James Cleverly says leaving ECHR is 'not silver bullet' - and leaves door open for leadership bid
The former foreign and home secretary appeared to diverge from Tory leader Kemi Badenoch's stance on the ECHR in a speech about the challenges facing the Conservative Party and UK politics in general.
Politics latest:
Last month, into whether the UK should withdraw from the treaty that is a central part of UK human rights law and has been used to halt attempts to deport illegal immigrants.
She said she is "increasingly of the view" that leaving the ECHR would be necessary.
But said when he was home secretary, from November 2023 to July 2024, he noticed the UK had "one of the lowest deportation rates" of foreign criminals "amongst our European neighbours" - who are also ECHR signatories.
He said he was looking into why that was but the general election happened "before I got any credible answer".
"But the bottom line is other signatories to the ECHR are kicking out foreign criminals much more than we are," he told the Institute for Public Policy.
"And other countries who are not signatories to the ECHR are also struggling so I'm not convinced the ECHR is, on its own, a silver bullet.
"Particularly if we don't do something about what I worry is a political activism in the legal system, which is trying to re-write British border immigration law policy through case law rather than through parliament."
His comments are also in opposition to Robert Jenrick, who, like Sir James, unsuccessfully ran to be Tory leader, and has said the Tories must back leaving the ECHR to survive.
Read more:Reform UK is on the march - there's just one problemMinister hints at tax rises in next budget
I don't want to jump into leadership decision
Sir James left the door open to trying again to become Conservative leader, saying he did not want to "jump" into any future political moves.
Asked if he would try to become London mayor or Tory leader, he said: "I like being in government, I don't like being in opposition, which is why I'm clear that I will play my part in helping to get Conservatives back into government, at every level of government.
"Exactly what I do next? I've forced a discipline on myself which is not to jump at something."
He added that the Tories tried having a new leader "a number of times in the last government - it did not end well".
The Braintree MP said after he lost the last leadership race he promised himself he "would spend some time thinking about exactly what I would do next".
Voters will respond if Reform councils get stuff wrong
In the speech, he also attacked Labour, Reform and all other parties, saying they tell people what they want to hear but do not have any "deliverable" policies.
On the Conservatives' strategy to beat Reform, which has been polling ahead of all other parties, he told Sky News: "So at the moment, Reform are very, very popular, but now they're running stuff.
"And as I've said, we've now got some examples in local government.
"And local government is a bit of government people feel most important.
"This is the bit of government that runs their adult social care, their roads, their schools, their waste collection and when governments get stuff like that wrong, people notice and people respond."
He said if Reform councillors do not "step up and perform" voters will be looking for alternatives - "and that's what we need to do".
"We need to make sure that we once again, are credible alternatives with a genuine plan and some energy and some direction," he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Caisse's $3.2-billion investment in a nuclear project is the kind of deal Canada wants — too bad it's in the U.K.
The Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec's $3.2-billion investment in a new nuclear energy facility this week is the kind of deal Canada is hoping the country's largest pensions and institutional investors will step up to fund — but it's happening overseas, in England, alongside the U.K. government. The Quebec's pension giant's 20 per cent stake in the Sizewell C nuclear power station in Suffolk was part of a final funding push to greenlight the project, of which the U.K. government owns 44.9 per cent. Once completed, the country's first new nuclear plant since 1995 is expected to reduce carbon emissions and provide more than 60 years of 'clean, reliable power to the U.K. grid, helping to boost the U.K.'s economy (and) strengthen energy security.' The deal is noteworthy for a couple of reasons: first, it capitalizes on a renewed push for nuclear power as countries search for less carbon-intensive options alongside a more recent desire to rely less on imported energy amid geopolitical tensions and trade upheaval driven by United States president Donald Trump. It also comes in a country where the government's push for more institutional investment in infrastructure is being met with some success, both domestically and abroad. In May, ahead of publication of a final review that could impose investment quotas on large pension providers in the United Kingdom, 17 of them — responsible for managing about 90 per cent of defined contribution pensions — signed an accord pledging to invest 10 per cent of their portfolios in assets to boost the economy by 2030. This will include investments in infrastructure, property and private equity, and half will be 'ringfenced' for the United Kingdom, an allotment projected to inject about £25 billion into the economy. The consortium backing the nuclear project, which is the first direct investment in nuclear by the Caisse, includes French energy operator EDF, British multinational energy and services company Centrica and investment partner Amber Infrastructure. This structure is not unusual for the Caisse, a seasoned global infrastructure investor. But a key draw is undoubtedly the project's financing structure. The U.K. government will foot the majority of that bill — an important consideration for institutional investors because of the potential for cost overruns common in infrastructure projects. Officials told the Canadian Press that the Caisse would begin receiving compensation right away, and that there are agreements with the British government that protect the pension fund's return in the event of overruns or significant delays. The project financing is coming through the U.K.'s National Wealth Fund, which was created by Keir Starmer's Labour government. It replaced the U.K. Infrastructure Bank and is intended to be the government's principal investment vehicle, with the express aim of creating conditions to draw in private investors. 'It's an ambitious project in terms of size and complexity,' said Sebastien Betermier, a finance professor at McGill University, adding that the Caisse is arguably one of the world's most advanced investors when it comes to new infrastructure builds referred to as 'greenfield' projects. He credited the U.K. government's success in forging partnerships with private investors to a strong track record of designing regulatory frameworks for privately-operated businesses and 'de-risking' investments for institutional investors. 'In this particular project, I believe the U.K. government was able to reduce the level of construction risk for investors and provide a dividend yield early on,' said Betermier, who has done extensive research on pensions. 'This project shows it is possible to generate win-win opportunities for governments and pension funds in infrastructure (projects), and hopefully we can learn from it here in Canada.' Past efforts by the Canadian government to include the country's pension funds in major infrastructure projects have largely fizzled, with complaints that the government isn't offering up projects with enough size and scale. Furthermore, potential projects haven't come with sufficient policy assurances or guarantees that the private investors will be adequately compensated for the risks they're taking, particularly if they're being asked to participate in building them. An exception has been the Caisse, which has a dual mandate to support economic development in Quebec alongside meeting investment objectives to pay pension beneficiaries. For example, the Caisse was a major investor in the province's The Réseau express métropolitain (REM) mass transit project, which was beset by cost overruns. The $6.3-billion cost of the Montreal light-rail system presented in 2018 had risen by 26 per cent by 2023. It rose further last year, reaching $8.34 billion. While the project was also backed by Quebec and the federal government, the Caisse was responsible for overruns. However, the pension manager structured the deal to derive revenue from ridership, advertising and real estate development, with a forecasted annual return of eight per cent over 30 years. The Caisse is also unique among Canadian pensions when it comes to energy transition. In 2021, the Quebec pension management organization pledged to divest completely from oil producers, which could have given the Caisse an edge with the U.K. nuclear deal. Plus, in May, CEO Charles Emond told the Financial Times that the Caisse plans to deploy more than £8 billion in the U.K. 'in the coming years,' increasing its exposure in the largest investment destination outside North America by 50 per cent. In the article, Emond praised the 'clarity' of its business environment, the 'ability to execute deals' and its 'welcoming approach' to investors. Perhaps it was not a coincidence that Starmer dispatched Rachel Reeves, the U.K.'s chancellor of the exchequer, to Canada to talk up the investment destination last summer. This was followed by a cross-country tour by U.K. trade officials looking to partner with Canada's pension funds to address, among other things, Britain's decades of underinvestment in infrastructure, with the lowest levels among G7 countries. When it comes to enticing Canada's pension giants to invest more at home, Prime Minister Mark Carney appears to be trying to change the conversation: his focus is on the need to create infrastructure and energy corridors to unify and strengthen Canada's economy and reduce dependence on the United States. During his spring campaign, Carney pledged to use $150 billion of government funds to kickstart private sector investment in projects ranging from housing, defence production and transportation infrastructure to digital innovation and patents, critical minerals and energy. 'Our plan is expected to catalyze $500 billion in new investment over the next five years,' the costed platform said, a similar if slightly less ambitious target than the UK's plan to draw in £3 of private investment for every £1 of government money. But there are a few things the Canadian government has to get right with its 'Maple 8' pensions, including the Caisse, as well as other large institutional investors such as Brookfield Asset Management (which had been a rumoured front-runner to invest in the Sizewell C nuclear power station), if it hopes to replicate what the U.K. government has done. For starters, Canada's infrastructure efforts lack both coordination and a comprehensive evaluation framework, crowding out private investors rather than drawing them in, Betermier said in a research paper on infrastructure banks around the world, published by the C.D. Howe Institute in May. Government efforts since 2016 have led to sprawling commitments of more than $180 billion for infrastructure projects spread over 20 federal departments and agencies, primarily in the form of grants and subsidies, he pointed out, adding that provincial governments, too, have tried to get in the game over the past decade. 'Having multiple grants and investment agencies operating in the same market means there is a high risk of competition between the agencies,' Betermier wrote. 'Coordination between these organizations, along with regular engagement with the private sector, will be critical in order to generate maximum engagement from the private sector.' Canada could also take lessons from other governments, such as using loan guarantees to underwrite the risk of projects, as is done in the European Union's under the InvestEU model. Other infrastructure banks allow projects to move forward with the expectation that private investors will come aboard in the future, while Canada's flagship infrastructure bank needs to secure private investment partnerships for a deal to move forward. Large-scale public-private projects are also hobbled by the lack of a comprehensive evaluation framework for short- and long-run performance, said Betermier, whose paper compared public infrastructure banks in Australia, California, Canada, the Nordic-Baltic region, Scotland and the U.K. The Canada Infrastructure Bank, launched with much fanfare in 2017 and a goal of every government dollar being matched by private sector investment of $3 to $4 — a target later reduced to $1 to $2 — failed to live up to that promise. By 2022, a House of Commons standing committee on transportation, infrastructure and communities recommended abolishing it. A couple of weeks ago, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that the infrastructure bank would disburse $14.9 billion in 2027-28, well short of its $35-billion target. However, the PBO noted that the $1-billion target for Indigenous investments has already been met. Among the many reasons for the struggle in Canada, Betermier said, is that most of the country's infrastructure assets – including airports, seaports, railways, and utilities – remain publicly owned by federal, provincial or municipal governments. This stands in sharp contrast to countries like Australia and the U.K., where Canadian pensions have been, and continue to be, big investors in infrastructure assets that provide diversification, hedges against liability risks, and offer opportunities for high risk-adjusted returns and direct value creation. Canada's big pensions are ready for airport privatization. Are Canadians? 'Not theirs for the taking': Can the Canadian pension model survive a new era of politicization? Another Canadian pension giant puts brakes on China investment 'The lack of infrastructure assets available for sale to (pension and other institutional investors in Canada) has become a hot topic recently because it is one of the reasons why Canadian pension funds have decreased their domestic investments over the past decade,' he wrote. 'For infrastructure banks to successfully catalyze investment in infrastructure from private banks and large institutional investors, Canadian governments must actively support and commit to a private-sector role in the infrastructure market.' • Email: bshecter@ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US mulls limited authorizations for oil firms in Venezuela, sources say
By Marianna Parraga, Matt Spetalnick and Timothy Gardner HOUSTON/WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is preparing to grant new authorizations to key partners of Venezuela's state-run oil company PDVSA, starting with Chevron, which would allow them to operate with limitations in the sanctioned OPEC nation, four sources close to the matter said on Thursday. If granted, the authorizations to the U.S. oil major, and possibly also to PDVSA's European partners, would mark a policy shift from a pressure strategy Washington adopted earlier this year on Venezuela's energy industry, which has been under U.S. sanctions since 2019. A senior State Department official said in a statement they could not speak about any specific licenses to PDVSA's partners, but added the U.S. would not allow President Nicolas Maduro's government to profit from the sale of oil. The U.S. might now allow the energy companies to pay oilfield contractors and make necessary imports to secure operational continuity, two of the sources said. "Chevron conducts its business globally in compliance with laws and regulations applicable to its business, as well as the sanctions frameworks provided for by the U.S. government, including in Venezuela," a company spokesperson said. Though Venezuela and the U.S. conducted a prisoner swap this month, relations between the two countries have been tense for years, and the Trump administration has publicly supported opposition leaders who say their candidate won last year's election, not Maduro. Trump in February announced the cancellation of a handful of energy licenses in Venezuela, including Chevron's, and gave until late May to wind down all transactions. The U.S. State Department, which in May blocked a move by special presidential envoy Richard Grenell to extend the licenses, is this time imposing conditions to any authorization modifications, so no cash reaches Maduro's coffers, the two sources added. But Secretary of State Marco Rubio could still decide to ban the move at the last minute or modify the scope of the new authorizations. It was not immediately clear if the terms of the license that could be granted to Chevron would be reproduced for other foreign companies in Venezuela, including Italy's Eni and Spain Repsol, which have been asking the U.S. to allow them to swap fuel supplies for Venezuelan oil. The U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Forbes
8 minutes ago
- Forbes
Ombudsman Investigation Into EU Sustainability Reporting Bill Moves Forward
Teresa Anjinho In April, a group of climate change organizations filed a complaint with the European Ombudsman asserting that the European Commission failed to follow the proper process in drafting legislation to reduce sustainability reporting requirements. To the excitement of sustainability activists, on May 21, the Ombudswoman announced she was opening an official investigation. That investigation has now moved forward, with the official submission of questions to the Commission. However, given the timeline and limited authority of the Ombudsman, the inquiry will have little impact on the final outcome. In November, the new leadership of the European Commission proposed the Omnibus Simplification Package to reduce the scope of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. The proposal by the Commission was negotiated behind closed doors and largely held secret until the final draft was approved. The Commission's proposal was then sent to the Council and the Parliament. Each body will debate their respective positions, before the three enter into a trilogue to come to a final proposal. While the normal process of negotiating a new directive can takes years, it is expected that the final package will be adopted in the fall. The accelerated timeline has concerned some sustainability advocates who believe reforms deserve more study and public debate. In an effort to bring to thwart the reforms, in April, a complaint was filed to the European Ombudsman by 'eight civil society organizations': ClientEarth, Notre Affaire à Tous, Clean Clothes Campaign, European Coalition for Corporate Justice, Global Witness, Transport & Environment, Antislavery International and Friends of the Earth Europe. On May 21, Teresa Anjinho, the European Ombudswoman, announced an official inquiry into the complaint. The case is titled 'The European Commission's failure to comply with its 'Better regulation guidelines' in preparing a legislative proposal on corporate sustainability reporting and due diligence.' On June 16, the Ombudsman's office met with Commission staff to discuss the inquiry. Following the meeting, the Ombudsman announced she believed written responses were necessary. There are four main topics the Ombudsman wants addressed: the impact assessment, public consultation, the climate consistency assessment, and the Inter-Service Consultation. Under the EU's Better Regulation Guidelines, new legislation is required to go through a an assessment to determine what economic, environmental or social impacts the proposal may have. The Commission did not conduct an impact assessment for the simplification proposal. Addressing the absence of an impact assessment, the ombudsman stated, "While the legislative proposal in question would, in principle, have required a full-fledged impact assessment, the Commission did not conduct one, preparing instead an analytical document, in the form of a staff working document." "In its explanatory memorandum, the Commission justified the 'critical urgency' of the proposal, and the related derogation from the impact assessment requirement, with the need to maintain the competitiveness of EU businesses… However, the Commission did not indicate any sudden or unexpected event that would justify the urgency." Similarly, new proposals are required to go through a public consultation to allow stakeholders the opportunity to provide input. The Commission held meetings in February with a selected group of stakeholders, but did not open it to broader input. Addressing the absence of a public consultation, the Ombudsman stated. 'I understand that in this case the Commission considered that a public consultation was not required… nor was it feasible…."It is not clear how the stakeholder exchanges referred to in the explanatory memorandum meant that a public consultation would not have added new information, in particular considering that many stakeholders that could have contributed otherwise were not invited to participate in the February 2025 meetings." Addressing the absence of a climate consistency assessment, the Ombudsman stated, "in accordance with the European Climate Law, the Commission is required to conduct a climate consistency assessment of any draft measure or legislative proposal 'and include that assessment in any impact assessment accompanying these measures or proposals, and make the result of that assessment publicly available at the time of adoption'… It appears therefore that the Commission did not carry out a climate consistency assessment before adopting the legislative proposal in question, although the European Climate Law does not foresee any exemptions from conducting such an assessment." Finally, addressing the lack of the Inter-Service Consultation (ISC), the ombudsman stated the "Commission's rules of procedure foresee a formal ISC of 'the services with legitimate interest on account of the nature, subject-matter or impact of the draft act'. Normally, the services consulted in an ISC are given ten working days to review the proposal and to reply. 'In exceptional cases, and on duly justified grounds of urgency', the rules of procedure allow for the possibility of a Fast-Track ISC with a shortened time frame of 48 hours… For the proposal at hand, the ISC was concluded within 24 hours.' While the Ombudsman has the authority to conduct the investigation and produce a final report, authority to enforce recommendations is limited. 'The Ombudsman may be able to solve your problem simply by informing the institution concerned. If more is needed, every effort is made to reach an amicable solution that will put matters right. Should this fail, the Ombudsman can make recommendations to the institution. If these are not accepted, the Ombudsman can draw up a special report to the European Parliament, which must then take appropriate action.' However, once the report is sent to the Parliament, it becomes a political process. The report is sent to a committee that decides if further action is necessary. That committee can submit a motion for a resolution by the Parliament. That process can take months. Even if the Ombudsman finds the process was was flawed, the report will have minimal impact on the Omnibus package. The Commission was given a deadline of September 15 to respond to the questions. Following the Ombudsman's procedures, the final report may not be issued until the end of the year, after the reforms to sustainability reporting have been approved. The focus of the Ombudsman appears to be on future Omnibus proposals and ensuring the process is followed moving forward.
