Markus Andrews

Boris Johnson is to get a new flagship – on top of his prime ministerial plane – but it may not rule the waves until 2025. There is no price tag yet for the ship, which will be crewed by the royal navy and is expected to be in service for about 30 years, although some estimates have put it as high as £200m. And while construction is set to begin as early as 2022, the vessel, which could be named after Prince Philip, may not be ready for another three years.The prime minister came under fire last year when it emerged he planned to repaint his official RAF plane red, white and blue, at an estimated cost of £900,000, prompting claims it would look like a “brightly coloured lollipop” in the sky. Mr Johnson suggested the new ship would help the UK seize post-Brexit trading opportunities and reflect the UK’s “burgeoning status as a great, independent maritime trading nation”.He added: “Every aspect… from its build to the businesses it showcases onboard will represent and promote the best of British – a clear and powerful symbol of our commitment to be an active player on the world stage.”It is thought British businesses will be able to promote their products on the ship, which will sail all over the world, hosting trade shows and high-level negotiations alongside promoting British interests. It will be the first national flagship since 1997 when the HMY Britannia was decommissioned. The ship would play an important role in “achieving the UK’s foreign policy and security objectives”, No 10 said. The government also wants to construct it in the UK, creating jobs and driving a “renaissance” in Britain’s shipbuilding industry. The vessel will be built to reflect British design expertise and with a focus on the latest innovations in green technology, No 10 said. But the ship could raise questions over how many modes of transport the prime minister needs to sell British interests abroad. Defending the planned paint job on the prime minister’s plane last year, culture secretary Oliver Dowden said the government had always spent money “promoting the UK around the world” and that work on RAF Voyager was part of that effort. More

With millions of jabs delivered at record breaking speed, the Covid vaccination programme has been a huge success. But it has led to one unexpected consequence. Increasingly, some women are starting to wonder if their health needs are considered second class? More

A majority of Britons frown on their neighbours planning to jet off to Spain, Greece or France this summer, with 60 per cent in a new poll saying it is not reasonable to holiday in such countries while they remain on the government’s coronavirus amber list.Some 63 per cent polled for The Independent agreed with Boris Johnson’s assessment that travel to such countries should be avoided except in “extreme circumstances”, such as a serious illness of a family member.Meanwhile one in five of those taking part in the Savanta ComRes survey thought the maximum £10,000 fine for breaching the rules was too lenient, with almost one in 20 saying that dodging quarantine should be punished with jail.Travel industry bosses are pushing the prime minister to move popular destinations in Europe onto the green section of England’s “traffic light” system to permit mass holidays abroad this summer. Travel agents have reported a surge in bookings, many made in the hope of restrictions being eased in the coming weeks.Mediterranean island sunspots like Malta, Mallorca, Ibiza and Rhodes are expected to be given the all-clear next week for holidays from 10 June.But today’s poll suggests that the British public remain wary about trips abroad while coronavirus continues to circulate in countries around the world.Just 25 per cent said it was reasonable to go on holiday in the amber zone, which covers most of the UK’s favourite getaway spots, with the exception of green-listed Portugal.More than a third (36 per cent) said that all UK citizens returning from a trip abroad should face 10 days mandatory quarantine in managed airport hotels – something currently restricted only to those coming from the highest-risk red-list countries like India or Brazil. And a further 21 per cent said all Britons coming back to the country should self-isolate at home for 10 days, as is currently required for those coming from amber-list states.Only 20 per cent backed the government’s traffic light system, which tailors quarantine requirements to the level of risk posed by different countries.And just 6 per cent said quarantine should be scrapped altogether for Britons returning to the UK.The legal ban on unnecessary overseas trips was lifted on 17 May, but the traffic light system threatens to make travel prohibitively onerous and expensive for all but a handful of destinations this summer.Travellers arriving in England from 43 red-list states must take a Covid test before travelling and then two more while under quarantine in an approved hotel at a cost of at least £1,750. Just 12 countries and territories – including improbable destinations like the Falklands and South Georgia alongside Portugal, Iceland and Israel – are on the green list, requiring only tests before and after travel.For the rest of the world, amber-list rules mandate a test before travel and two more during 10 days’ isolation at home.Labour has urged Mr Johnson to ditch the “confusing” system, which they branded “as secure as a sieve”, in favour of blanket quarantines.Shadow home secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds highlighted official figures showing that 12 million people have flown into the UK since the start of the March 2020 lockdown and 1.59 million between January and April this year, when international travel was supposed to be tightly restricted. “Time and time again, the UK government promised strong border measures, but the truth is now out – millions of people have been flying into the UK with only a tiny percentage going into hotel quarantine,” he said. And almost half (46 per cent) of those polled agreed that the the government’s current rules were unclear, equal to the 46 per cent who said they were clear.Majorities said it was unreasonable to expect to travel to amber-list countries for holidays (60 per cent), to visit a second home (57 per cent) or visit family and friends (51 per cent). Some 46 per cent disapproved of amber-list travel for business purposes, against just 36 per cent who said this was a reasonable thing to do.The young were keenest to travel, with 40 per cent of 18- to 24-year-olds saying holidays in the amber zone should be allowed, compared to just 13 per cent of over-65s. Some 49 per cent of the youngest age-group approved of visits to family and friends and 50 per cent of trips to second homes in the amber zone. People in the northeast and London were most likely to give the OK to travel for holiday breaks, while people in Northern Ireland were most likely to disapprove.Some 31 per cent said the maximum £10,000 fine for breaching quarantine after entering England from abroad is too harsh, but 20 per cent believe it is too lenient – with the elderly wanting the toughest enforcement.Asked which of a range of penalties was most appropriate, the largest group picked a fine of less than £1,000 (backed by around 14 per cent of the total), while at the other end of the scale more than 3.5 per cent thought the fine should be over £25,000 and 4 per cent said breaches should be punished with jail.Savanta ComRes associate director Chris Hopkins said: “Throughout the pandemic Brits have been willing to give up their freedoms, and it still seems – from this polling at least – that holidays are not top of people’s priorities heading towards the summer, with two-thirds saying trips to amber list countries should be restricted to emergencies only. “Half of Brits would also endorse some form of mandatory quarantine – at home or in a hotel – for arrivals into England from all countries, so even more being added to the green list may not encourage holidaymakers en masse to spend their summer abroad.”• Savanta ComRes polled 2,215 British adults between 21-23 May. More

Discontent in the southern Tory shires over the government’s planning reforms and Boris Johnson’s focus on the northern “Red Wall” could put a rock-solid Conservative seat at risk in an upcoming by-election, it has been claimed.Liberal Democrats are preparing to flood Chesham and Amersham with volunteers after internal polling showed Ed Davey’s party making inroads into the Conservative vote in a leafy commuter-belt constituency in affluent Buckinghamshire which has been Tory since it was created in 1974.With a 16,223 majority to overturn from the 2019 general election, Lib Dem candidate Sarah Green has a mountain to climb to challenge for a shock victory in the 17 June vote, but internal party memos seen by The Independent have described the improbable target as “a by-election we can win”.Party polling of the seat has found Tory support down by nearly 10 percentage points since the general election on 45.5 per cent, with Lib Dems up almost nine points on 35.1 – a swing to Davey’s party of 9.35 per cent but still well short of what is needed to capture one of the Conservatives’ safest seats. But the same survey found more than 60 per cent of Labour and Green supporters are ready to consider voting tactically to oust the Conservatives, raising party hopes that a serious challenge may not be so fanciful.One party strategist wrote in a message to senior staff: “It is clear we are picking up considerable numbers of former Conservatives who are actively considering switching to the Lib Dems this time, and many have already done so. “Opposition to the Conservative government’s planning white paper proposals, which put more Chilterns green space at risk, is the number one reason given by Conservative switchers, followed by a clear sense that traditional Conservative voters in this area – who are quite liberal in their social outlook – have been taken for granted by a party overtly looking to prioritise the ‘Red Wall’.”With postal votes going out over the coming week, the Lib Dems are now expected to target significant resources on the constituency in the hope of pulling off what would be a turnaround to match Mr Johnson’s capture of Hartlepool from Labour in May.The memo to Davey’s chief of staff recommended: “Deploy all available volunteer resources towards Chesham and Amersham over the next month as maximum priority. If this trend continues, and Labour and Green voters vote tactically, this seat can be won on 17 June.”  The Chesham and Amersham seat became vacant with the death in April of Cheryl Gillan, a former cabinet minister who had represented the seat since 1992.Dame Cheryl inherited the seat from Sir Ian Gilmour, who had held it since its creation in 1974. Between them, the pair achieved majorities of more than 10,000 in each of 13 successive elections, making it one of the safest Conservative seats in the country.Any serious dent in Tory fortunes would continue a trend observed in this year’s English local elections, in which Tory gains in the Midlands and North were partially offset by smaller losses in traditionally true-blue southern counties like Hertfordshire, Surrey, Kent and Oxfordshire, with council seats forfeited in places like Tunbridge Wells, Wokingham and Chipping Norton.Lib Dems gained three seats on the overwhelmingly Tory Buckinghamshire County Council and took control of Amersham Town Council on the same day.Defections of traditional Tories are believed to have been motivated by the damage done by Brexit to small businesses and distaste for the Johnson administration’s “culture war” messaging as well as by proposed planning reforms which critics warn will put the green belt at risk from development and which have raised concern from organisations like the National Trust and Council for Protection of Rural England.In a letter to Tory by-election candidate Peter Fleet, Lib Dem MP Layla Moran urged him to condemn the government’s approach, writing: “Over the last two years the Conservative Party has received over £11m in donations from property developers. “Local people are right to be angry at a Conservative Party that chooses to champion those who seek to build on the green belt rather than the views of local people in Chesham and Amersham.” More

Priti Patel hosted a meeting with a Bahrain minister blamed for the recent “torture” of political prisoners, triggering claims that she is “whitewashing abuse” in the country.MPs are demanding an aid ban on the repressive Gulf state over the violence, condemned by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights as a “violation of international law”.It followed allegations of multiple other human rights breaches, including evidence that detained children as young as 13 are beaten and threatened with rape.Yet, despite the “abhorrent” abuse, the home secretary invited General Shaikh Rashid bin Abdullah Al Khalifa, Bahrain’s interior minister, to talks this week to discuss “security matters and topics of mutual interest”.The meeting came after The Independent revealed that Ms Patel toured a notorious police department in Bahrain where activists – including a man granted asylum in the UK – were allegedly tortured and sexually assaulted.Andrew Gwynne, a senior Labour MP, said he had written to Boris Johnson to protest against Ms Patel’s May 25 meeting, describing it as “incredibly insulting to the victims of these abuses”.Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, director of the human rights group Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD), said the encounter showed the UK willing to “tolerate human rights abuses, as long as they are committed by allied states”.And Jeed Basyouni, from the organisation Reprieve, said: “It is so disturbing to see the UK government advertising its partnership with Bahrain like this, when it knows full well that the regime systematically uses torture and death sentences to suppress dissent.”Since violently crushing a pro-democracy protest movement in 2011, the island’s monarchy has been condemned for cracking down on civil liberties and dismantling political opposition.But the UK government has continued to provide security advice, resisting calls to end the arrangement on the grounds that it needs support to “head in a positive direction”.Just last month, there was what a parliamentary motion tabled by MPs calls “a violent attack against over 60 political prisoners by Bahraini police at Jau Prison”.The motion notes: “Minister Al Khalifa has overseen the systematic persecution of human rights defenders, journalists, and activists in Bahrain and the terrorising of civil society since at least 2011.”Campaigners are alarmed by Ms Patel’s close links with the Bahraini government, but are also fiercely critical of the UK’s ambassador to the island nation, Roderick Drummond.After the prison attacks on 17 April – involving “egregious torture” say MPs – families of inmates who were feared to have disappeared appealed to Mr Drummond for help finding their missing relatives.The UN condemned “disproportionate force”, noting eyewitnesses had reported that “special forces threw stun grenades and beat detainees on their heads”.But the ambassador then visited the prison, describing it as “a well-run facility, with good medical provision” and praising Bahrain for being “more transparent”.Mr Drummond was accused of ignoring letters about the disappearances and pleas to speak with their families.Mr Gwynne added: “The human rights abuses being perpetrated in Bahrain are abhorrent. It is unacceptable that the government haven’t applied sanctions or even publicly condemned the abuse.”However, the Home Office believes no purpose is served in criticising Bahrain publicly, because it is seen as a vital security partner in the Middle East, but is unable to point to any “reform” achieved.Asked about the criticism of Ms Patel’s meeting with the interior minister, a Home Office spokesperson said: “The government is committed to supporting Bahrain as it continues to make important security, police and justice reforms, and we will continue work closely together to promote security and stability in the Gulf region and across the world.” More

Britain’s festivals face another “lost summer” because of the government’s refusal to back cancellation insurance, MPs have warned.The sector has been treated as a “poor relation” despite contributing £1.7bn to the economy as ministers ignored warnings and multiple opportunities to act, the Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Committee said.The government ruled out offering support before all restrictions on the roadmap are lifted, which would be too late for festivals this summer, MPs say. Although all legal limits on social contact are due to be removed on 21 June, meaning festivals could go ahead, the sector faces uncertainty, particularly in light of new variants, including that which was first detected in India, and ministers refusing to guarantee the lifting of lockdown going ahead.The sector and DCMS Committee have repeatedly called on the government to introduce a time-limited insurance scheme that would act as a “safety net” for live events cancelled in the event of further coronavirus restrictions after 21 June. Julian Knight, the chair of the DCMS Committee, said: “Music festivals have been treated as the poor relation by the government. “Despite the huge economic and cultural contribution they make, few have benefited from the Culture Recovery Fund, and without our efforts the sector would have been left out of the pilot events programme on the safe return of audiences.”He said it was very clear that the vast majority of music festivals do not have the financial resilience to cover the costs of another year of late-notice cancellations. “If the commercial insurance market won’t step in, ministers must, and urgently: events need to know now whether the government will back them, or they simply won’t take place this year,” Mr Knight added. Greg Parmley, the chief executive of LIVE, the representative body for the UK live music industry, said the sector is “exasperated” at the government’s unwillingness to step in to help prevent its collapse for another year. “Without some form of insurance, the risk of going ahead will simply be too great for many festivals this year and, whatever happens with the reopening timetable, the vast majority of events could pull the plug in the coming weeks,” he said.More than a quarter of UK festivals over 5,000 capacity have already been cancelled, including Boomtown and Bluedot, and the remaining 76 per cent could also be shelved if immediate action to protect them is not taken, the Association of Independent Festivals (AIF) warned.Paul Reed, the chief executive of AIF, said: “We are pleased that MPs have again echoed our repeated calls for government-backed insurance for festivals.“Government has essentially made a commitment to act on this once we reach step four of the roadmap. “We expect swift intervention at that point with an insurance scheme that protects festivals that may need to cancel after 21 June, should the trajectory of the pandemic dictate new lockdown, enforced reduced capacity or social distancing measures. “As it will take some time for such a scheme to become operational, it is imperative that it is retroactive so that all festivals scheduled to take place after 21 June are protected.”This summer’s Download will take place on 18-20 June as part of a government test event, despite being initially being cancelled in March.Crowds at the Donington Park rock festival will be significantly reduced, from 111,000 to just 10,000, and organisers said “moshing will be allowed”.Almost 1,000 music festivals attracted more than 5 million people across the UK in 2019, contributing £1.76bn to the economy.The majority of festivals were cancelled in 2020 because of Covid-19 restrictions and sector revenues dropped by 90 per cent.Only 8 per cent of festivals applied for the first round of the government’s Culture Recovery Fund, with those successful receiving just 1.3 per cent of the available grants.A government spokesperson said: “We are continuing to work flat out to support festivals and live events. “Our events research programme has explored how festivals can get back up and running safely and festival organisers have received more than £34m from our unprecedented Culture Recovery Fund, with more support on the way. “We will continue to look at what assistance may be required as we move cautiously but irreversibly through the roadmap, including looking at the issue of indemnity cover.” More

No 10 insisted Boris Johnson challenged Viktor Orban over his abuses of human rights and media freedom, in his controversial meeting with the populist Hungarian leader.The prime minister ignored widespread criticism to invite Vladimir Putin’s ally to Downing Street, despite his notorious undermining of democracy and attacks on minorities.The Freedom House think tank has downgraded Hungary to only “partly free” because of “sustained attacks on the country’s democratic institutions”.He has also described migrants as “Muslim invaders” and “poison”, shut down a critical radio station and been accused of using antisemitic tropes.After the meeting, a Downing Street spokeswoman said: “The leaders discussed the importance of the UK and Hungary working together bilaterally to increase security and prosperity in our countries, and to address global challenges such as climate change.“The prime minister raised his significant concerns about human rights in Hungary, including gender equality, LGBT rights and media freedom.“The leaders also discussed a number of foreign policy issues including Russia, Belarus and China. The prime minister encouraged Hungary to use their influence to promote democracy and stability.”Mr Orban told reporters that the pair also talked about finding “a way to cooperate in a post-Brexit period”.He became only the second EU leader to travel to the UK since Brexit, in what was widely seen as Mr Johnson’s attempt to find new allies as well as send a signal to his core supporters.Before the meeting, business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng claimed it would be “irresponsible” not to “build bilateral relations” with Mr Orban after Brexit.But, in a letter to Mr Johnson, the Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey wrote: “When you decide to invite leaders of other countries to Downing Street, your choice matters.“It sends a signal to our allies, to our partners, to people in Britain and around the world, of the UK’s values and commitments.”The Hungarian leader has twice blocked the EU from issuing statements condemning China for actions in Hong Kong.And, last year, he pushed Brussels to lift sanctions on Belarus, before a Ryanair flight was diverted last week so authorities could arrest a prominent journalist who has been critical of the regime. More

Boris Johnson’s independent ethics adviser has said the PM acted “unwisely” in the handling of his flat refurbishment but found that despite a “significant failing” in his approach, there was no breach of the ministerial code.Christopher Geidt released the findings of his inquiry into the five-figure renovation of the 11 Downing Street flat alongside the much-delayed register of ministerial interests, five months after it was due for publication in December.Lord Geidt found that the funding of the lavish redecoration gave rise to a private interest for Johnson because of the financial support provided to the prime minister by Conserative Campaign Headquarters and Tory donor Lord Brownlow.But he added: “I have considered the nature of that support and am content that no conflict (or reasonably perceived conflict) arises as a result of these interests.”The assistance from his party would put the prime minister under no additional obligation, while there was “no evidence” that Lord Brownlow “acted with anything other than altruistic and philanthropic motives”, said the independent adviser.Lord Geidt said that plans for a trust to fund the PM’s share of the maintenance and refurbishment of the flat were “not subjected to a scheme of rigorous project management by officials”.And he added: “Given the level of the prime minister’s expectations for the trust to deliver on the objects he had set, this was a significant failing. “Instead, the prime minister – unwisely, in my view – allowed the refurbishment of the apartment at No 11 Downing Street to proceed without more rigorous regard for how this would be funded.”Lord Geidt’s report finds that there were discussions soon after Mr Johnson’s arrival in Downing Street in July 2019 about updating the system under which the prime minister has paid for any refurbishment of his official residence in the building, beyond a £30,000 a year allowed provided by the taxpayer. But plans for the establishment of a Downing Street Trust to cover the extra costs had not been concluded by the time work started in April 2020, while Mr Johnson was in hospital suffering from Covid-19.Official advice was that the trust plan “while not straightforward, could be made to work”.Invoices for work on the flat were paid for by the Cabinet Office and then charged to the Conservative Party in anticipation of the trust repaying the amount.The report found no evidence of Mr Johnson “being aware either of the existence of these invoices or how they were settled”.But legal advice in June raised doubts over whether the trust would be capable of dealing with the costs.Lord Brownlow, a former vice-chair of the party, was appointed to chair the trust in July, even though it had not yet come into existence. With no trust in place by October, Lord Brownlow himself settled an invoice for works directly with a supplier, but Mr Johnson was neither informed nor advised on his private interests. Lord Geidt said he had been assured both by Mr Johnson and the others involved that “at no point in the eight months until late February 2021, as media reports were emerging, was the prime minister made aware of either the fact or the method of the costs of refurbishing the apartment having been paid”.It was only as reports of the situation emerged in the media that Mr Johnson became aware of the arrangements and settled the full amount himself on 8 March, said Lord Geidt.The peer – former private secretary to the Queen – found: “It is clear from the record that while a serious and genuine endeavour, the trust was not subjected to a scheme of rigorous project management by officials. “Given the level of the prime minister’s expectations for the trust to deliver on the objects he had set, this was a significant failing. “Instead, the prime minister – unwisely, in my view – allowed the refurbishment of the apartment at No 11 Downing Street to proceed without more rigorous regard for how this would be funded.”From the outset of the renovation work, Mr Johnson and the Conservative party “placed reliance” on the idea that a trust could be created to generate enough income to repay the costs.“Under normal circumstances, a prime minister might reasonably be expected to be curious about the arrangements, and especially the financial arrangements that led to the refurbishment of his apartment at Downing Street,” said Lord Geidt. “In the middle of a pandemic, the current prime minister simply accepted that the trust would be capable of satisfactorily resolving the situation without further interrogation. It is the case that the prime minister was ill-served when officials did become aware, albeit they were no doubt also managing their own very difficult circumstances.”Despite these mitigations, the peer ruled that the issue of the flat fell under the terms of the ministerial code of conduct.But he ruled: “Having advised that the interests declared by the prime minister present no actual or perceived conflict, I consider them to be consistent with the provisions of the ministerial code.”He said that the interests had now been properly declared by Mr Johnson and accepted that any delay in making the declaration was due to the fact that the PM “reasonably assumed” that the issue was dealt with by the creation of a trust.Cabinet secretary Simon Case has acknowledged “shortcomings” in management of the project and in the failure to advise Mr Johnson earlier of the problems with the establishment of the trust. More