UK Politics

Allegations that billionaire Roman Abramovich and Ukrainian negotiators were poisoned during peace talks with Russia represent a “worrying development”, a UK government minister has said.Education minister Will Quince said that the UK would be “looking to establish the facts” around the claim, though he stressed that a formal investigation was for Ukrainian authorities.Ukraine’s foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba has advised anyone taking part in negotiations with Russia resuming today in Istanbul over an end to the month-old invasion not to eat or drink anything during the process.Mr Quince said: “As much as there is scepticism globally about whether these peace talks will be successful, I desperately hope that they are.”Abramovich and at least two senior members of the Ukrainian delegation developed symptoms that included red eyes and peeling skin on their faces and hands, sources familiar with the matter told The Wall Street Journal and investigative news outlet Bellingcat.The Independent understands that the Chelsea FC owner suffered temporary blindness for several hours following the poisoning, but quickly recovered.Mr Abramovich accepted a request by Ukraine at the end of February to help negotiate an end to Vladimir Putin’s invasion just days after it started, and is said to still be interested in mediating despite the incident.A spokesperson for the Foreign Office said: “The allegations are very concerning.“The UK will continue to assist by implementing tough sanctions on Putin’s regime, and by providing defensive and humanitarian support to help put Ukraine in the strongest possible negotiating position.”The lead Russia investigator at Bellingcat, Christo Grozev said the “most plausible” explanation of the alleged poisoning was that it was meant as a “warning sign” to other oligarchs not to deviate from Vladimir Putin’s line.“That is, by far the most plausible scenario,” Mr Grozev told Times Radio.“Clearly, the dosage was not high enough to kill any of the three. The most likely target would have been Abramovich. “And it kind of makes sense. I mean, he volunteered to play this role of a honest broker, but other oligarchs had previously or at the same time declared certain independence from the Kremlin position and criticised the war. “So it could well be seen as a warning sign to them to not join the ranks of those who dissent and to not be too much of an honest broker.”An adviser to Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky has confirmed that Mr Abramovich was involved in talks with Russia.Cambridge University professor Alexander Rodnyansky told Times Radio: “He has been playing a role, he’s certainly been talking to the Russian leader. And that’s where the value is potentially.“Just before the war broke out, the Russian negotiator Kozak – who was responsible for talking to Ukraine and for managing the whole talks that were ongoing back then – basically was clueless about the invasion right to the end. He didn’t really know what was coming. “And so when that happened, it was obvious to us that we need to look for other routes, for other possible methods to reach the Russian leader. And so one of those possible solutions could have been an oligarch.“Roman Abramovich basically volunteered, so we have to give peace a chance. So that’s what we’ve been doing. I’m not sure how much it can yield, I’m still pessimistic when it comes to the whole idea of these peace talks for the obvious reasons.” More

A British businessman freed from detention in Iran alongside Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has said he blames the UK government for his five-year ordeal.Joint British-Iranian national Anousheh Ashouri, 67, accused the government of “procrastination” over a historic £400m debt to Tehran which was finally paid on 16 March as part of a deal which saw him and Nazanin freed to return to the UK.Mr Ashouri, from south London, had been held since 2017 on charges, which he denied, of spying for Israeli secret service Mossad and “acquiring illegitimate wealth”.His release came on the day when the UK finally settled a debt dating back to the 1970s for Chieftain tanks ordered and paid for by the Shah of Iran but never delivered, after he was deposed in the Islamic revolution in 1979.The UK had long admitted that the debt was owed, and paid money into court as long ago as 2002, but ministers said they faced obstacles in handing the cash over because of long-standing international sanctions against Iran.Asked by BBC Radio 4’s Today programme who he blamed for his long ordeal, Mr Ashouri said: “Most of all my captors, but then again, the British government at the leadership level, for the procrastination that happened.“They could have done this much earlier. Nazanin could see her beautiful daughter much earlier. I could be back with my family.“This was a debt that had to be paid. Why didn’t you do it earlier?” More

A grassroots civic initiative in Hungary, concerned over the integrity of an upcoming general election, has recruited more than 20,000 ballot counters to observe the high-stakes contest in which nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orban will seek a fourth consecutive term.The effort to place at least two volunteer ballot counters in each of Hungary’s more than 10,000 polling places came from a belief among many supporters of Hungarian opposition parties that without observers from their side, vote tally irregularities could affect the outcome of the April 3 ballot. “It is not right that in Hungary in a large number of electoral districts … there are no ballot counters representing the opposition,” said Judit Szanto, a volunteer with Szamoljuk Egyutt (Let’s Count Together), one of several civic organizations recruiting and training ballot counters. “This thing was devised to organize people to oversee the cleanliness of the election on the suspicion that if they don’t, there will be fraud,” said Szanto, who provides training for the volunteers. Recent polls show that Orban, whose Fidesz party has held a nearly uninterrupted two-thirds parliamentary majority since 2010, is likely to face his closest election since taking power. United For Hungary, a coalition of six opposition parties spanning the political spectrum from liberal to centrist to right wing, has joined together in an effort to overcome what they see as a political, economic, media and electoral system dominated by the right-wing Fidesz and designed to give it an unfair advantage. Yet while the coalition’s strategy of coordinating its candidates across the country and running a single joint candidate for prime minister is likely to boost its performance on election day, the outcome of the contest in many districts could come down to only a few votes.Such a tight race makes accurate and transparent tallying critical, said Adam Sanyo, a data analyst assisting Let’s Count Together in training the ballot counters.“The counting process is actually quite important because even in those elections where the general public thought that it wasn’t a close election … in some of the constituencies we had very small margins between the candidates,” Sanyo said, adding that several of Hungary’s 106 districts are likely to be decided by fewer than 1,500 votes. On election day, the volunteers, each of which will be officially delegated by one of the six opposition parties, will operate alongside other ballot counters delegated by Fidesz. But in addition to counting ballots once polls are closed, they’ll also monitor the voting process throughout the day in each polling place, and have received training on how to recognize and report irregularities. “It’s not enough just to get people into the polling stations, it’s important that they know what’s going to happen there,” Szanto said. “They must be familiar with the laws and the electoral legislation to do their job properly.” Hungarians with sympathies for the opposition parties aren’t the only ones that will have their eyes on the election. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has said it will send a full-scale election observation mission to Hungary, including 18 long-term observers and 200 others on election day — only the second time it has done so in a European Union country. In 2014, the OSCE called Hungary’s parliamentary election “free but not fair,” and noted that the 2018 vote was characterized by a “pervasive overlap between state and ruling party resources, undermining contestants’ ability to compete on an equal basis.”Orban’s critics have also pointed to alleged cases of vote buying and clientelism which they say have distorted the outcome of previous elections.A change to electoral law passed by the ruling party last year allows for Hungarians to vote in districts where they have a registered address even if they don’t reside there. This led the opposition and civic organizations to warn of “voter tourism,” where voters may register addresses in particularly competitive districts with the aim of tipping the result. An interim report by the OSCE released last week drew attention to such amendments to electoral law, which it said were adopted by the ruling party “without a genuine consultative process.” “Most previous … recommendations remain largely unaddressed, including those related to the misuse of administrative resources and the blurring of state and political party roles, and campaign finance transparency,” the OSCE noted in its report.Hungary’s government has insisted that its elections are free and fair, and rejected concerns that the ruling party was at an advantage. A government spokesperson said in an email that the OSCE observers were “very welcome any time,” and that “the procedural management of elections in Hungary has always been considered as one of the best within the EU, and we hope that it will remain so.” According to Sanyo, the data analyst, the election result is likely to be decided by 10 to 15 districts where the vote is expected to be tight, and that even a few misallocated votes can have an effect on the outcome of the election. “That’s basically the message to (the ballot counters),” he said. “‘Your job is really important because this time, really every vote counts.’” More

More than two million EU citizens and their families hold a temporary immigration status that could see them lose their UK residence rights and be removed from the country, Oxford academics have warned. A new report from Oxford University’s Migration Observatory has sounded the alarm on “pre-settled status”, which requires people to reapply within five years or become irregular migrants. The status was given to people who were resident in the UK before the end of free movement in December 2020, but who could not produce evidence that they had been in the country for more than five years by that point.People who do not reapply in time will lose their right to live, work, access housing and claim benefits – and they could be removed by the Home Office.But the researchers say many people are likely to be unaware of their situation and that the design of the scheme presents challenges for stopping people falling under the radar.“People often look at the fact that over five million EU citizens have applied successfully to the EU Settlement Scheme, and assume that the job is basically done. It isn’t,” said Dr Marina Fernandez-Reino, senior researcher at the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford and author of the report.“For some of the two million people with pre-settled status, the process will actually be harder than it was the first time around“While most applicants will find the process very straightforward, more vulnerable groups could struggle. Over the past three years, the evidence has become clear that some people find it much harder to engage with the scheme, including such as victims of abuse, people with poor English skills, or those with health problems. “Many of the same groups will struggle to secure permanent status, especially if there is less support available to them in the coming years.” The five-year requirement was imposed by the government for full settled status despite Brexiteers promising that nothing would change for EU citizens during the Brexit referendum. The researchers warn that the second application to move out of pre-settled status is “more onerous” than the initial application because it requires more documentation – and that there is uncertainty about the level of support available to people.Crucially, they point out that unlike under the original settlement deadline, every individual’s deadline will be different under this phase of the scheme – presenting difficulties for public awareness campaigns.“A system with two different status outcomes instead of one inevitably increases the complexity of the scheme and the risk that some people fail to understand the differences between the two statuses, including the need to reapply if they hold pre-settled status,” the report says.It adds: “Some applicants will not be aware of their pre-settled status expiry date nor their settled status eligibility date, however. “In fact, support organisations interviewed for this project expressed concerns that some of those receiving pre-settled status have not properly understood that it was temporary and that they needed to apply a second time to be permanent residents. “Likewise, the ICIBI (Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration) has also provided evidence of vulnerable applicants with limited English proficiency not being able to understand the difference between settled and pre-settled status.”Conservative Home Office minister Baroness Trafford said in response to a parliamentary written question about the scheme: “It has been the UK’s long-standing position that EU citizens and their family members granted pre-settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme will have to apply for settled status before their pre-settled status expires in order to stay in the UK. “This will ensure they have the immigration status, and secure evidence of this, which they will need to access their rights and entitlements in the UK for years to come.“Requiring an application for settled status enables us to confirm the person has fulfilled the requisite criteria and passes appropriate criminality and security checks. They will be reminded of the need to make an application before the expiry of their pre-settled status. We will also allow late applications where there are reasonable grounds for doing so.” More

The Metropolitan Police is poised to issue the first set of fines to government officials as part of its investigation into multiple allegations of lockdown-busting parties in No 10, according to reports.It comes two months after the force launched an official probe, examining hundreds of photographs and material from the internal government inquiry carried out by the Whitehall mandarin Sue Gray.A first tranche of fixed penalty notices for the most straightforward of cases will be issued “imminently” as part of the force’s investigation into 12 separate events held in No 10 during strict Covid restrictions, according to reports by The Guardian and the BBC.But The Independent understands the fines will not be issued on Monday night.Between 15 and 20 penalty notices will reportedly be issued in the first tranche of punishments, which are believed to be related to the most straightforward cases, with more expected to follow.The Met police said it would not provide a “running commentary” and instead pointed to its latest statement on 21 March, which said detectives involved in the case had begun to interview people as witnesses and said it would progress the investigation as “quickly as possible”. The Met said last week it had not yet made any referrals to the ACRO Criminal Records Office for the issuing of fixed penalty notices.The force added: “However, every questionnaire response is being assessed alongside all available evidence, and should this reach the evidential threshold, then referrals will be made.”There was no official update from Downing Street on Monday evening.The events being examined include a “bring your own booze” garden party held on 20 May 2020 when laws strictly prohibited gatherings of more than two people outside, and a separate one on the eve of Prince Philip’s funeral.More than 100 legal questionnaires were sent to individuals at No 10 and the Cabinet Office over their participation in alleged rule-busting events as part of the Met’s Operation Hillman, including Boris Johnson.The prime minister, who faced calls to resign over the scandal which prompted Tory MPs to submit letters of no confidence in his leadership, returned his questionnaire to Scotland Yard in mid-February.Publishing her interim findings at the end of January, the Whitehall mandarin Ms Gray said she was unable to present a “meaningful report” into the rule-busting parties due to the ongoing Met Police investigation.However, in the heavily censored updated, the senior civil servant blasted the “failures of leadership and judgement” in No 10 and the Cabinet Office, stressing: “A number of these gatherings should not have been allowed to take place or to develop in the way that they did.”She added that some events represented a “serious failure to observe not just the high standards expected of those working at the hear of government but also the standards expected of the entire British population at the time”. More

Vladimir Putin is “not serious” about peace talks as the Russian president continues to “wantonly” bomb Ukrainian citizens, Liz Truss has told MPs.With the Kremlin’s brutal invasion now in its 33rd day, the foreign secretary also suggested sanctions imposed by the UK and western allies were “pushing back” the Russian economy by years.Her remarks come as Ukraine’s president insisted he was looking for peace “without delay”, with negotiators from Kyiv expected to meet with the Russian delegation on Tuesday in Turkey.But updating MPs on Monday, Ms Truss said: “We know that Putin is not serious about talks, he is still wantonly bombing innocent citizens across Ukraine and that is why we need to do more to ensure that he loses and we force him to think again.“We need to ensure that any future talks don’t end up selling Ukraine out or repeating the mistakes of the past.”She added: “We remember the uneasy settlement of 2014 which failed to give Ukraine lasting security, Putin just came back for more.“That is why we cannot allow him to win from this appalling aggression and why this government is determined Putin’s regime should be held accountable at the International Criminal Court.”Ms Truss also acknowledged that the “value of sanctions degrades over time” and said she would be pressing allies to do more ahead of a meeting of Nato foreign ministers next week.“Sanctions were put on by G7 in unison and they shouldn’t be removed as long as Putin continues with his war and he still has troops in Ukraine.“That is not all: we need to ensure that Putin can never act in this aggressive way again. Any long-term settlement needs to include a sanctions snap-back that can be triggered automatically by any Russian aggression.”Earlier, Boris Johnson also held a call with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, where the pair discussed the “appalling humanitarian situation in Mariupol, where heavy fighting continues,” a No 10 spokesperson said.They added: “The prime minister offered his full support to Ukraine in the face of Russia’s continued aggression, including with humanitarian support and more defensive equipment.“President Zelensky provided an update on negotiations and the two leaders agreed to coordinate closely in the days ahead. The prime minister reiterated the UK would maintain and strengthen economic pressure on Putin’s regime”.On social media, the Ukrainian president added: “Talked about critical humanitarian situation in the blocked cities, shared information about the peace talks. “Discussed strengthening sanctions against Russia and defence cooperation between Ukraine and Great Britain.”Speaking in the Commons, Labour’s shadow foreign secretary David Lammy also insisted Russia must pay a “long-term cost” for its invasion of Ukraine.“Putin’s invasion may have stalled but the threat he poses remains,” he told MPs. “Reports suggest he may be seeking a way out. We want to see an end to the bloodshed and the restoration of Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty.“I am sure the foreign secretary will agree with me that any ceasefire agreement must enjoy the full support of the democratically-elected government of Ukraine.” More

It was “always inevitable” that Brexit would have an impact on UK trade with the rest of Europe, chancellor Rishi Sunak has admitted.Mr Sunak agreed that it “might well be” the case that the slump in trade intensity experienced by the UK compared to other leading economies has been caused by the fact that Britain was the only one of them to go through Brexit.The chancellor’s comments came after the Office for Budget Responsibility published research suggesting that the UK’s “trade intensity” has tumbled by around 15 per cent as a result of leaving the EU.They represent one of the clearest admissions yet from Boris Johnson’s pro-Brexit administration that EU withdrawal was bound to reduce the UK’s commercial relationship with its closest trading partners.Figures published by the OBR alongside last week’s mini-budget showed the UK’s goods export volume falling dramatically at the start of 2020 as Brexit came into effect, and failing to recover as quickly as other advanced economies from the Covid pandemic.In stark contrast to the promises of Leave campaigners at the time of the 2016 referendum, the OBR said it was clear that trade deals struck so far with the rest of the world were not of a sufficient scale to offset the fall-off in commerce with the EU.Speaking to the House of Commons Treasury Committee, Mr Sunak said it was difficult to “disentangle” the impact of Brexit on trade from the blow delivered by the Covid pandemic.But he told the cross-party panel of MPs: “It was always inevitable that there would be a change in our trade intensity with Europe as a result of a change in the trading relationship. That was expected and unsurprising.”The committee’s Conservative chair, former Treasury minister Mel Stride, said that the OBR figures show that “there’s been a slump in the level of our trade with the EU” and that, while other countries’ trade flows had recovered strongly from the Covid pandemic, the UK’s had “stayed down”.“Doesn’t that tell you that the main distinction between ourselves and them is that we went through Brexit and they did not?” asked Mr Stide.The chancellor replied: “It might well be, I’m just saying it’s too early to be definitive.”Mr Sunak rejected suggestions that the UK economy had become more “closed” as a result of Brexit, saying that the government’s intention was to open up trade with other parts of the world.But Mr Stride responded: “That’s an aspiration, but the reality appears not.”Mr Sunak replied: “Trading relationships take time. They don’t happen overnight. So I think that of course that will happen over a period of time.”Mr Stride said that a delay in replacing lost European trade could hit UK productivity and living standards.“If it remains the case that these new deals don’t float our boats up very quickly and we stay down roughly where we are and we are a more closed economy, what concerns would you have around that, particularly around our mission to try and improve productivity and living standards?” he asked the chancellor.Mr Sunak replied that the assumption of declining trade with the EU was already built into OBR forecasts. More

There will be no further help for households struggling with energy bills before the autumn, chancellor Rishi Sunak has signalled. Mr Sunak is coming under pressure to step up assistance as bills for gas and electricity soar by an average £700 next week, after last week’s spring statement was blasted for failing to do enough for the poorest.But he today told MPs that it would not be “appropriate” to take further action until it was clear how far the energy price cap will rise in the autumn, and said that even then he would only act “if necessary”.Appearing before the House of Commons Treasury Committee to answer questions on last week’s mini-budget, the chancellor was accused by Labour’s Angela Eagle of “making a political choice to plunge 1.3 million people – including half a million children – into absolute poverty” by failing to upgrade welfare benefits in line with fast-rising inflation.But he insisted that the tax and benefit changes he has imposed as chancellor have been “progressive”, and said that any spare cash available to him in future will go on tax cuts not additional spending. His decision to pre-announce a 1p cut in income tax for 2024 had been taken in order to impose “discipline” on cabinet colleagues to rein in spending over the coming two years, he suggested.Pressed over what he can do to help families facing a “vicious” increase in the cost of living over the summer, Mr Sunak replied: “As we said very clearly in the spring statement document, we will continue to monitor the situation and as we know more, are prepared to act if necessary. “Clearly it’s very difficult to sit here today and speculate on what happens to energy prices [and] therefore the biggest impact on living standards in the autumn. Let’s wait until we get there and then can decide on the most appropriate course of action, but I don’t think anyone today knows what that appropriate course of action ought to be.”Justifying his decision to delay before offering any further help on bills, he stressed the “volatility” of energy prices as a result of the invasion of Ukraine. And he denied that he was “blocking” Boris Johnson’s attempts to produce an energy security strategy designed to wean the UK off Russian oil and gas.Reports suggest that the chancellor has refused to sign off investment in onshore wind and nuclear power on value-for-money grounds. It was today confirmed that the plan – promised “in a few days” by Mr Johnson at the start of this month – has been delayed again and will not appear before next week.But Mr Sunak said: “I’m certainly not blocking anything. The PM is continuing to work through the details of that. Given how important it is, I think it’s important that we get it right. It’s being worked on at pace.”Mr Sunak said that estimates from the Office for Budget Responsibility of a further 40 per cent rise in domestic energy prices at the next review of the energy price cap in the autumn were already outdated, with current figures suggesting that the actual rise could be 10 percentage points lower than that.Last week’s decision to raise the threshold at which National Insurance becomes payable – on top of an earlier £9bn package targeted directly at energy prices – will help families facing price rises forecast to peak at almost 9 per cent this year, he insisted.Dame Angela told him: “You’ve made a political choice to plunge 1.3m people – including half a million children – into absolute poverty.“People on fixed rates of income are going to suffer very, very badly in the next period, whatever happens in October. A single person caring for their parent whose main source of income is their carers allowance of £67 a week is not going to be able to accommodate a huge trebled or quadrupled energy bill.”Mr Sunak said he had opted to spend £6bn on increasing National Insurance thresholds to benefit 30 million workers, rather than spending the money on upgrading benefits to keep pace with inflation.“Someone else sitting here could have said, `I’d rather spend that £6bn on the welfare system’,” he said. “That’s absolutely a choice that someone else could have made… I think the mix of policies we’ve got is the right mix.”Mr Sunak agreed with committee chair Mel Stride that his announcement of a 1p cut in income tax for 2024 was effectively a “stake in the ground which you are going to defend at all costs” to prevent cabinet colleagues, including Mr Johnson, from splashing out more cash on public spending.He denied that he had ever described himself as a “tax-cutting chancellor”. But he said that, having borrowed huge sums to pay for Covid support and raised taxes for health and care spending during his first two years at the Treasury, in future, “incremental marginal decisions should be about reducing the tax burden both for individuals and for businesses”.Announcing the cut in the basic rate of income tax to 19 per cent two years in advance “means that hopefully we can have a more disciplined conversation about incremental public spending – which is already at very high levels – so that our collective priority is to deliver that income tax cut in 2024,” he told MPs. “We can do that best by maintaining discipline on public spending.” More