Up to 8,000 holidaying British citizens are in Jamaica as it is battered by one of the strongest Atlantic hurricanes in history.

People have been ordered to stay indoors as Hurricane Melissa sweeps over the Caribbean island, which is also home to 50,000 dual nationals.

And tourists are locked down in hotels as Jamaica is hit by 185 mph winds.

Follow latest updates on Hurricane Melissa

Andrew Tracey had been due to fly home to the UK on Monday, but his flight was cancelled.

Mr Tracey told Sky News that food packages were being delivered to guests at his hotel. Deck chairs have been removed from the beach, and the swimming pools have been drained, at the Negril hotel where he is staying.

“The balcony and walls do feel as though they are vibrating just due to the strength of the wind,” said Mr Tracey.

“I’m very nervous, it’s hard to comprehend what we are likely to expect.”

The US National Hurricane Centre in Miami said that Melissa was “one of the most powerful hurricane landfalls on record in the Atlantic basin” as it hit southwestern Jamaica near New Hope.

In a social media post, the centre warned that it is an “extremely dangerous and life-threatening situation” – and told those in the area not to leave their shelter as the eye of the storm passes over.

‘It is a bit scary, but we’ve got each other’

A British-Jamaican couple who are sheltering inside as the storm passes over the island spoke to Sky News about their ordeal.

Shantell Nova Rochester and her Jamaican fiance Denva Wray are due to get married on the island next month.

They spoke of broken windows and water coming in where they are staying, but the couple believe they are “as safe as they can possibly be” in St Elizabeth.

Mr Wray said: “Where we are is quite strong, sturdy, but you can hear a lot of wind. It is a bit scary, but we’ve got each other, so we are strong.”

Asked about the wedding, Ms Rochester said: “We’re just worried about getting through tomorrow, but that’s a worry in the back of our heads.

“Where we plan to get married is flooded at this time.”

Government action ‘too late’ – British tourist

One British man who paid £3,500 for last-minute flights so he and his family could return home before the hurricane hit the island said that he felt “completely let down” by the government’s response.

David Rowe and his family, from Hertfordshire, had spent 10 days in Jamaica before deciding to fly back to the UK on Saturday.

Mr Rowe, 47, was critical of the response of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO).

Speaking to the PA news agency, IT manager Mr Rowe said: “It’s all too late, their reaction and their response to the storm has been too late – after the fact.

“The advice should have been last week, like on the Saturday – don’t travel – because a lot of the travel companies use the FCDO guidance on travel (for) all their planning and what decisions they make as an organisation.

“There should have been something done much sooner than this. A lot of the UK nationals, and people on holiday there, they are stranded.

“This could have been prevented with better action from the UK government.”

Read more:
Hurricane Melissa: What we know
‘Storm of century’ makes landfall

Mr Rowe added that he and his wife had felt “very anxious” before they flew home – and “very sad” for those left in the country.

A Foreign Office spokesperson said: “We understand how worrying developments in Jamaica are for British nationals and their families.

“Our travel advice includes information about hurricane season, which runs from June to November. Last Thursday we updated our travel advice for Jamaica to include a warning about Tropical Storm Melissa and that it was expected to intensify over the coming days.

“The safety and security of British nationals is our top priority, and that is why we are urging any British nationals in Jamaica to follow the guidance of the local authorities and register their presence with us to receive updates.”

The government’s decision to slash foreign aid will lead to unrest, further crises and threaten UK security, a group of cross-party MPs has warned.

A report by the International Development Committee found the decision in February to reduce aid to 0.3% of gross national income (GNI) by 2027/28 – coupled with the US cutting its aid budget – is having a severe impact.

Politics Hub: Follow latest updates

The foreign aid budget was cut to invest in defence from 0.5% of GNI, which was meant to be an interim reduction from 0.7% to cope with economic challenges caused by the pandemic.

Total aid spending is set to reduce from £14.1bn in 2024 to £9.4bn by 2028/29.

The committee, chaired by Labour MP Sarah Champion, said spending is being prioritised on humanitarian aid over development, which “builds long-term resilience and should lead to reducing the need for humanitarian aid”.

They said the international development minister, Baroness Chapman, has made it clear “the UK will remain a leading humanitarian actor”.

But the committee said while they are glad those in “desperate need of aid will be prioritised, particularly in the regions of Ukraine, Gaza, and Sudan”, they are concerned about the long-term effect of pulling development aid.

“We are concerned that slashing development aid will continue to lead to unrest and further crises in the future, presenting a threat to UK security,” the MPs said.

Risk to UK’s national security

They said a reduction in foreign aid will have “devastating consequences across the world”.

The committee said it recognises an increase in defence spending is needed, but “to do this at the expense of the world’s most vulnerable undermines not only the UK’s soft power, but also its national security”.

They said the government must make “every effort” to return to spending 0.5% of GNI on foreign aid “at a minimum, as soon as possible”.

The committee also found long-term funding for development is “essential” to ensure value for money is achieved.

However, they accused the government of seeing value for money only in terms of the taxpayer, saying that downplays “equity and the importance of poverty reduction” and causes tension.

They agreed accountability to the taxpayer is “key to reducing poverty globally, and maximising the impact of each pound to do so, must remain the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s central tenet for official development assistance spending”.

Spending on migrant hotels

Spending on migrant hotels in the UK was also criticised by the MPs, who said while international aid rules mean they can cover refugee hosting for the first 12 months in the UK, given the recent cuts, that is “incompatible with the spirit” of the UN’s OECD Development Assistance Committee rules.

“Excessive spend on hotel costs is not an effective use of development budget,” they said.

The committee recommended costs of housing refugees should be capped “at a fixed percentage” of total foreign aid spending “to protect a rapidly diminishing envelope of funding”.

Read more: Govt struggles to slash aid spent on asylum hotels

‘Short-sighted’

Reacting to the report, Timothy Ingram, head of UK advocacy at WaterAid, said: “The UK government’s decision to cut the aid budget was one that defied both logic and humanity. Aid when delivered effectively in partnership with local communities is not charity – it’s an investment in a safer and more prosperous world.

“Undermining it, especially vital finance for water, weakens the world’s resilience to climate shocks, pandemics, and conflict – impacting the one in 10 people without access to clean water, and ultimately making us all less safe.

“This is a short-sighted political decision with long-term consequences for the UK’s stability, economy and global standing. We join with MPs in urging the government, once again, to urgently reconsider.”

Lack of transparency over private contractors’ spending

In the report, MPs said it is worried the Foreign Office has not reviewed aid spending on multilateral organisations, which allows the UK less direct influence over spending, such as the World Bank or vaccine organisation Gavi since 2016, despite spending nearly £3bn on them in 2024.

They said the use of private contractors does not offer inherently poor value for money, but a lack of transparency and data can mean under-delivering and a loss of “in-house” expertise.

‘Tragic error’

Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, said: “Ensuring aid delivers genuine value for money has never been more important. As major donors tighten their belts, we have to ensure that every penny we spend goes to the people most in need.

“The former Department for International Development was rightly seen as a world leader in value for money; the FCDO is broadly hanging on to that reputation. But it must make some urgent improvements.

“Reducing poverty must be the central aim of the development budget. While accountability to the taxpayer is an important consideration, the FCDO’s current definition of value for money risks diverting focus away from improving the lives of the most vulnerable – the very reason the aid budget exists at all.

“The savage aid cuts announced this year are already proving to be a tragic error that will cost lives and livelihoods, undermine our international standing and ultimately threaten our national security. They must be reversed.

“Value for money is critical to making the most of a shrinking aid budget. While this report finds some positives, the government must take urgent action to wipe out waste and ensure the money we are still spending makes a genuine difference.”

A university academic who is receiving “substantial damages” for how he was portrayed in a film has told Sky News he hasn’t received an apology from star Steve Coogan – nor the two companies involved in its production.

Richard Taylor said he was “shell-shocked” after seeing The Lost King for the first time, a film about how Richard III’s skeleton was discovered below a car park in Leicester.

He told The UK Tonight with Sarah-Jane Mee: “I wasn’t consulted or even knew I was in the film. The first I hear is I get a phone call while I’m on holiday – and eventually, after press previews, I persuade the producers to let me see a preview.”

Last year, a judge ruled that Mr Taylor was depicted as “smug, unruly dismissive and patronising” – with the plot suggesting he “knowingly” misled the public.

“I’m portrayed by someone on screen who looks like me, who sounds like me, who dresses like me – but behaves in a way that falls so far short of the standards I set for myself and what others might reasonably expect of me,” the academic explained.

Mr Taylor revealed he received emails at work telling him to “rot in hell”, while others described him as a “disgrace”.

He added: “Something that was a collaborative effort that showcased the best of British universities in my view was turned into this farce – where I was the villain and portrayed in a way that was completely inconsistent with the reality and the truth.”

Now chief operating officer at Loughborough University, Mr Taylor said “none of the facts” in the 2022 film were ever checked – and the Alan Partridge star, his company Baby Cow and Pathe Productions did not reach out to him before its release.

“The producers just went ahead, filmed it, produced it, stuck it out there and left me to deal with all the flack and all the fallout from it. Grossly unfair and I feel vindicated from the result we’ve achieved,” he told Sky News.

‘The film’s going to look pretty silly’

As part of the settlement, an on-screen clarification will now be added to the start of the film, but no scenes will be removed.

When asked whether he was satisfied with this outcome, Mr Taylor replied: “I’d have liked them to re-edit the film, but one’s got to be realistic about what one can achieve.

“The insertion of the card will say that the person on screen is a fictitious portrayal – and the real Richard Taylor didn’t behave like that … so the film’s going to look pretty silly.”

Read more UK news:
Community plagued by 25,000 tonnes of illegal waste
What tax rises could be announced in the budget?

The case was due to proceed to trial, but a High Court hearing on Monday heard that the parties had settled the claim.

In a statement afterwards, Coogan had said: “If it wasn’t for Philippa Langley, Richard III would still be lying under a car park in Leicester. It is her name that will be remembered in relation to the discovery of the lost king, long after Richard Taylor has faded into obscurity.”

He went on to add: “That is the story I wanted to tell, and I am happy I did.”

Reacting to the statement, Mr Taylor argued “it’s a pretty strange definition of happy when you’ve had to settle a defamation claim for seven figures in costs”.

He said: “Steve is never anything other than certain in himself and of his own position, but I think he’s got it wrong – basic facts were not checked.”