He says the Western Jet Foil site is now back open. Several hundred migrants were taken to Manston, he says. She says Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, visited Manston yesterday and she will be visiting soon, she says. He says that when many people arrive quickly, it is not possible to supply 1,000 beds in a short period of time. It says it is looking at “all available options” to overcome the problems with the offer. He says he will oversee it personally. Important events BETA filters Key Facts (17)Suela Braverman (20)Liz Truss (9)Rishi Sunak (6)Mark Spencer (4)Boris Johnson (3)
Braverman to answer questions from MPs about the crisis at the Manston immigration centre
Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary, is due to make a Commons statement on the crisis at the Manston immigration centre. Yvette Cooper, the opposite Labor number, will answer and then other MPs will ask questions, for about an hour. The statement will also cover the petrol bomb attack at the Western Jet Foil immigration center in Dover. It is not officially intended to cover the events that led to Braverman’s resignation from Liz Truss’s government, which Braverman covered in a letter published today, but it is likely that questions will cover that issue as well – mainly because Braverman stayed away when an urgent question on this subject was tabled last week. Updated at 17.09 GMT Caroline Nokes, the Conservative MP and former immigration minister, told GB News the asylum system appeared to be in “absolute chaos” and the taxpayer could end up losing out due to overcrowding at Manston. She explained: I’m horrified… This creates an absolute legal minefield for the government that will end up costing them more money, and there are some estimates that every one of these immigrants who have been held at Manston for longer than absolutely necessary could be entitled to compensation. of £5-6,000, whether they are ultimately considered asylum seekers or not. So this will be expensive for us taxpayers… This is starting to look like a system in complete disarray. And in the end it will be individual asylum seekers who suffer, British taxpayers who suffer and the Home Office’s reputation for treating people fairly and equally will be completely in tatters. Updated at 17.01 GMT Rishi Sunak’s decision to appoint Maria Caulfield as minister for women in his reshuffle has sparked controversy over her abortion vote. In an appearance on the BBC’s Politics Live today, Caulfield defended her decision to vote against buffer zones outside abortion clinics. He said: To me, the definition of what constitutes harassment is open to interpretation. This is my concern – [that] someone wanting to, perhaps, comfort someone who is upset or upset could be charged with harassment and face six months in jail. Caulfield said that, as minister, she would be bound by the parliamentary vote in favor of buffer zones. She said that in her previous role as health minister she had supported pro-abortion policies. Labeling someone as “anti-women” or “anti-choice” based on specific votes was wrong, she argued. He also insisted that he had the right to have a personal opinion on these matters. Adam Bienkov of the Byline Times posted the clip. Updated at 16:48 GMT
Yvette Cooper says Braverman’s letter shows why reappointment of her home secretary was ‘irresponsible’
We have about an hour to wait until Suella Braverman faces MPs to answer questions about the situation at the asylum processing center in Manston. Ahead of her appearance, Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, released this statement about the letter released today by Braverman about the events that led to her resignation two weeks ago. Cooper said: This letter fails to answer all the serious questions about the Home Secretary’s irresponsible behavior and shows that neither she nor the Prime Minister recognize the seriousness of these matters. The Home Secretary has now admitted sending government documents to her personal phone six times in 43 days – that’s once a week she was in office. There are still significant inconsistencies in the information in this letter and her original resignation letter. There are also still no answers about alleged security breaches and investigations into leaks while she was attorney general, or whether the prime minister ignored cabinet advice to reappoint her just six days after she was forced to resign. It is also surprising that as Home Secretary, responsible for national security and former Attorney General, he therefore had to seek additional clarification on “what constitutes appropriate use of government and personal IT”. It therefore leaves more unanswered questions, more confusion and more chaos from the home secretary and the government. It shows why Rishi Sunak was so irresponsible when he reappointed her to her position. Yvette Cooper. Photo: Aaron Chown/PA Updated at 16:31 GMT Rishi Sunak with his wife Akshata Murty and their dog Nova as they posed for a photo with volunteers from the Royal British Legion outside No 10 earlier today. Photo: Henry Nicholls/Reuters Mel Stride, the new work and pensions secretary, was asked during DWP questions in the Commons about a story in the Mirror saying that 10 years ago he wrote an article for ConservativeHome saying the government should consider easing maternity rights. Responding to a question from Labour’s Mike Amesbury, who asked if Stride still agreed with his statement that “cutting maternity pay will be good for business”, Stride replied: “As I never made that statement , then I don’t agree. “ As the Mirror’s John Stevens points out, even if Stride didn’t use the exact words in Amesbury’s question, the Labor MP accurately summed up the thrust of the article. Work and Pensions Secretary Mel Strid has just told MPs he ‘never’ said ‘cutting maternity pay would be good for business’ So what is this??? pic.twitter.com/mZ5r9Bidgc — John Stevens (@johnestevens) October 31, 2022 Stride: “However, there have been some notable examples of countries falling behind in this area in recent years… “If we want to offer a huge opportunity for British business… I hope we could seriously consider following their lead.” — John Stevens (@johnestevens) October 31, 2022
How Tory MP Andrew Percy slammed Braverman for her response to government ‘leak’ mistake
One of the Tories who was very critical of Suella Braverman over the ‘leaked’ government document was Andrew Percy. A member of his staff received the document by accident, and in her letter today, Braverman cites the email he sent her about the mistake. Percy represents Brigg and Goole, covering Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, and voted Leave in 2016. He is not one of the Conservative supporters most opposed to Braverman ideologically. But he was angry that Braverman made the mistake and then simply asked the person who received the email in error to delete it. In his email, Percy said: I’m really not sure that government documents should be shared with members of your former campaign team via gmail. Can you tell me what the ministerial code says about this and what the procedures are at the Home Office for sharing sensitive government documents via gmail. Simply asking my team to delete this email and ignore it is not an acceptable response to what appears, on the face of it, to be a potentially serious security breach. I am looking into a procedural matter on this matter and raised it with the chief whip. I hope there is an explanation. You are nominally responsible for the security of this nation, we have received many warnings even as humble advocates about cyber security. Andrew Percy. Photo: Christopher Thomond/The Guardian Updated at 15:39 GMT I edited the post at 12.33pm. to make it clear that in her letter Suella Braverman reveals that there were seven occasions when official documents were sent to her personal email. On six occasions between September 15 and October 16 she sent documents from her government email account to her personal email account. The seventh occasion, on October 19, was the one that led to her resignation. But that day it was her special counsel who sent the document to her personal email because Braverman was in a car and only had her personal phone with her, with her personal email, and not her department phone, with her government email. account. It was Braverman herself who then forwarded this email to Sir John Hayes. In the Sunday Times yesterday, Harry Yorke and Tim Shipman said they had been told by five sources that Suella Braverman had been told she had to approve alternative accommodation for asylum seekers in Manston because of the overcrowding problem there. Braverman resisted this advice. Not to be outdone, Bloomberg’s Alex Wickham says he has six sources for the same story. ** NEW: It was Suella Braverman who made the decision to stop booking hotels for migrants in Manston, six current and former senior government sources say ** ** This led to illegal detentions and was a breach of ministerial code, two senior sources said **https://t.co/4miO6mwoV4 — Alex Wickham (@alexwickham) October 31, 2022 What is perhaps important about this is not the central claim – that Braverman was to blame for the decision not to ease overcrowding at Manston – because that has not changed since it was first reported by The Times on Saturday. Instead, the bottom line now seems to be that anyone and everyone in Whitehall is being informed…
