Johnson’s push for quarantine ‘will isolate UK as others emerge’

BORIS JOHNSON last night pushed ahead with his quarantine policy despite his chief scientific adviser declining to back the plan explicitly.

The Prime Minister faced criticism from the Tory backbenches, including Theresa May, his predecessor, for forcing “unnecessary economic isolation” on Britain with the policy, described by one airline boss as “shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted”.

As the quarantine plans were formally presented to Parliament, Ms May said there would be “no global Britain” without international air travel, which was essential for trade. She asked: “Instead of bringing in measures to close Britain off from the rest of the world, why is Britain not taking a lead in developing an international health screening standard to save jobs and ensure Britain is open for business?”

Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser, also appeared to undermine the case for quarantine, saying it was most effective when imposed to prevent travel from high-risk countries to low-risk ones. Figures suggested yesterday that Britain had more deaths from coronavirus – at 359 – than the 27 other EU nations combined, at 324.

Speaking at the daily news conference, however, Mr Johnson said “imported cases” of the virus could trigger a second peak if people arriving from foreign countries did not quarantine.

He confirmed international talks were under way to agree “air bridges” with low-risk holiday destinations like Greece, Portugal and France so UK tourists could avoid the 14-day quarantine. But he refused to put a timescale on when people might be able to go abroad for a holiday. Announcing the plans in the Commons, Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, came under pressure from senior Tory MPS to scrap, suspend or overhaul the policy, due to be enforced on Monday.

Liam Fox, the Tory former Cabinet minister, said he could not “get my head around the public health mental gymnastics” of the policy.

“If such a barrier was required, why was it not introduced earlier in the out- break and if it is a contingency measure against a so-called second wave, why apply it to countries with a lower infection rate than we already have?” he asked. “Surely the answer lies in the test and trace system rather than unnecessary economic isolation.”

Theresa Villiers, another ex-cabinet minister, urged Ms Patel to delay the policy to get air corridors in place “so we can save jobs in aviation and let families go on their breaks in the sun”.

Paul Maynard, a former aviation minister, warned the “credibility of [the policy] is hanging by a very thin thread” after its battering by MPS.

Sir Graham Brady, who chairs the 1922 Committee, said thousands of jobs would be lost if airlines were unable to reopen their summer schedules.

Ms Patel acknowledged the requirements would be difficult for the tourism industry but said they would be reviewed regularly to ensure they remained “proportionate and necessary”. She said: “We will all suffer if we get this wrong. That’s why it’s crucial that we introduce these measures now.”

Ms Patel and Grant Shapps, the Transport Secretary, will hold a roundtable today to discuss the industry and are expected to face further criticism.

Ryanair called the UK’S quarantine “utterly ineffective”, adding: “For the UK to be imposing a 14-day quarantine on inbound visitors when it already has one of the worst Covid infection and death rates in Europe, is closing the door long after the horse has bolted.”

Karen Dee, chief executive of the Airport Operators Association, said “blanket, untargeted quarantine” would devastate aviation and the economy, when other countries were exiting quarantine with a “science-led, risk-based approach.” George Morgangrenville, chief executive of Red Savannah, who has led a campaign by 300 travel and hospitality businesses against the plans, said: “It is the wrong policy that is going to cause untold misery for hundreds of thousands of people who will now very likely be made redundant.”

The legislation, laid before Parliament, states people arriving in England must fill out a passenger locator form, providing an address where they will self-isolate. More than one address can be provided if a “legal obligation” requires a person to change addresses, or if an overnight stay is necessary upon arrival in the UK before “travelling directly to another address at which they will be self-isolating”.

Traditionally speaking, an opposition tends to oppose. It scrutinises the Government. Criticises it. Asks it difficult questions. It would be considered highly unorthodox for a Leader of the Opposition to stand up in the Commons and say, “Mr Speaker, I cannot help but observe that the Prime Minister is wearing an especially stylish pair of cufflinks. For the benefit on an admiring nation, could he enlighten us as to where we may purchase such a pair ourselves?”

The next time Boris Johnson prepares for PMQS, it might be worth his while taking this into account. Because yesterday in the Commons, Sir Keir Starmer asked six questions about the Government’s handling of the pandemic. And in response, the Prime Minister seemed to grow more and more put out by the minute.

His voice grew louder and faster, and his manner more irate. With his index finger he stabbed at the Dispatch Box, stab-stab-stab-stab-stab – like an indignant hotel guest, jabbing at the bell on an unmanned reception desk.

Judging by his tone – hurt, aggrieved and even bewildered – he seemed to view Sir Keir’s insistence on questioning him as an unexpected and uncalled-for impertinence.

In his first reply, he demanded that Sir Keir show him “more signs of co-operation”.

In his second, he accused Sir Keir of trying to “distract the public” (he didn’t say how). In his third, he accused Sir Keir of “casting aspersions” on the people who set up the Government’s track-and-trace system. (Strictly speaking, if Sir Keir was casting aspersions on anyone, it was Mr Johnson, for launching the system before Sir Keir believed it was ready.)

In his fourth reply, Mr Johnson protested that he “really [did] not see the purpose” of Sir Keir’s “endless attacks”.

And when Sir Keir asked him why he was easing lockdown with the alert level at four (after pledging only to ease it once the alert level had dropped to three), the Prime Minister almost exploded. “He knows perfectly well that the alert level does allow it!” he blared.

For good measure, he then accused Sir Keir of performing “U-turns”.

Unfortunately, this approach was somewhat undermined by his final reply, in which he appeared to perform a U-turn himself – by insisting that, under the controversial new voting system, MPS unable to attend Parliament in person would be permitted to vote by proxy. This concession had not appeared in the motion the Government put to the Commons on Tuesday.

On the whole, the depth of Mr Johnson’s displeasure seemed surprising – not least because Sir Keir had hardly attacked him. He hadn’t mocked or insulted him, and his questions were delivered calmly. “Mr Speaker,” he said, “the Prime Minister is confusing scrutiny with attacks.”

In Mr Johnson’s defence, however, you can see how this confusion may have arisen. The Opposition has been AWOL for so long, the Prime Minister may simply have forgotten what its job is.