UK Politics

Boris Johnson’s plan to impose steel tariffs in a bid to protect British industry is “one of the worst decisions taken by this government”, according to the former trade secretary Liam Fox.The government announced a two-year extension of tariffs on steel imports this week – despite admitting that the move “departs from our international legal obligations” under the World Trade Organisation (WTO).Mr Fox believes that slapping “protectionist” tariffs on steel imports will put Britain on a collision course with allies and damage the country’s international reputation.The ex-minister said it was time for Mr Johnson’s government to “show leadership on free trade” rather than “damaging our global reputation and putting other sections of our economy at risk”.The prime minister should ditch the tariffs “if this is not to be a Conservative government in name only”, the former trade secretary wrote in a piece for the Sunday Telegraph.International Trade Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan told the Commons earlier this week that the UK would be extending protections for five types of steel products.Following Brexit, the UK rolled over EU quotas and tariffs on 10 categories of steel until mid-2024. The government has now decided to extend temporary safeguards on five other categories until the same date.Ms Trevelyan said the national interest “requires action to be taken which may be in tension with normal rules and procedures”.Labour backed the “extension of safeguards”, saying it would come as a welcome relief to the British steel sector.But several leading Tory MPs have raised concerns about protectionism and tit-for-tat tariffs being imposed on the UK by countries likely to lose out.“Retaliatory measures by those countries whose exports are hit are likely to impact on other areas of the UK economy,” warned Mr Fox.He added: “Choosing protectionism is one of the worst decisions taken by this government … We need to find another answer to the problem if this is not to be a Conservative government in name only.”Mr Johnson had last year backed Dr Fox as a candidate to become director-general of the WTO, but the Brexiteer’s bid to lead the international trade body was unsuccessful. More

Boris Johnson and then-girlfriend Carrie Symonds were not caught ‘in flagrante’ when a government minister walked in on them in Mr Johnson’s Commons office as foreign secretary, Downing Street has told The Independent.A senior Number 10 source attacked “sordid and untrue” reports of the alleged incident that have surfaced in recent days.The source said Northern Ireland minister Conor Burns, who raised concerns with colleagues after walking in on the couple in 2018, before their relationship was public, is “adamant that nothing remotely physical was going on”.They were not found “in physical contact” by Mr Burns, stated the No 10 source, who said they had discussed the matter at length with him.Asked if Mr Johnson had been questioned about the matter, the source said: “No, it’s not why he was elected prime minister. It’s neither here nor there.”Put to the individual that Mr Johnson’s private conduct as foreign secretary in his official Parliamentary office was a legitimate matter of public interest, the Downing Street source said: “Conor has said it’s not true. They are mad old questions about a non-event many years ago before Boris got to Downing Street.”The Independent revealed on Friday that Mr Burns was the mystery MP who walked in on Mr Johnson and Miss Symonds.Mr Burns “flagged up” the couple’s relationship to Foreign Office officials after finding them “having a glass of wine together” alone because he had a “sixth sense” that their relationship was “one to watch,” Downing Street said on Friday.A second source said that Mr Burns, one of Mr Johnson’s most loyal supporters, was “seriously shaken” after stumbling on Mr Johnson and Miss Symonds unannounced.At the time, he was Mr Johnson’s parliamentary private secretary – “Boris’s bag carrier” as he light-heartedly referred to himself – with free access to him.“He [Burns] wanted to know what to do about it,” said the source. “His only concern was to protect Boris. He is devoted to him.”It has been previously reported that Mr Burns raised the issue with fellow Foreign Office aide Ben Gascoigne, who is now No 10 deputy chief of staff.Alerted to concerns that Mr Johnson was having an extramarital relationship with Miss Symonds, Mr Gascoigne and other aides blocked a bid by Mr Johnson to appoint Miss Symonds as his £100,000 a year Foreign Office chief of staff.They also discussed fears that it could expose foreign secretary Mr Johnson to the risk of blackmail if the information fell into the hands of Britain’s enemies.A source said: “After Conor saw them together in his office, Boris’s staff knew it could be dangerous if the wrong people found out. They decided his private life was his own business but stopped him making her [Carrie] his chief of staff because it would have increased his exposure.”Mr Johnson and Miss Symonds’ relationship was made public several months later in 2018 after his separation from second wife Marina was announced.At the time of the incident witnessed by Mr Burns, Miss Symonds was the Tory party’s head of communications.She left that post in the summer of 2018 after allegations that she had abused her expenses.The claim that Mr Johnson and Miss Symonds were found in a ‘compromising situation’ by an unnamed Tory MP was first made in a biography of Carrie Johnson by Tory Lord Ashcroft earlier this year.When the story resurfaced in The Times two weeks ago it led to a row when the paper dropped the story from later editions after No 10 intervened.On Friday, Downing Street confirmed to The Independent that an incident occurred and that the mystery MP was Mr Burns, 49.The source said: “Conor did walk in on them. He saw two people sitting having a glass of wine whereby [one] may have concluded where the relationship was heading. He did not interrupt anything. It was a case of “why are they having a drink?” and “let’s have a word with Ben [Gascoigne].”“That is why he [Conor] thought it was something he needed to flag up. It was about a sixth sense that this was one to watch. The door was not locked. He didn’t barge in. He walked in to where they had had a meeting earlier and they were still chatting.”At the height of the Partygate scandal, Mr Burns led the defence of Mr Johnson for attending a No 10 birthday party in his honour, which led to him being fined for breaking Covid lockdown laws. The MP played down the matter saying the prime minister had been “ambushed with cake”.Mr Burns was appointed a trade minister when Mr Johnson succeeded Theresa May as Tory leader in July 2019. He resigned from the post in 2020 and was suspended as an MP for a week after a parliamentary inquiry found he had made “veiled threats” to use privilege to “further his family’s interests” in a financial dispute involving his father. Mr Johnson appointed him Northern Ireland Minister last September.Mr Burns, Mr Johnson, Mrs Johnson and Mr Gascoigne all declined to comment. More

Male Conservatives do not have a particular problem with sexual harassment, cabinet minister Therese Coffey has said in the wake of the latest misconduct scandal engulfing the party.Tory MP Chris Pincher – who quit as deputy chief whip and was suspended by his party over allegations he groped two men in Westminster this week – faces a series a further claims of inappropriate behaviour.Boris Johnson is also under growing pressure over his decision to give Mr Pincher a ministerial role amid claims the prime minister referred to him as “Pincher by name, pincher by nature”.Ms Coffey defended the PM and denied the Tories had a particular problem, despite being reminded that five Tory male MPs have been suspended or had to resign in the past year over sexual misconduct allegations.Asked on Sky News’ Sophy Ridge on Sunday if there was problem with Conservative men, the work and pensions secretary sighed, before saying: “I don’t think that’s the case at all.”She added: “I don’t know the situation and scenarios elsewhere. One MP, no longer an MP, Imran Khan has been convicted of something before he became a member of parliament. And other investigations are under way.”Former Downing Street adviser Dominic Cummings has claimed Mr Johnson had referred to the MP “laughingly in No 10 as ‘Pincher by name, pincher by nature’ long before appointing him”.Downing Street did not deny that there had been concerns about Mr Pincher before his appointment as deputy chief whip in February, but insisted Mr Johnson “was not aware of any specific allegations”.Asked if the PM knew about concerns over Mr Pincher, Ms Coffey said: “I’m not aware that [Mr Johnson] was made aware of specific claims. I don’t believe that he was aware – that’s what I’ve been told today.”Grilled on the BBC Sunday Morning programme about who told her Mr Johnson did not know any specifics, Ms Coffey replied: “Somebody from the No 10 press office. One gets briefed on a wide variety of topics.”Ms Coffey also said she “wished” people who work in parliament went to the police more often with sexual misconduct claims – but did not think it was necessary to close parliament’s bars or make any other “specific changes” to protect staff.Mr Pincher resigned as deputy chief whip on Friday following claims that he groped two men at the Tories’ Carlton Club on Wednesday. He admitted that he had “embarrassed myself and other people” while being drunk, but denies sexual harassment allegations. It come as one Conservative MP told The Independent he was groped on two occasions by Mr Pincher, who was suspended from the party on Friday after sexual misconduct allegations.Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the man claims he was targeted twice by Mr Pincher, first in December 2021 and again last month. Mr Pincher firmly denies the allegations.The Mail on Sunday alleged he threatened to report a parliamentary researcher to her boss after she tried to stop his “lecherous” advances to a young man at a Tory party conference. Mr Pincher denies the allegations.The Sunday Times alleged he made unwanted passes at two Tory MPs in 2017 and 2018. Mr Pincher denies the allegations.The alleged incidents followed his first resignation as a whip in 2017 over claims he made unwanted advances to Olympic rower Alex Story. After a Tory party investigation into the incident, he was cleared of any breach of its code of conduct. More

Boris Johnson’s new “bill of rights” exempts the government itself from having to comply with its new free speech protections, legal experts have warned.Justice Secretary Dominic Raab said last week that the new charter would stop free speech from being “whittled away” by “wokery and political correctness”.But clauses included in the bill specifically exempt laws created by ministers from its new free speech test – meaning it will not protect people from the “various threats to free speech posed by the government”.Campaigners said the bill of rights would “end up hampering efforts to hold the government to account”.One senior law professor told The Independent that the carve-out was “very, very odd” because bills of rights around the world, such as in the United States, tend to also apply to the government. “I think Americans, for example would just be incredulous – you have a special extra right of free speech, but not against the government,” Gavin Phillipson, professor of law at the University of Bristol, said.Prof Phillipson, who is also a visiting fellow at the University of Oxford and an authority in comparative free speech law, added: “They’re saying, you have these really strong protections for free speech – except against the government.”Generally if you look at most threats to free speech, and what most bills of rights around the world are concerned with, it’s the various threats to free speech posed by the government. That’s very, very odd.”The fact that the government feels it necessary to exempt a whole range of things it does – particularly the thing people most worry about, being prosecuted for what you say – is a very odd look in what’s meant to be a bill of rights.”Clause 4 of the new bill states that “when determining a question which has arisen in connection with the right to freedom of speech, a court must give great weight to the importance of protecting the right” – a measure meant to generally beef-up free speech in judicial decisions.But Clause 4 (3) says this section “does not apply” in criminal proceedings or “of any question whether a provision of primary or subordinate legislation that creates a criminal offence is incompatible with a Convention right”.This means that offences created by the government cannot be held to be incompatible with the right to free speech under the bill, even if they restrict someone’s right to freedom of expression.The Ministry of Justice denied the approach was a “carve out” for ministers and said it was necessary to stop free speech from being “abused”.Other parts of the bill also narrow the definition of free speech in a way that appears to exclude some types of protest, by defining it as imparting “ideas, opinions or information by means of speech, writing or image”. “They actually restrict the definition of expression to which this applies to only that involving words or images,” Prof Phillipson said.”There were cases involving hunt saboteurs – direct action protest – that the ECHR [European Court on Human Rights] has held do count as expression.He said that the “restrictive definition of expression must be there to make sure that the various forms of direct action protest that involve more than just chanting slogans and waving banners don’t even fall within this clause at all”.”Where people committed the new public order offences those would be exempt from this clause anyway but I think that definition is to make sure that the new police powers in the Public Order Bill can be used against them.”While claiming to be protecting free speech with the new bill of rights, the government has simultaneously pushed through new authoritarian legislation that cracks down on protest in its Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act. New police powers came into effect this week and were used to confiscate speakers and amplifiers from long-running anti-Brexit protesters outside parliament – causing an outcry.The exemption clauses in the bill mean that the new free speech powers would not protect people from being prosecuted for offences such as glorifying terrorism, or publishing an image that arouses reasonable suspicion of being a supporter of a proscribed organisation.”These are the kind of things that under under the US first amendment, for example, would be just categorically unconstitutional, and that wouldn’t even be a hard case,” Prof Phillipson told The Independent.There are also specific carve-outs in other clauses so the governemnt can ban someone for entering the UK on the basis of what they have said, and to protect the Home Secretary’s powers to strip people of their citizenship. Charlie Whelton, policy and campaigns officer at the human rights group Liberty, said: “As well as the Rights Removal Bill weakening all of our other rights, it will weaken our right to free speech too. “The Government is falsely claiming they will improve protection for freedom of expression, but this is not true. Clause 4, which directs courts to give ‘great weight’ to the importance of free speech restricts itself from applying to criminal proceedings, determinations of whether legislation is compatible with human rights, or questions of confidentiality, immigration, citizenship, or national security. The Government is making it so that free speech is only valued when it is not used against the Government.“This clause will not protect protesters or whistleblowers, nor will it allow courts to keep a check on the Government infringing our free speech rights. Alongside the Policing Act, the Public Order Bill, the Online Safety Bill and more, this is characteristic of a Government that claims to protect free speech but wants only to avoid accountability wherever it can.”A spokesperson for the organisation Index on Censorship also blasted the bill, stating: “We categorically disagree with the government’s claim that the bill will strengthen freedom of expression. “We believe the bill will only serve to expand state power and will end up hampering efforts to hold the government to account, not least of all around issues relating to national security and citizenship, as mentioned specifically in section 4 of the bill.”These are issues that are of huge public interest. We must ensure that the necessary checks and balances in place in order to protect our democracy and our fundamental civil liberties.”Ministers have generally characterised culture war issues, such as speakers not being invited to universities, as “free speech” questions, but these have little to do with the legal right to free speech as generally enforced around the world.”Actually if you think about the major instances of cancel culture they’re not usually legal instances, they’re people being shamed on Twitter or no-platformed,” said Prof Phillipson.”In the instances of people being sacked from their jobs, or formally disciplined, they’ve mainly won their cases. This is a cultural phenomenon really, not a legal one. Universities disinviting speakers because students think they’re offensive and so on – these are not infringements of their legal right to free speech because you don’t have a right to a particular platform.”He added: “The notion that this clause is aimed at combatting ‘wokery’ doesn’t make sense to me and suggests that it’s more rhetoric aimed at pleasing their supporters and elements, perhaps, of the right-wing press. Because a lot of what the Government would think of as cancel culture or ‘wokery’ is not actually do with the law at all, it’s cultural stuff.”A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “The Bill of Rights strengthens freedom of speech but rightly provides for a limited number of exceptions, such as maintaining patient’s rights to confidentiality or where a criminal act takes place, for example a hate crime. These exceptions apply to all – they are not a carve out for Government.” More

Boris Johnson is under growing pressure over his decision to give Chris Pincher a ministerial role amid claims he knew about allegations against the Conservative MP years before appointing to a government job.The prime minister is said to have referred to the MP as “handsy” and joked about him being “Pincher by name, pincher by nature” as early as 2020.Mr Pincher quit as Conservative deputy chief whip after he was accused of drunkenly groping two men at a private members’ club in London this week.One of the MP for Tamworth’s latest accusers has said he was “shell-shocked” by prime minister delaying kicking him out of the parliamentary party.Mr Johnson only bowed to pressure to remove the whip from his ally, meaning he is now sitting in the Commons as an independent, after an official investigation was launched.Mr Johnson was also facing questions over how much he knew about Mr Pincher’s behaviour when he made him deputy chief whip in February.Former adviser Dominic Cummings said the prime minister had referred to the MP “laughingly in No 10 as ‘Pincher by name, pincher by nature’ long before appointing him”.A string of fresh allegations emerged as Mr Pincher said he is seeking “professional medical support” and hopes to return to represent his constituents in Staffordshire “as soon as possible”.A Conservative MP told The Independent he had been groped on two occasions by Mr Pincher, first in December 2021 and again last month.The Mail on Sunday reported that the former deputy chief aide he threatened to report a parliamentary researcher to her boss after she tried to stop his “lecherous” advances to a young man at a Tory party conference.And The Sunday Times alleged he made unwanted passes at two Conservative MPs in 2017 and 2018, after his first resignation as a whip over claims he made unwanted advances to Olympic rower and Conservative candidate Alex Story.According to the Sunday Telegraph, the PM’s decision in February to appoint Mr Pincher to help oversee party discipline led to protestations in the whips’ office and prompted resignation of another senior whip, Craig Whittaker.One of the latest alleged victims shared his anger at Mr Johnson over his handling of the incident at the exclusive Carlton Club on Wednesday.The man told The Sunday Times that he initially did not want to report the incident, thinking “this is something that happens in Westminster”.“But I am angered by the fact that I should feel like that, and even more angry by the way No 10 have dealt with it . . . I am furious. I know it sounds really silly but I felt shell-shocked when I found out they were initially going to let him keep the whip,” he added.Mr Pincher did not respond to requests for comment on the latest allegations, but the newspapers behind them said he denied the claims.Downing Street did not deny that there had been concerns about Mr Pincher before his appointment, but insisted Mr Johnson “was not aware of any specific allegations”.Mr Johnson initially resisted calls to remove the whip until Parliament’s Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme launched an investigation on Friday.The latest allegations came after the Conservative Party was hit by a series of scandals relating to sexual misconduct.In May, Neil Parish quit as MP for Tiverton and Honiton after admitting viewing pornography in the Commons chamber.A month earlier then-Wakefield MP Imran Ahmad Khan was jailed for 18 months for sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy.In both cases, the Conservatives lost the ensuing by-elections.A third unnamed Tory MP has been told by whips to stay away from Parliament after being arrested on suspicion of rape and other offences. More

Pensioners are being warned that the taxman will take his “chunk” of their increasing state benefit as analysis shows thousands of over 65’s will be forced to pay income tax this year.Some 400,000 pensioners will pay income tax this year because of the government pausing thresholds, according to analysis by the LCP consultancy firm.Figures released by the firm show that 1.2 million pensioners have been taken above the personal tax-free allowance threshold – which has been frozen for five years – since Boris Johnson won the 2019 general election.More than 7.7 million of them are now paying tax on their pensions and earnings, LCP says.It comes just months after the prime minister pledged to reinstate the “triple lock” on pensions next year, coming out of the Covid pandemic.The triple lock ensures that pensions increases by the highest of inflation, wage growth or 2.5 per cent, with the decision taken in September. Inflation is currently highest, running at 10 per cent and expected to remain there by September, meaning pensioners are set to see the benefit rise by 10 per cent in April next year.Sir Steve Webb, the ex-Liberal Democrat pensions minister now a partner at LCP, said the over-65s are going to face a higher tax burden.“Where pensioners have income apart from the state pension they are likely to be paying a much higher rate of tax today than a decade ago,” he told The Daily Telegraph.”This tax rate will rise still further in coming years because of the freezing of tax allowances until the mid 2020s”. Last month Downing Street defended its decision to reinstate the triple lock while insisting that public sector workers receiving pay rises in line with inflation would further stoke rising costs.Asked why state pensions will rise with inflation but not public sector pay, the prime minister’s official spokesperson said: “Pensioners, particularly those who receive state pensions, are disproportionately impacted by high energy costs.He noted the government took “difficult decisions with regards to the triple lock, a temporary one-year suspension”.Downing Street also denied its support for those hardest hit by the cost of living crisis will drive up soaring prices.Asked if the PM is worried that any upcoming tax cuts and increasing national insurance thresholds are still the right way forward, if the government wants to avoid inflationary factors, his spokesperson said: “Generally we think this is not something that will be inflationary. The thresholds, obviously, do provide an uplift to people’s salary but again, it will help those most vulnerable the most.“The measures we’ve introduced on cost of living, those who benefit most will be those who are hardest hit. So in those instances, we don’t think that helping those most in need during sort of a unique period is something that will drive up inflation.” More

Boris Johnson’s election pledge to build 40 new hospitals by 2030 is facing a review by the government’s official spending watchdog.The National Audit Office (NAO) is planning a “value for money review” that could consider increasing costs due to spiralling inflation and whether the hospitals will in fact be new.The investigation emerged in a letter to shadow health secretary Wes Streeting from NAO comptroller Gareth Davies after the Labour MP warned of a waste of taxpayers’ money. More

A Conservative MP has claimed he was groped on two occasions by Chris Pincher, who was suspended from the party on Friday after sexual misconduct allegations.Speaking exclusively to The Independent on the condition of anonymity, the man claims he was targeted twice by Mr Pincher, first in December 2021 and again last month.One alleged assault took place within the parliamentary estate in June, when the man claims Mr Pincher deliberately touched his genitals through his clothing and refused to remove his hand when asked. “He put his hand on my crotch and moved it around,” the MP said. “I shook my head and said no, I don’t want that, but he [Mr Pincher] just smiled… he carried on until I was able to move away.”During the first alleged incident, on an evening in December 2021 near the Tory-linked private members’ club the Carlton Club, the man said he was groped repeatedly, with Mr Pincher’s hand placed “firmly” on his backside.“It was really late and I’d worked stupid hours for days. I’d been drinking with a range of Westminster colleagues and it got very hazy. I remember suddenly being sharply aware of being touched in a sexual way,” the MP said.On both occasions, the touching was prolonged and sexually intimate, the man claimed, and he said he was limited in his capacity to resist after drinking.Mr Pincher firmly denies the allegations.The MP’s account comes amid a slew of claims about Mr Pincher’s behaviour since his resignation as deputy chief whip on Friday morning, following allegations that he had groped two men while drunk on Wednesday evening.Speaking for the first time since he stood down from his government job, Mr Pincher announced that he was seeking “professional medical support”. He would cooperate fully with the inquiry, he said, adding that the stresses of the last few days “on top of those over the last several months, have made me accept that I will benefit from professional medical support.“I am in the process of seeking that now, and I hope to be able to return to my constituency duties as soon as possible.”The prime minister suspended Mr Pincher from the party, but only after a call from a Tory MP who gave a “disturbing” account of his behaviour, a Downing Street source told the PA news agency. The events on 29 June allegedly took place at the Carlton Club, a private members club in central London, often frequented by Tory MPs, aides and activists.In May, news site Politico reported that an MP, later revealed to be Mr Pincher, had been given a minder to try to prevent him from drinking too much and getting into trouble.In his resignation letter to the prime minister, Mr Pincher wrote that he was standing down from the role because he “drank far too much” and had “embarrassed” himself and others.Earlier today, he said he was “truly sorry”, adding that he was seeking medical support and would cooperate fully with the parliamentary inquiry into the allegations. The MP who has made the latest allegations said he felt now was the right time to speak out about Mr Pincher’s alleged behaviour because there might be other victims, and because there was a wider problem of people turning “a blind eye to the abuse of younger men by older men” within parliament.He said: “We’re quite rightly more alert to the abuse of young women working in Westminster. We are starting to learn to spot the signs of older men targeting them. We’re blind, even more uncomfortable, with the idea that men target men.“I think people are scared that calling out abusive behaviour will be seen as homophobic,” he added.The MP said he previously mentioned that he was groped by Mr Pincher to a fellow Tory MP but it was “shrugged off” because “he was a known quantity”.He said he had not pursued a complaint through the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) or the police to avoid the harm of being personally exposed.The MP added that Mr Pincher was a “disgrace to the party” and it was “unacceptable for him [Mr Pincher] to stay” in parliament.A formal complaint about Mr Pincher’s conduct was made on Friday to the ICGS, which is investigating his conduct.In what appears to be a separate claim, a young Conservative activist told The Times that Mr Pincher put his hand on his knee and told him he would “go far in the party” at an event during the Conservative Party conference in Manchester.Mr Pincher’s lawyers have said that he firmly denies the allegation, according to The Times’ report. More