Northern Ireland: New public appointments commissioner announced
'Wealth of knowledge'
Claire Keatinge will take up her post on 22 August 2025 for a period of five years.Appointing a person to the role requires approval from the first and deputy first ministers.First Minister Michelle O'Neill said: "As guardian of the public appointment process, Claire will provide a key role in constructive challenge and guidance to government departments to ensure that public appointments are based on merit and with proper regard to equality, diversity and inclusion."Deputy First Minister Emma Little-Pengelly added: "Claire brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to the role, and we are confident that this will enable her to provide strong, independent oversight of our public appointments process and deliver maximum impact in the years ahead."Claire Keatinge is the former Older People's Commissioner for Northern Ireland.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
31 minutes ago
- The Independent
Does Denmark hold the key to Britain's asylum problem?
'They've got to know that if they come here, they won't stay here.' Nigel Farage? Robert Jenrick? Suella Braverman? Not on this occasion. These hostile words about refugees coming by irregular means to Britain were uttered on the BBC by a King's Counsel, chum of Tony Blair, the former lord chancellor and impeccable social democrat Lord Falconer. A pillar of the liberal establishment and still a senior and respected figure in Labour circles, Charlie Falconer is perhaps indicative of a shifting mood at the top of his party about how to deal with the migrant crisis – both in practical policy terms, and as it is currently translating into some pretty raw party politics. As Falconer says, immigration, and specifically irregular so-called 'illegal' migration is fast becoming a 'defining political issue'. As he did not say, but heavily implied, it may also kill the first Labour government for 14 years long before its time. Falconer sees one part of the solution as deterrence. His logic seems impeccable. If you are going to make the arduous journey across continents, pay all that money to the people traffickers and risk your life in the English Channel, then that only makes sense if it seems likely you'll make a successful claim for asylum and, hopefully, at some point be able to bring your family over to start a new life: job, home, happiness. If you think you're not going to secure any of this then, so Falconer thinks, you won't bother. To be fair, this is a point of view that has been increasingly seen in European countries by centrist parties that would never consider themselves racist or callous. They do so simply because of the weight of public opinion. Ever since Angela Merkel made that huge act of statesmanship and humanity by welcoming a million Syrian refugees into Germany a decade ago, the tide of compassion has been going out. The sheer numbers are the issue, as well as a welter of propaganda, misinformation and downright lies circulating across the continent, especially on social media. Public opinion has hardened, and democratic politicians have had to adapt. Hence the change of stance in countries traditionally open to immigration. In Germany, Merkel's successor as leader of the Christian Democrats and chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has abandoned the old Willkommenskultur, introduced border checks and granted the police the power to reject asylum seekers at the border, albeit if they have good reason to. Apparently, they're interested in taking up the Rwanda scheme scrapped by Keir Starmer as soon as Labour came to power last year. Other countries are following suit. Poland, Slovenia, Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and France have also imposed temporary border controls and suspended the EU Schengen free-movement regime. So has Italy, where Giorgia Meloni has instituted the first working system of third-country asylum processing through a treaty with Albania. Denmark's centrist coalition has introduced a series of policies that have made it less attractive for migrants – not least a law allowing asylum claims to be processed and refugees to be resettled in partner countries, including Rwanda. Once a renowned welfare state paradise, Denmark has also cut benefits for asylum seekers, made leave to remain strictly temporary and conditional, and a few years ago even made refugees surrender their jewellery to pay for their keep. Some Syrians and Somalis – and their Danish-born children – have reportedly been asked to 'return' to what are now deemed safe countries. Since coming to power in 2019, prime minister Mette Frederiksen has introduced " Nul flygtninge", the 'zero refugee' policy that has successfully reduced asylum applications to record lows, and which enjoys a more than 80 per cent public approval rating. None of this is pleasant, and much of it would seem to be in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights, under which the right to claim protection is absolute and unaffected by opinion polls. The pressing question now though is would a 'deterrent' involving deportation to some other place than Britain even work? Can there be such a thing as a deterrent for desperate people already risking death by drowning or hypothermia? I suspect not. As things stand, and unsatisfactory as the system is, the asylum seekers generally surrender themselves once in British waters, where Border Force, sometimes with the help of the RNLI, take them ashore and, eventually, the authorities process their claims while they wait in emergency accommodation such as requisitioned hotels. It is orderly. But if the would-be immigrants thought they'd be immediately detained and sent back to France (a small chance under the new returns agreement with Paris), or sent to, say, Albania, or Serbia, or even Rwanda for that matter, what would happen? Would the flow stop? I have my doubts. Some would probably judge it would not be worth the effort. But, as so often in the past, the people-smugglers would adjust their 'business model' and they and the immigrants would seek to evade the new regime. Thus, instead of declaring themselves as they neared the British coast, they'd press on, perhaps now under cover of darkness, and make a surreptitious landing on some remote beach and then melt into the countryside. They'd soon be in the grey economy, working for cash, living in slum accommodation, unable legally to access healthcare or education for their children, and far more prey to criminality. Something of this has been the case in America, with 'undocumented' long-term migrants, for many years. The Border Force and the Royal Navy don't have the resources to catch all of the rogue boats. The only way of dealing with such a new phenomenon of irregular migration would be through a system of checks and compulsory ID cards. But the British remain resistant to a 'Papers, please' society, which is actually essential if any progress is to be made on limiting irregular migration, and especially if the asylum system is effectively abolished. The weakness in Falconer's argument is that the deterrent of being sent to some awful country will only work to the extent that they will be caught, either in transit or later on, when they're far away from the south coast of England. A 'deterrent' may prove to be part of the answer, but that's all. As has been apparent for a very long time, and in very many other countries, if there was an easy way to deter irregular migration and 'stop the boats', it would have long since been discovered by hard-pressed governments anxious to stay in power and terrified by angry voters. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a charlatan.
The Independent
31 minutes ago
- The Independent
Epping asylum hotel numbers grew by 611% between March and June
A council at the centre of a legal case to block a hotel from housing asylum seekers was among the top 10 UK local authorities which saw the biggest rise in numbers staying in this kind of accommodation in recent months. Epping Forest District Council in Essex went from housing 28 asylum seekers in hotels in its area in March this year, to 199 by the end of June. The latest data breakdown, published by the Home Office on Thursday, comes two days after the council secured a High Court temporary injunction blocking the use of Epping 's Bell Hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers on planning grounds. The legal case followed protests and counter-protests outside the Bell Hotel. There were 124 local authorities across the UK housing asylum seekers in hotels at the end of June, according to the Home Office data. This is around a third of all UK authorities. The Home Office has a legal obligation to provide accommodation to asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute and, when there is not enough housing, can move people to alternatives such as hotels and large sites, like former military bases. The latest figures show that Manchester City Council was the local authority with the biggest numerical jump in people staying in hotels, from 874 at the end of March to 1,158 at the end of June. This was followed by Birmingham City Council, which rose from 1,018 to 1,226 over the same period. Both Warwick District Council and West Northamptonshire Council followed, seeing rises of 197 over the three-month period. The former went from housing 168 asylum seekers in hotels to 365, while the latter saw a rise from 201 to 398. Blackpool Borough Council had the same numerical rise as Epping Forest, both increasing by 171 people between March and June. But the overall numbers for Blackpool are higher – housing 389 asylum seekers in hotels at the end of June, up from 218 at the end of March. Protests have also been held outside the Britannia International Hotel in London's Canary Wharf amid reports it was set to be used to offer temporary accommodation for asylum seekers. The latest data showed that while there were 319 asylum seekers being housed in hotels in that local authority of Tower Hamlets, there were none at the end of June there. Last month, there was a protest outside a hotel reportedly housing migrants in Bowthorpe near Norwich. The number of asylum seekers being housed in hotels in the Norwich City Council area rose by 46 between the end of March and the end of June, from 161 to 207.
Telegraph
31 minutes ago
- Telegraph
First Labour MP calls for withdrawal from ECHR
A Labour MP has become the first in his party to call for Britain to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Graham Stringer, the MP for Blackley and Middleton South, urged Sir Keir Starmer to leave the convention, which has been blamed for the scale of the current asylum crisis. Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, is reviewing how Article 8 of the ECHR – which guarantees the right to family life – is being applied by immigration courts. But the Government has repeatedly ruled out the prospect of leaving the ECHR altogether and calls to do so have previously been confined to Tory and Reform MPs. The Telegraph has revealed a number of contentious legal verdicts that have been based on Article 8 of the treaty, which guarantees people 'the right to respect for your family life'. In one case, an Albanian criminal was allowed to stay in the UK by a tribunal, in part because his son would not eat foreign chicken nuggets. Another saw a Nigerian conman who duped women out of almost £200,000 allowed to stay in the country because his wife and children were being treated by the NHS. Mr Stringer told BBC Radio 4's World at One: 'What you've got to remember is most of the people crossing the Channel are young men, they have destroyed their papers before they get here, they're coming from a completely civilised country in France. 'They're paying international criminals to get here and the courts are saying they have a right to stay under the refugee convention, I assume, and possibly other conventions. That doesn't seem reasonable to me.' Pressed to confirm whether he was suggesting the UK should withdraw from the ECHR and the Refugee Convention, Mr Stringer replied: 'Yes. ' Clem Attlee, who was prime minister when the Convention on Human Rights was signed, agreed to it on the basis that it didn't apply to the UK and the same with the Refugee Convention. Europe was in a mess. It applied only to Europe at the time.' Mr Stringer said asylum laws were 'very good' back when they were introduced, but added: 'They have extended their remit, and we need laws that apply to the current situation.' The Labour backbencher also called for Sir Keir to take a zero-tolerance approach to the Channel crisis after small boat crossings reached a record high during his first year in power. Mr Stringer added: 'I think people who come here illegally, and they are funding international criminals, should not be allowed to stay. 'What happens when they're allowed to stay? They're getting priority beyond my constituents who need to be housed, who need access to the health service and need access to dental services.' As well as the first Labour MP to publicly declare support for leaving the ECHR, Mr Stringer becomes only the second Labour parliamentarian to back this position. Lord Glasman, a Labour peer and the founder of the socially conservative pressure group Blue Labour, listed Britain's exit from the ECHR as one of his policy demands of the party. The ECHR has also been written into British law in the form of the Human Rights Act, which the Tories would seek to disapply from all aspects of immigration policy. Reform pledged to leave the ECHR in its general election manifesto last year, a commitment that Rishi Sunak failed to match during his time as Tory leader. Kemi Badenoch, Mr Sunak's successor, has said it is 'likely' she will seek to leave but has commissioned a review by Lord Wolfson, the shadow attorney general, into the impact of such a move. In June, Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, called for the ECHR to 'evolve' or lose public trust in an acknowledgement of public discontent with some of its consequences. But just a day later, Alain Berset, the head of the Council of Europe, slapped down Labour's calls for change and said he was 'not calling for reform' of the convention.
