law. But that did not matter because, rhetorically, it was brutally effective.
You might have thought it could not have got any worse for the Tory leader. But it did. In response to the final, Finland question, Starmer blew her out of the water. (See 12.13pm.).
So, overall, it was a wretched exchange for Badenoch.
But there were some faint positives. As opposition leader, you cannot make policy, but you can set the agenda, and Badenoch can plausibly argue that the citizenship policy that she announced last week (and which she referenced today in relation to the Gaza story – see 12.09pm) is having an impact on government. The Home Office does seem to be shifting in response. (See 9.22am.) And, although Starmer won a clear victory at PMQs today, he did so by adopting a relatively rightwing stance on an asylum application story that suggests he is a bit worried about Tory policy in this area (although, to be fair, it may be Nigel Farage that is worrying him more).
And Starmer also promised to close the “loophole” that allowed the family from Gaza to come to the UK. (See 12.06pm where I have posted the full quotes – but you may need to refresh the page to get them to show.) He sounded confident about being able to do that. But, if the experience of the last government in this area is anything to go by, it will turn out to be harder than he implies.
Updated
Andrew Mitchell, the Tory former international development, asks if the UK will continue to support the Gavi fund.
As Peter Walker reported this week, the government is expected to cut funding for Gavi, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation.
Starmer says this is a really important issue. He says he has long supported the fund. He says he will keep Mitchell informed.
Beccy Cooper (Lab) asks about the local government devolution plans. Will Sussex benefit?
Starmer says people in Sussex will get meaningful control over local decisions, through the creation of a mayor.
Starmer insists farming is priority for government, after minister implied it wasn't
Harriet Cross (Con) asks if Daniel Zeichner, the farming minister, was right to say yesterday farming was not a priority for the government.
Starmer says farming is as priority for him.
UPDATE: Starmer said:
Farming is top of the agenda as far as I’m concerned, that’s why we put £5bn to support farmers in the budget.
They failed to spend £300m on their watch on farming and we set out our road map, which has been welcomed by the NFU as she very well knows, it was described as long overdue.
I wonder who didn’t do it before.
Updated
Toby Perkins (Lab) says it is national apprenticeship week. He says employers are very pleased about the changes to apprenticeships announced yesterday.
Starmer welcomes the question, and says the changes should make a difference.
Starmer attacks Tories for not accepting that lawyers can represent people without agreeing with their views
Saqib Bhatti (Con) asks about Lord Hermer, and whether he represents value of money.
Starmer says people used to believe in the principle that lawyers don’t necessarily agree with their clients. If we abandon that, then the only people able to defend sex offenders would be people who support them, and so you would have “victims cross-examined by perpetrators”.
Sharon Hodgson (Lab) says there is a chronic underfunding on transport infrastructure in the north. She asks if the government backs reopening the Leamside Line.
Starmer says he is pleased progress is being made on the business case for this.
Julie Minns (Lab) asks about the case for a new special needs school in Cumbria.
Starmer says the government is supporting mainstream schools to have SEND expertise, as well as backing SEND units.
Liz Jarvis (Lib Dem) asks about a constituent unable to leave hospital because he does not have a care package to support him at home.
Starmer says he knows this is personal to Jarvis, and he extends his sympathies to her. He says he wants all parties to work on cross-party plans for social care reform.
Starmer says Badenoch has refused his offer of high-level briefing on Chagos Islands deal
Starmer says he defended the Chagos Islands deal last week. He says he offered Kemi Badenoch a high-level briefing on this last week. But she has not taken up his offer. He goes on:
They are asking questions without wanting to know the facts. It’s extraordinary.
Preet Kaur Gill (Lab) asks about the borders bill. Does the PM agree there is only one party serious about repairing the broken immigration system?
Starmer says the Tories and Reform UK voted “against making it an offence to organise the buying, selling and transport of small boats” on Monday.
Sorcha Eastwood (Alliance) asks Starmer if he agrees that tariffs are bad for workers and businesses.
Starmer says he supports backing workers. He wants to work with the US on boosting jobs and growth.
UPDATE: This has been corrected because the original post wrongly said Eastwood was backing retaliatory tariffs.
Updated
Kim Leadbeater asks about public health, not assisted dying.
Lib Dem leader Ed Davey urges Starmer to prepare retaliatory tariffs against the US
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, says President Trump has forgotten who the US’s friends really are, and how the UK and Canada fought with Americans to defeat fascism.
He says Starmer to remind Trump of this, and to prepare retaliatory tariffs.
Starmer says the UK will always put its national interests, and its steelworkers, first.
Davey says Trump needs to hear “strong words” from the UK.
If Ukraine has to surrender land to Russia, that will be the biggest betrayal of a European country since Poland in 1945.
Will the PM ensure that Ukraine does not get bullied by the US into accepting a deal that would be a victory for Russia.
Starmer says he wants Ukraine to be in the strongest positioon.
UPDATE: Davey said:
President Trump seems to have forgotten all this [the British, Canadians and Americans fighting together in the war]. His tariffs against steel and aluminium will hit Canada the hardest and will also hit jobs and the cost of living in our country.
So in reminding President Trump who America’s true and longstanding friends and allies really are, will the prime minister also prepare a plan for tariffs in return, starting with tariffs on American electric cars?
Updated
Badenoch says Starmer has not read the judgment.
She says a Labour peer has called Lord Hermer, the attorney general, a fool.
She asks about the Mail story about the borders inspector. (See 11.57am.) “This is not serious,” she says.
Starmer replies:
The individual in question was appointed 2019 by the last government for a senior position. He did work for five years from Finland. We’ve changed that, and he’s now going to be working for the United Kingdom full time.
And he says Badenoch was in cabinet with an attorney general sacked for breaching national security.
Updated
Badenoch says in this case the family said they faced indiscriminate attacks in Gaza from Israel. The government accepted that. Why did the PM allow laywers to change his policy on Gaza.
Starmer says that is the opposite of what the lawyers said.
Badenoch says Starmer did not say if the government would appeal. She says this case arose because someone came to the UK from Gaza and got citizenship. That is why she wants to restrict access to citizenship, she says.
Starmer says the last government allowed immigration to soar. They ran an open borders policy.
Badenoch claims Starmer is not on top of his brief. Does the PM agree that the government should legislate even if that might be against human rights law.
Starmer says Badenoch’s script does not allow her to listen to the answer. He says he has said government will close the loophole.
Starmer says Home Office will close 'loophole' that enabled family from Gaza to claim asylum in UK
Badenoch says Starmer did not say if the government would appeal. The law may have to change, she says. She says the decision was not made by the last government; it was made by a judge.
Starmer says the home secretary has already got her team working on trying to close this “loophole”.
UPDATE: Badenoch said:
If he plans to appeal, then the appeal may be unsuccessful and the law will need to be changed. And if he does not appeal, the law definitely will need to be changed.
He talks about a decision made under the last government, it was not made by the last government, it was made by the courts. The issue we are discussing today is about judicial decisions.
We cannot be in a situation where we allow enormous numbers of people to exploit our laws in this way. There are millions of people all around the world in terrible situations. We cannot help them all, and we certainly cannot bring them all here. Will he commit to bringing forward that new legislation or amending his borders bill?
And Starmer replied:
I’ve already said the home secretary has already got her team working on closing this loophole. We don’t need to wait for that. We’re getting on with that because we’re taking control.
They lost control of immigration. We had nearly a million people come into this country, had an open borders experiment, and on Monday of this week, they voted against increased powers to deal with those that are running a vile trade of people smuggling. Same old Tories, open borders, empty promises.
Updated
Kemi Badenoch asks about the Telegraph story, and says the judge’s decision is “completely wrong”. (See 11.54am.)
Starmer says he agrees the decision was wrong. But it was taken by the last government, under their framework.
Imran Hussain (Lab) asks about the employment rights bill, and asks if the PM will strengthen sick pay protections for workers.
Starmer defends the bill, which he says will extend statutory sick pay to 1.3m employees. He says Kemi Badenoch should support day one protection rights given her own job insecurity.
Keir Starmer starts PMQs by talking about the borders bill getting a second reading, and the homes announcement today. (See 11.13am.)
Labour’s Kim Leadbeater has a question at PMQs. Yesterday, when journalists asked No 10 if Keir Starmer supported her plan to amend the assisted dying bill to remove the requirement for assisted dying applications to be approved by a judge, the spokesperson ducked the question and said this was a matter for parliament.
The Times today says the Leadbeater amendment could lead to the bill being defeated at third reading. It reports:
The future of a bill to legalise assisted dying has been thrown into doubt as MPs who previously backed it said they were reconsidering after a key safeguard was dropped.
Around a dozen MPs who currently support the legislation have told The Times that they are having second thoughts after its architect said she planned to remove a requirement for a High Court judge to sign off decisions for terminally ill people to be helped to end their lives.
The Daily Mail has splashed on a different immigration story which is also a possible topic for PMQs.
Daily Mail: LABOUR’S NEW BORDERS WATCHDOG WILL WFH ... IN FINLAND! #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/Q0OadyPhTZ
— George Mann (@sgfmann) February 11, 2025
It says: “Labour’s choice for the next borders watchdog has hinted he plans to work part of the time from home in Finland.”
We’ve been focusing on one asylum-related story this morning (see 9.22am), but at PMQs Kemi Badenoch may well focus on another. This morning the Telegraph is running a story saying: “Palestinian migrants have been granted the right to live in the UK after applying through a scheme meant for Ukrainian refugees.”
The Daily Telegraph: Court gives Gazans right to settle in UK #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/kG5Sz4TsMo
— George Mann (@sgfmann) February 11, 2025
This prompted Badenoch to post this on social media last night.
We cannot have judges simply making up new schemes based on novel and expansive interpretations of human rights law. It is clearer than ever that radical changes to human rights laws are needed - so Parliament, and not Judges, make decisions about eligibility to come to the UK.
In fact, as the Telegraph story explains the story does not involve a judge making a new ‘safe and legal’ route for asylum seekers from Gaza. The Palestinian family - a mother, father and four children aged seven to 18 – did apply for asylum using the form for Ukrainians applying to come to the UK to escape the war. The report goes on:
The family’s claim was initially refused by a lower-tier immigration tribunal on the basis that it was outside the Ukraine programme’s rules, and that it was for Parliament to decide which countries should benefit from resettlement schemes.
However, Hugo Norton-Taylor, an upper tribunal judge, overturned that decision and granted the Palestinians’ appeal, allowing them to come to the UK on the basis of their Article 8 right to a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
He said the rights of the individual family who were in an “extreme and life threatening” situation outweighed the “public interest” of the rules on entry to the UK, which were designed to limit resettlement schemes and control immigration.
But the report also says Norton-Taylor made it clear he was not creating a Ukraine-type scheme for Palestinians from Graza. He granted the claim because the family had links to the UK through a brother who came to the UK in 2007 and who has citizenship. The report says:
Judge Norton-Taylor said the family was not seeking for either the Government or tribunal to institute some form of resettlement scheme or protect rights they did not enjoy. He said the absence of a resettlement scheme was “irrelevant” and instead it was about their rights to a family life under the ECHR outside the rules.
Starmer faces Badenoch at PMQs
PMQs is coming soon.
Here is the list of MPs down to ask a question.
After PMQs there will be an urgent question in the Commons, tabled by the Lib Dem MP Christine Jardine, on “the potential security implications of the involvement of Chinese companies including Mingyang in energy infrastructure projects”. After that Dan Jarvis, the security minister, will make a statement to mark the publication of the report into Prevent’s dealings with Ali Harbi Ali, the man who killed the Conservative MP David Amess.
Met police chief blames Home Office failures after vetting ruling on rogue officers
Sir Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan police commissioner, has blamed Home Office foot-dragging for a failure to change the rules to allow forces to sack officers who fail vetting procedures, Matthew Weaver reports.
Rayner announces £350m for affordable and social housing
Ministers have pledged another £350m to help build affordable and social rent homes, as Angela Rayner has said that the government “can’t afford not to” hit their 1.5m housebuilding target, PA Media reports. PA says:
Officials have said that up to 2,800 extra homes will be built with an extra £300m for the affordable homes programme, half of which will be social rent.
£50m will also be given to the local authority housing fund, with the expectation that this will produce “over 250” more council homes.
The government has pledged to build 1.5m homes over the course of the parliament, but there have been warnings that there are not the staff available to fulfil the promise.
Asked whether she was worried about the target being met, deputy prime minister and housing secretary Rayner said that she was “determined” to meet the challenge. “We will meet that target because we can’t afford not to,” Rayner told broadcasters.
Asked whether the 250 increase of council homes predicted with Wednesday’s funding was a big increase, Rayner said: “We think the measures we’re taking will unlock thousands more council and social homes as part of that programme. We want to help councils who want to build those homes.”
Chagos Islands deal necessary to prevent 'confrontation' with China over Diego Garcia airbase, minister suggests
Stephen Doughty, a Foreign Office minister, has suggested that that the Chagos Islands sovereignty deal is necessary to prevent a “serious confrontation” with China over the UK/US military base at Diego Garcia.
He made the argument in an article in the Times in which he is more explicit than ministers have been before about what the government sees as the risks of not finalising the deal.
Mauritius claims sovereignty over the British-held Chagos Islands, a remote and mostly uninhabited archipelago which is important to London and Washington because it includes the Diego Garcia airbase.
Labour has negotiated a deal that will transfer sovereignty to Mauritius, while the UK at the same time retains control over Diego Garcia for at least 99 years in return for payments reportedly costing £90m a year. But critics claim the deal is unnecessary, and the cost is too high, and even some Labour MPs now view it as a mistake.
In his article, Doughty says that critics are wrong to argue the the UK can ignore the legal threat because an international court of justice (ICJ) ruling in favour of Mauritius in 2019 was advisory. He says:
Claims that we negotiated this deal solely because of the 2019 ICJ advisory opinion are simply wrong. This was not the only challenge we faced — without a deal Mauritius would inevitably pursue a legally binding judgment. “Provisional measures”, themselves legally binding, could be introduced within weeks, affecting our ability to patrol the Chagos archipelago waters.
Doughty says that measures like this would have “serious real-world operational impact” on Diego Garcia. He says:
It would erode our ability to operate key frequencies — vital for our own communication and to counter hostile states — and affect everything from overflight clearances to securing contractors with consequential rocketing costs, declining investment and a degraded facility.
And Doughty also suggests that, without a sovereignty transfer and payments for use of Diego Garcia, the base would be at risk from China, the power seen as most keen to establish a spy outpost on one of the Chagos Islands, near Diego Garcia. He explains:
[Under the deal] we will retain full control over Diego Garcia with robust provisions to keep adversaries out. These include unrestricted access to and use of the base for the UK and US; a buffer zone around Diego Garcia; a comprehensive mechanism to ensure no activity in the other islands threatens base operations; and a ban on the presence of any foreign security forces.
A financial element over the 99 years was crucial to protect the operation of such a vital base. If we don’t pay, someone else will. Our adversaries would jump at the chance to establish outposts on the outer islands. With a guise of legality on their side, we would have no basis to remove them and efforts to do so could spark a serious confrontation.
Updated
King to host PM and devolved leaders for dinner at Windsor Castle
King Charles is due to host political leaders from across the UK at Windsor Castle tonight, PA Media reports. PA says:
Keir Starmer, as well as devolved leaders from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, have been invited the event, it is believed.
While there are reports that a number of the leaders will stay in Windsor, it is expected that Northern Ireland first minister Michelle O’Neill has decided to not spend the night at the royal residence.
She will be attending the event alongside deputy first minister Emma Little-Pengelly of the DUP.
A Sinn Féin spokesman said on Wednesday: “As first minister, Michelle O’Neill has been invited to a political engagement in Windsor Castle, hosted by the British King today, Wednesday 12th February.
“This event will be attended by the British prime minister, the first ministers from Scotland and Wales, and the first minister and deputy first minister.
“This is an opportunity to advocate for the best interests of people and communities on our island.”
The Telegraph has written this up as O’Neill snubbing the king because she is going to overnight somewhere else. (Starmer is not staying the night either, but the Telegraph does not seem to mind that because he can return to his London home after the dinner.)
Majority of Labour voters, and plurality of Britons, say small boat refugees should be able to get citizenship, poll suggests
Earlier this week British Future, a thinktank that focuses on race, migration and identity, released some polling suggesting a majority of Labour voters, and a plurality of Britons, believe that people granted asylum in the UK should be able to get citizenship, even if they arrived on a small boat. The polling was commissioned in the light of the Conservative party’s policy announcement on citizenship, but it has become more topic in the light of the Home Office policy change.
In its summary of the findings, British Future says:
The survey also asked about refugees being able to apply to become citizens. A plurality (44%) agrees that “If someone was granted refugee status and lived legally in Britain for six years, they should be able to apply to become a British citizen, regardless of how they arrived in the UK to claim asylum,” while a third (33%) disagree. Six in ten Labour voters (62%) and Lib Dems (60%) are supportive of refugees being able to become citizens, regardless of how they arrived in the UK, while 20% of Labour voters disagree. Conservatives are split, with 40% agreeing that refugees should be able to apply to become a British citizen, regardless of how they arrived in the UK, while 42% disagree. Reform voters respond quite differently, with 68% disagreeing with the statement.
Refusing small boat refugees ability to get British citizenship breach of Refugee Convention, says leading lawyer
In his Substack post on the new Home Office policy saying refugees arriving on small boats won’t normally be allowed citizenship (see 9.22am and 9.35am), Colin Yeo, the immigration barrister, says this is a breach of international law. He explains:
Although this is hardly the main point, it’s also in breach of international law. I’m wary of making claims for international law but I struggle to see how this could not be a breach of the Refugee Convention. Article 31 says:
The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence
The new policy also appears to breach another part of the convenion, saying countries should “as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of refugees”, Yeo says.
Yeo says the convention is binding on the UK. But he says it is also unenforceable, because it has not been incorported into domestic law.
UK economy on course for 1.5% expansion, NIESR predicts
The British economy is on course to expand by 1.5% this year after the budget gave a boost to public spending but could be blown off course if Donald Trump goes ahead with threatened tariffs, a leading economic thinktank has warned. Phillip Inman has the story.
What Home Office says about how small boat arrivals won't qualify for citizenship
Sonia Lenegan revealed the new Home Office policy in a post on the Free Movement website yeseterday. She found out about the change by looking at additions to the Good Character guidance for immigration caseworkers. Here are the two key passages that have been added.
Any person applying for citizenship from 10 February 2025, who previously entered the UK illegally will normally be refused, regardless of the time that has passed since the illegal entry took place.
A person who applies for citizenship from 10 February 2025 who has previously arrived without a required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation, having made a dangerous journey will normally be refused citizenship.
A dangerous journey includes, but is not limited to, travelling by small boat or concealed in a vehicle or other conveyance. It does not include, for example, arrival as a passenger with a commercial airline.
Lenegan also says that, in practice, this means there would be no point in someone who arrived on a small boat even applying for citizenship.
Naturalisation applications are expensive and there is no right of appeal against a refusal, so even though the guidance states that applications will “normally” be refused, meaning that there is room to ask for discretion to be exercised and a grant still made even where there has been illegal entry, in reality many people will be deterred by this change from even applying.
Home Office faces backlash over ‘spiteful’ move to block small boat refugees from ever claiming British citizenship
Good morning. On Monday MPs debated, and passed, the second reading of the border security, asylum and immigration bill. It is a signficant piece of legislation that repeals a lot of the Rwanda-policy law passed by the Tories and gives the authorities new anti-terrorism-style powers to tackle people smuggling. There is a good summary of it here.
During the debate Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said one reason why the Conservatives were opposed to the bill was because it repealed section 32 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 which “prevents people who enter the country illegally from gaining citizenship”. He went on:
By repealing that section, the bill will create a pathway to citizenship for people who entered the country illegally, and I think that is unconscionable.
Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, pushed back at one point, saying the Home Office had “strengthened the powers to ensure that small boat arrivals cannot get citizenship by strengthening the rules”. But her point did not seem to register in the debate, and several other Tories repeated Philp’s claim about the pathway to citizenship for illegal arrivals.
Now it is clear what Cooper was talking about. The Home Office has tightened the law in relationship to citizenship. Labour is getting rid of the Tory law that was supposed to stop people arriving on small boats from claiming asylum. But being granted asylum is not the same as getting citizenship, and the Home Office is at the same time tightening guidance to make it harder – in fact, almost impossible – for small boat arrivals to claim citizenship.
This was first revealed yesterday in a post on the Free Movement website. Rajeev Syal explains it in our story here.
In the past the debate about small boat arrivals has mostly focused on whether or not refugees should be to stay. (The last Conservative government said no, but it did not get very far in terms of removing people because of international human rights law and practical problems with the Rwanda policy.) But last week Kemi Badenoch shifted the focus to citizenship, not residence, with a new policy that will make it much harder for all migrants (not just refugees) to become British citizens. The new Home Office policy looks like a political attempt to in part match that.
The move is facing strong criticism. The Refugee Council says the latest policy does not make sense. In a statement it says:
This change flies in the face of reason. The British public want refugees who have been given safety in our country to integrate into and contribute to their new communities, so it makes no sense for the government to erect more barriers.
We know that men women and children who are refugees want to feel part of the country that has given them a home, and support to rebuild their lives. So many refugees over many generations have become proud hard working British citizens as doctors, entrepreneurs and other professionals. Becoming a British citizen has helped them give back to their communities and this should be celebrated, not prevented. We urge ministers to urgently reconsider.
And the Labour MP Stella Creasy has also spoken against the new guidance. In a post on Bluesky yesterday she said the policy “should be changed asap”. And she told the Today programme this morning that she did not think it made sense to let refugees stay in the country, but deny them citizenship. She said she was happy to vote for the bill on Monday night. But she went on:
What this message is saying is that we will judge your asylum claim, so we will let you stay in the country, but we will not expect you to be part of our community. I just genuinely, gently, say to my colleagues on the front bench, I think that is counterproductive. That is not where the British public are at.
They recognize that there are not safe routes [for many refugees wanting to come to the UK]. If you are an Iranian dissident right now fleeing the regime, there is not a safe route. So you may well have come in a boat. We should absolutely interrogate your claim. If your claim is not well founded, you should not be able to stay.
But if we let you stay in this country, we should also have a route that you can be part of this country, and that is what citizenship is.
Colin Yeo, the immigration barrister who runs the Free Movement website, has also written about the move on his Substack blog. He calls it “spiteful”. He explains:
At first I hoped this was some sort of accident, a residue of the Illegal Migration Act, which legislated to have this same effect, still making its way through the system. But it doesn’t look like it. It looks deliberate. Even though those provisions of the Illegal Migration Act are being scrapped by this government.
A permanent bar on citizenship for illegal entrants is a bad idea. It creates a permanent group on non citizens who are forever excluded from civic life no matter how long they live here and no matter what they do.
It also has zero deterrent effect. This is never going to stop someone coming here. It merely punishes them for doing so. It’s punishment without rehabilitation. It’s spiteful.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretay, gives a speech on the probation service.
Morning: John Healey, the defence secretary, meets Pete Hegseth, the new US defence secretary, in Brussels. Politico is describing this as “the first proper in-person US-UK bilateral of the second Trump era”.
Noon: Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs.
2.20pm: Bridget Phillipson and Anneliese Dodds, who are both ministers for women and equalities, in addition to their other roles (education secretary and development minister respectively) give evidence to the Commons women and equalities committee.
2.30pm: Eluned Morgan, the Welsh secretary, gives evidence to the Commons Welsh affairs committee.
2.30pm: Starmer meets relatives of the victims of the Nottingham attacks in Downing Street.
4.30pm: Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, and Richard Tice, his deputy, hold a press conference where, according to the party, they will deliver “a stark warning … relating to the economy and renewable energy”. (Reform UK suggest this will be important stuff; the press notice says the press conference will start “after markets close”.)
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
Updated
