UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2021

  • Marsha de Cordova – 2021 Comments on Asda Supreme Court Decision

    Marsha de Cordova – 2021 Comments on Asda Supreme Court Decision

    The comments made by Marsha de Cordova, the Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, on 26 March 2021.

    This is a historic victory for women and trade unions in the fight for equal pay.

    It’s been over fifty years since The Labour Party enshrined The Equal Pay Act in law but too many women still face pay discrimination. Women should not have to battle through the courts for years because of Tory negligence.

    The pandemic has had a huge impact on women’s employment but the Tories have suspended gender pay gap reporting. Labour is calling for reporting to be immediately reinstated to monitor the impact of the pandemic on equal pay.

  • Damian Hinds – 2021 Speech on Online Anonymity and Anonymous Abuse

    Damian Hinds – 2021 Speech on Online Anonymity and Anonymous Abuse

    The speech made by Damian Hinds, the Conservative MP for East Hampshire, in the House of Commons on  24 March 2021.

    How deeply upsetting for everybody to hear that very powerful speech by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge). It is humbling to follow it. I congratulate her on what she said and the bravery she has shown. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on securing this debate and thank the Committee for granting it.

    Of course plenty of people are anonymous without ever being abusive and, God knows, plenty of abuse comes from people who are perfectly open about who they are, but there is something of a media hierarchy in human nature. I think we all recognise that there are many people who would say things to someone on the phone that they would not say in person, who would put things in email that they would not say on the phone, would put things on Twitter that they would not write in an email, and yes, will post anonymously something they would never want to see their name written next to.

    I do not want to ban anonymity, any more than my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud would. People have long sought its sense of freedom, its disinhibiting effect, its privacy and occasionally its hilarity and enjoyment, and there is nothing wrong with any of that. As long as there is no harm to anybody else, it is no business of the state. It is also important, of course, for activists in oppressive regimes, or for people seeking advice on sensitive issues, to discover a community out there, to know that they are not alone. But while in one context anonymity can give voice to the voiceless and empower the oppressed, in another it can coarsen public discourse and facilitate abuse. Surely it is possible for us to have the one without having to have the other. In this debate we will hear, indeed have already heard, about some really nasty abuses—in many cases, criminal abuses, where the issue with anonymity is really one about registration; it is about the impediments to enforcement action. Many of those cases will be about people in the public eye.

    I am also concerned about lower-level effects—the impact on the general tone of public discourse, and the consequences for our social cohesion and mutual understanding. I am concerned not only, or even mainly, about public figures, but also about everybody else—about moderate, normal people of all views who fear to put their head above the parapet, and those deterred from entering public life in future for fear of what their children might see written about them on Twitter.

    Free speech is at the heart of our traditions, but we have another long tradition that pamphlets declare who they are from—the imprint. Writers might write under pseudonyms, but someone—the publisher—is ultimately accountable. Social media platforms deny that responsibility, so anonymity could also make it easier for those foreign powers and others who want deliberately to confuse and divide us. It can be hard to know whether you are interacting with a person, a machine or something in between.

    There are many possible permutations; there are also many pitfalls, and this warrants proper debate and deliberation. My proposal, like that of my hon. Friend, is a pretty mild one, and a safe one—that if you are on general-usage, mass-market social media using your real identity, you should have the right, if you choose, to hear only from other people using their real identity.

  • Margaret Hodge – 2021 Speech on Online Anonymity and Anonymous Abuse

    Margaret Hodge – 2021 Speech on Online Anonymity and Anonymous Abuse

    The speech made by Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP for Barking, in the House of Commons on 24 March 2021.

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on securing this debate.

    Legislating on online harms gives us a vital opportunity to call a halt to the extremism, misinformation and avalanche of harmful abuse that has become commonplace on social media. Whether on big platforms such as Twitter or fringe platforms such as Telegram, harmful content is now all-pervasive. Recently, another tsunami of racist abuse was directed at the footballers Marcus Rashford, Lauren James and Anthony Martial. Sometimes, the perpetrators can be identified, but too often those responsible do not reveal who they are. In the past, we argued that online anonymity supported open democratic debate; I am now convinced that anonymity encourages online harm that is not just hateful in itself but is used to spread lies about individuals and aims to undermine their credibility and so shut down their voices. Far from nurturing democratic debate, anonymity undermines democracy.

    My work challenging Jew-hate reached a climax last autumn, with the publication of the Equality and Human Rights Commission report into antisemitism in the Labour party. Community Security Trust found that my public comments at that time led to 90,000 mentions on social media. The vast majority were abusive, racist and misogynistic.

    Let me share just a few; some are very offensive.

    “I hope she dies soon. Dumb bitch”;

    “nothing but a couple of shit-stirring…cum buckets, bought and paid for by Israel.”

    I was told I was a “Mossad agent”, a “Zionist stooge”, a wrinkly “pedo-lover”. “Traitor.” “Snake.” “Rat.” “Shill.” “Nazi”. This abuse is aggressive, harmful, yet sometimes I have no idea who said it.

    Ending anonymity for those who promulgate hate or harm is key to effectively combating it. We must compel social media companies to be able to identify all users. We know that is easily done. Take the online payment company PayPal. Everyone using PayPal must provide their identity when setting up an account. Users’ identity is not public, but it can be traced if required. If social media companies acted similarly, those who use online anonymity for good, such as whistleblowers, or victims of child abuse or domestic abuse, could continue to do so, but those who use anonymity to spread harmful content would be identifiable, and could be dealt with by the appropriate authorities. Knowing that would, at a stroke—

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)

    I am sorry; we will have to leave it there. Time is up.

  • Siobhan Baillie – 2021 Speech on Online Anonymity and Anonymous Abuse

    Siobhan Baillie – 2021 Speech on Online Anonymity and Anonymous Abuse

    The speech made by Siobhan Baillie, the Conservative MP for Stroud, in the House of Commons on 24 March 2021.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered online anonymity and anonymous abuse.

    In recent weeks, we have been rightly concerned about safety in our towns and cities, yet people face danger and harassment not just in the physical world, but on the dark cyber streets and alleyways of the internet. Cowardly keyboard warriors stalk these streets and lurk in our phones. They bully with abandon, they spread racist and misogynistic abuse, they attack looks, weight, age, race, gender, disability, success as well as failure and the young and old alike. No one is safe from their violent hate. Anonymity provides the shadows where these people can hide. It facilitates and encourages online abuse.

    My own experience of hate came after the birth of my daughter last year. The outpouring of venom because I took four weeks’ maternity leave was a shock. Attacking somebody for being a mum or suggesting that a mum cannot do the job of an MP is misogynistic and, quite frankly, ridiculous. But I would be lying if I said that I did not find it very upsetting, especially at a time when I could barely move and needed to work out how to feed my new baby. Other people have suffered more—from death and rape threats to all forms of intimidation and harassment in between. Nobody should have to put up with that. Seeing the bravery with which others have confronted this menace has prompted me to campaign for change, and I am not alone.

    The racism and abuse levelled at footballers is no longer from the terraces. Many England players who will run out for us tomorrow night have suffered unspeakable racist abuse. I fully support Harry Maguire’s calls for verified identification. I have spoken to the FA’s excellent Kick It Out, which has superb goals for social media companies to create robust and swift measures to take down abusive material, and for investigating authorities swiftly to identify the originators.

    Katie Price launched a petition only a few weeks ago that already has over 160,000 signatures.

    Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)

    I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing today’s debate on this incredibly important issue. Will she join me in paying tribute to Katie, who is my constituent? She is a mum battling for her disabled son who is often abused online. Her petition makes the very sensible proposal to end online anonymity. No one has a right to a cloak to conceal their actions of harm. Both Katie’s petition and my hon. Friend’s own great work in this area deserve the support of the whole House.

    Siobhan Baillie

    I thank my hon. Friend; it was very kind of him to set up a meeting between me, Katie and her mum Amy. We talked about her experiences of the trolls. What they have been through is absolutely heartbreaking. Harvey has been subject to the most vile abuse, which I actually cannot bring myself to say. This has gone on his whole life. The strength with which he and his family have endured these issues is remarkable. Any mother would want to protect her children and we must arm parents with the tools to do just that.

    In Stroud, a robust military veteran has had years of deliberate online attempts to ruin his business and reputation. It has nearly broken him mentally at times. The Facebook page that attacks him has a spare one in case the first gets taken down. Another constituent has endured years of stalking and harassment. She is a retired social worker. She has found the police ill equipped to deal with such fast-moving tech, and even when the perpetrators put a picture of her garage door up online—indicating they knew where she lived—she still felt unprotected. A Gloucestershire journalist was recently told by an anonymous loon that she is single because she

    “is self absorbed and looks like a slut”.

    I have done enough domestic violence work as a lawyer to know that such attitudes and language are a short hop, skip and jump to violence.

    Of course, not all online nastiness is anonymous. One named man said of me on Facebook last week:

    “She should be banished from our lovely Stroud…years ago she’d have been shot on the spot for her arrogance and hypocrisy…yet people voted for the ass licking vile piece of slime.”

    Lovely—and I could go on and on. I do not have enough time to properly address other reports of dangerous antisemitism, fake news, vaccine misinformation, deliberate reputation ruining and online fraud. That is on top of the daily legal but harmful harassing-type behaviour, plus posts that have the veneer of a justified challenge but are really just deliberately spiking pile-ons and hate.

    Constituents I have spoken to are clear that the reporting does not work, the cost of legal remedies are out of the reach of normal people and the law needs updating. We need to make social media known more for the good in our society, rather than as a toxic, unsafe hellhole. The Government’s online harms work, though overdue, is to be commended as a huge step in the right direction. That legislation will require media platforms to take more effective actions against abuse, whether it is anonymous or not. Its aims of protecting children and empowering adults to stay safe online are noble, yet the White Paper barely addresses the issue of anonymity. There were no specific consultation questions about the issue. That should be rectified without delay.

    As it stands, tech companies do not know who millions of their users are. No matter how good their intentions, the lack of basic information means that any attempt to police platforms and bring offenders to justice is a painful process, if it happens at all. Ofcom’s hands will be tied behind its back before it even starts.

    I do not propose the banning of anonymous accounts. There are great benefits in anonymity that I know other Members will speak passionately about today. I would like to see tech companies move on this issue, as we should not always need the Government to intervene, although sadly it currently looks like they will have to.

    Three simple steps would go a long way to prevent, deter and reduce online abuse. First, we should give social media users the option to verify their identity. Secondly, we should make it easy for everybody to see whether or not a user has chosen to verify their identity. Members of this House already use that function—my Twitter account has a prominent blue tick next to it, thereby providing confidence that the account is genuine and my details have been checked. Verification works: we should make it available to all. Finally, we should give users the option to block communication, comments and other interaction from unverified users as a category, if they wish.

    Some people argue that such moves would undermine freedom of speech, but I disagree. No one would be prevented from using another name or being “Princess What’s-her-chops”, but it would make it harder for online abusers to hide in the shadows if they cause mayhem. Importantly, it would make abusers easier to catch and give social media users the power of choice. Some will be happy to interact with unverified users; others will not. But there must be a choice.

    In any event, what greater impediment to freedom of speech is there than people worrying that what they say online will end up in a death threat or a rape threat? What personal freedoms have been lost through the damage done to mental health by online bullying? How many people have already looked at online abuse and hesitated before applying for public-facing jobs, or not applied at all? My proposals would protect freedom of expression and respect the choice of anonymity, but make it harder for abusers to hide in darkness and give individuals new powers to control how they interact with others. I urge everybody to look up the organisation Clean up the Internet, which was co-founded by one of my constituents, to see the proposals in more detail.

    Mr Deputy Speaker, no one should face the abuse and horror that you will hear about today. For the victims of online harm, the abuse is not virtual. It does not stay in cyber-space. It impacts the real lives of real people in the real world. If we fail properly to investigate the impact and options surrounding anonymity, I fear we will render any forthcoming legislation and change—no matter how good it is—out of touch and out of date before the ink is dry. We have the expertise, support and drive to tackle online harms; let us be a beacon of light and illuminate the dark streets of social media. Let us really lead the world on tackling anonymous abuse.

  • Douglas Chapman – 2021 Speech on Automated Purchase and Resale of Gaming Hardware

    Douglas Chapman – 2021 Speech on Automated Purchase and Resale of Gaming Hardware

    The speech made by Douglas Chapman, the SNP MP for Dunfermline and West Fife, in the House of Commons on 24 March 2021.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the automated purchase and resale of games consoles and computer components; and for connected purposes.

    I am sure that in the history of this Parliament, the pressing need to address the issue of scalping through legislative proposals has not been of regular concern to this House. However, I am here today to discuss this very phenomenon in its most 21st-century of interpretations, and to highlight the pressing issue of unfairness to consumers at the hands of unscrupulous scalpers and automated bot attacks.

    The secondary resale market—or scalping, as it is commonly known—is worth billions in revenue to those in the automated bot industry. Scalpers manipulate and skew the supply and demand chain to create an unfair advantage in the marketplace, using bot attacks to use up basic supplies of coveted goods, such as the next generation of games consoles and computer components, then selling them on at hugely inflated prices. Experts in the field of bot mitigation and cyber-threats estimate that these kinds of organised bot groups can double their money in a matter of weeks through this practice, leaving the consumer in the position of either paying well over the manufacturer’s recommended price, or simply having to go without their desired purchase, as the bot resale site has made the games console unaffordable.

    In this sense, the issue of scalping is at the heart of unfairness for the consumer. It creates frustration and disappointment, delay and disempowerment, and as things stand, there is no recourse to the law or to consumer protection. Scalping may be bad cyber-practice, and it may leave consumers short-changed, but no legislation exists at this time to curb bot enthusiasm or to protect the consumer, so the problem simply grows. The covid pandemic has provided the perfect storm for scalpers: an increase in online shopping, combined with the disruption to supply chains, has allowed increasingly well-organised and highly trained bot communities to make vast profits at the expense of the consumer. However, this issue existed long before the world was turned on its head by the global virus. Bot groups were mobilising and professionalising at an accelerated rate. They are well funded, they are technically proficient, and they are emboldened by the fact that the practice of scalping is not yet illegal.

    The issue first came to my attention when constituents got in touch to complain that they were having problems accessing the Sony PlayStation 5, the Xbox Series X and associated computer components in the run-up to Christmas last year. Having waited eagerly for the latest next-generation consoles to be released, they discovered that they had been scalped, with automatic bots buying up those goods in large quantities. That caused a lot of disappointment in the wider gaming community, with customers unable to purchase goods at the end of what has been a particularly hard year for everyone.

    Those consoles and computer components then reappeared on other websites and shopping portals, some with eye-watering mark-ups of as much as 170% on the original price. This is not a new phenomenon. One look at the gamers websites and magazines reveals that scalping has been a problem for quite some time. It creates a vicious cycle where gamers, desperate for their consul or game card, are willing to pay over the odds to combat the pre-arranged shortage in the market, which has been unfairly skewed. That serves only to disadvantage the consumer further and bolster the unscrupulous activities of scalpers—and so it continues.

    Experts on bot mitigation, such as Netacea, predict that the situation will only worsen in 2021, not just for the games industry but widening out across goods as diverse as gym equipment, hot tubs and important services such as supermarket delivery slots even. Experts envisage both a major consumer backlash and a surge in brands stepping in to tackle the problem head on, but surely it would be better just to legislate to mitigate the worst impact of bot buying.

    The issue is especially concerning given the nature of the economy at the time—depressed due to the pandemic, with job losses and precarious financial situations for both consumers and retailers. For smaller retailers, it is a double whammy, as they do not have the same means as larger companies to protect themselves against this terrible bot behaviour, but have to deal with the loss of revenue from games that are available, at a price, on the bots’ websites. This is turning into an online wild west, where bots and skilled cyber-villains have the upper hand. What hope is there for the consumer, the retailer and the games industry? It is here that we must look to the law to redress the imbalance in power and injustice.

    Interestingly, there are parallels to be drawn between scalping and ticket touting. Legislation on the secondary selling of tickets, which came into law in 2018, can be used as a guide to tackle scalping. That legislation was brought in to prohibit the resale of tickets for amounts far in excess of the original price. It helped to crack down on the enormous profits being made at the expense of people looking to attend their favourite sporting, theatre or music event, and gained huge support from across the music industry, from such artists as Ed Sheeran and the Arctic Monkeys. Today, I am proposing that similar legislation be brought in to ensure that consumers can purchase gaming consoles, games and related goods at no more than the manufacturer’s recommended price, and that the resale of goods purchased by automated bots be made illegal.

    I have already written to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to highlight the issue and examine the legislative options to ban the bot, or at least make some significant progress on consumer protection. This is not a scenario that can be left to the market to regulate. Nor can it be left as the sole responsibility of individual companies to monitor and take action to mitigate the power of the bots. The consumer must be at the heart of our actions to improve the experience, cost and availability for customers. Just as scalping creates an unlevel playing field in terms of purchase power for the consumer, so it also creates issues for retailers and companies that sell and make these consoles and computer parts. Even the large corporations are beginning to take notice that a knock-on effect is that fewer next-generation consoles are now being sold and that affects the new games coming on to the market, especially games that are specifically launched to coincide with these next-generation machines.

    For consumers, there are additional issues around guarantees and return of faulty goods. Then there is the question of possible criminality. This is an international issue; scalpers work across borders. Questions must be asked about how they generate funds to make these large-scale purchases online. What are the profits that are generated from this? What are they used for? It could be that we are moving into the area of potential money laundering, organised crime, tax evasion and fraud.

    As the House can see, this is a situation that has grown arms and legs. It is out of control and it is only going to get worse. This is not some niche issue, or even a mere annoying inconvenience. My office has been fielding inquiries and this Bill has had wide media coverage in the specialist gaming and tech publications, but also mainstream media coverage in France, Spain, the USA, Japan and, yesterday, Bangkok.

    This is an opportunity for this Parliament to lead the way globally and introduce legislation that is about consumer rights, consumer protection and fairness in the marketplace. Scalpers have all the advantages. They hold all the cards and they can currently act with impunity, making huge profits in the process. Now is the time for the UK Government to take a firm stance on this cyber malpractice, to step up and act on behalf of the consumer, to draw a clear line and put in place the necessary legislation. Let us put a stop to these automated bots bulk-buying these consoles for resale. Let us act to stop the wilful scalping of virtual shoppers and end the bot monopoly. In conclusion, I say to the Government: let us put the consumer back in control.

  • Steve Reed – 2021 Speech on Liverpool City Council

    Steve Reed – 2021 Speech on Liverpool City Council

    The text of the speech made by Steve Reed, the Labour MP for Croydon North, in the House of Commons on 23 March 2021.

    I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and the report and, indeed, for his openness with me throughout the process.

    This report raises grave and serious concerns about decision making in key functions of Liverpool City Council. All councils are under an obligation to meet their best value duty to ensure value for money at all times. In these respects, Liverpool City Council has been found severely wanting. Labour, both here and our leadership at the city council, accepts this report in full. The council will respond to the letter from the Secretary of State in detail, but we support his intention to appoint commissioners, not at this stage to run the council, as he says, but to advise and support elected representatives in strengthening the council’s systems.

    This is a measured and appropriate approach. I want to reassure people in Liverpool that it does not mean that Government Ministers are coming in to run their city directly. This is not, as some would put it, a Tory takeover. It is about the Government appointing independent people of the highest professional standing to help the council improve as quickly as possible, and intervening directly only if the council’s elected leaders fail to implement their own improvement plan.

    Investigations are currently under way into matters raised in the report and I will not pre-empt them. I do, however, want to reiterate my party’s absolute commitment to protecting the public interest at all times and upholding the highest possible standards in public life. Given the concerns raised in this report, the general secretary of the Labour party intends to appoint a senior figure to lead a review, and reassure the people of Liverpool that the Labour party takes these concerns seriously and will take action against anyone in our ranks who was involved in wrongdoing of any kind. Our councillors in Liverpool have already met senior Labour councillors from other parts of the country who will support them in strengthening the city council’s defences against any risk of fraud.

    The overwhelming majority of councillors and frontline staff will be shocked by what they read in this report. As the report and the Secretary of State have made clear, the severe institutional weaknesses identified do not obscure the outstanding work they have all done together over many years. The Prime Minister was right to praise the council’s impressive work in getting the city through the pandemic, and I want to add my thanks to everyone who continues to play a part in that. In particular, the report praises the council’s chief executive, Mr Tony Reeves, and I offer my support to him and to the acting mayor, Councillor Wendy Simon, for the work they have already started to put things right. I would also like to put on record my thanks to Mr Max Caller and his team for putting this very important report together.

    This is a moment for change, and I know that everyone who cares about the great city of Liverpool and its wonderful people will accept this report and use it to strengthen the council for the future.

    Robert Jenrick

    Can I thank the hon. Gentleman for the remarks he has just made and for the way in which we have worked together over recent months? He has been most helpful and constructive, and I hope that can continue. I thank him on behalf of the Government for the remarks he has made with respect to the Labour party and the Labour group on Liverpool City Council, which are extremely welcome. The step we have taken today is unusual, and it is better to do it in a cross-party way. We all share the same interests, which are the delivery of public services, ensuring that the people of Liverpool get the value for money and the council that they deserve, and ensuring that the city can attract the inward investment, regeneration and good-quality development that it certainly needs and that we want to see delivered as we come out of the pandemic.

    The hon. Gentleman was right—I thank him again—to highlight the praise for the chief executive, Tony Reeves, who has done an outstanding job. In my remarks earlier, I praised his conduct and that of the other statutory officers at the council. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that this report focuses on particular functions of Liverpool City Council and does not comment on the wider delivery of public services in the city by the council. There is no reason to question the delivery of adult services, children’s services or other important functions that people in the city rely on. He is also right to praise the work of many people in Liverpool, including within the city council, in their response to the covid-19 pandemic.

    I would underline my remarks once again that this is a report about Liverpool City Council. It is not about the neighbouring councils across Merseyside, and neither is it any reflection on the Mayor of the Liverpool city region, Steve Rotheram, to whom I extend my thanks once again for his co-operation and support. It is right that we take this action, and I hope that we can continue to work together on it. None of us does this lightly. Localism is our objective, but localism does require local accountability, transparency and robust scrutiny, and that I hope is what we can now achieve.

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)

    I would just like to say before I call any other Members that, although a number of individuals are under investigation, I understand that there have been no charges. There is therefore no sub judice involved, but I would caution Members not to compromise any of the ongoing investigations in anything they may or may not say.

    Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) [V]

    I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today and welcome the steps he has outlined in relation to Liverpool City Council. I welcome the steps he is taking to preserve the good name of local government, too. I regularly hear from constituents with concerns about the level of commercial activity that councils are now undertaking. Does he agree with me that some of the transactions are incredibly complicated and well beyond what councils would have traditionally been involved in, and that external audit and public scrutiny need to be reviewed and greatly improved to protect taxpayers’ interests?

    Robert Jenrick

    My hon. Friend raises an important point. We asked a lot of local councils, and we will do so once again as we come out of the pandemic. We want them to be regenerating town and city centres and investing in new housing, but we want them to do so carefully and not to invest in risky investments or transfer toxic assets from the private sector to the public sector. We have taken action as a Government through reforming the Public Works Loan Board. We are providing further guidance to local councils, including through the work of the report we commissioned from Sir Tony Redmond, to ensure that the sector improves the way it handles this situation. The allegations made against Liverpool City Council are of a different magnitude to the ones that we have seen in other parts of the country, so I do not want to draw direct comparisons, but there is more work to be done with some other local authorities as well.

    Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]

    This is clearly a very serious situation. It is obviously a very major step to take powers away from elected representatives, so I really appreciate and accept the proportionate and correct response from the Secretary of State, as well as from the shadow Secretary of State. I also appreciate the Secretary of State’s comments about the many hard-working staff in Liverpool, including the chief executive, who bear no blame for this crisis, and his comments about the generally excellent performance of local government as a whole. The Secretary of State has set out very clearly his list of requirements from the city council and by when he expects them to be met. How will monitoring against these requirements be undertaken and how will Parliament be updated about them? Of course it goes without saying that if there is anything the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee can do to assist in that process, we stand ready to do so.

    Robert Jenrick

    I am grateful to the Chair of the Committee. I would be happy to work with him should he require any further information or wish to discuss this matter further. If we go ahead with the proposal that I have made today, then the commissioners, once appointed, would report to me on a six-monthly basis and I would be happy to keep the House informed of the information they provide to me. We will ensure that there is an improvement plan in place for the city that is produced by the newly elected Mayor and their cabinet and supported by Liverpool City Council, but advised and guided by the commissioners. Then it will be absolutely essential that that plan is delivered. It will be for all of us in this House, and particularly for those Members of Parliament representing parts of Liverpool, to hold the council to account for the successful delivery of the plan. Our objective is to restore public confidence in the council as quickly as possible so that residents can have confidence that they have a well-functioning council in all respects, and so that all the legitimate businesses, developers and people wishing to contract with the council have complete confidence that Liverpool is a city open for business and they can work to drive up the city’s prosperity as we come out of the pandemic.

    Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)

    I praise both Max Caller, who is a superb inspector, and the Secretary of State’s decision to send in commissioners. Although the problems in Liverpool City Council are far worse, in 2018 Max Caller was sent into Northamptonshire to do a best value inspection, and subsequently the Government sent in commissioners. Since that point, under the leadership of Commissioner Tony McArdle and the new political leadership of Councillor Matt Golby, the situation in Northamptonshire County Council has been transformed and its performance has been raised beyond all expectations. Is it not the case that if councillors and officers in Liverpool City Council respond positively to the challenge set to them by the Government, public services in the city can be raised once again to the standards expected of them?

    Robert Jenrick

    My hon. Friend raises a very important point. My predecessors have used their powers of intervention very sparingly. They have done so on a small number of occasions, in Doncaster, Rotherham, Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Northamptonshire. Each occasion was very different, but in most of those cases the intervention has proved successful and has turned councils around. The commissioners will behave sensitively, support the elected leadership of Liverpool City Council, and ensure that confidence is restored, public services are delivered properly, and taxpayer money is spent wisely. This now requires leadership from the politicians in Liverpool—those who will be elected in the local council elections to come. I look forward to working with them, and if we do appoint commissioners, I expect the commissioners to work with them constructively and productively at all times.

    Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)

    I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

    I will read the report in full today when I receive it. It has been a great honour to work alongside many Liverpool councillors and council staff who worked so tirelessly to protect the people of Liverpool before and during the pandemic and, indeed, who have been recognised for that work in this Chamber. Will the Secretary of State assure my great city and its people that this crucial work, on which so many of our constituents rely, will continue and that these vital services will be both resourced and protected?

    Robert Jenrick

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. I share his thanks and his praise for many of the staff of Liverpool City Council, and for the good work over the year done by the wider health and social care sector across the region, which the Health Secretary, the Prime Minister and I have praised on many occasions. We want to ensure they continue to have resources, and we want all of government to see this as a moment in which, far from stepping away, we should redouble our efforts to support the city through a potentially difficult period.

    I will be convening my Cabinet and ministerial colleagues in the coming days to reiterate that message and to ask them to do even more to support Liverpool. There has been good news in recent weeks, including from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that Liverpool was successful in its application for freeport status. That is just one example of good news and investment that I hope will take the city forward in the years to come.

    Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)

    I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. It is clear that too many senior people at Liverpool City Council failed that great city during this pandemic, but it is not just Liverpool. Nottingham City Council has given its councillors a bumper pay rise, even after bankrupting the council. Durham County Council, Labour run for 102 years, is spending £50 million-plus on a new county hall on a floodplain and, at the height of the pandemic last year, it approved a new 3,500 square feet roof terrace for itself. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that shows it is not only in Liverpool that the Labour party has its priorities wrong and Labour councillors are putting themselves above the people they serve?

    Robert Jenrick

    All councils have a fundamental duty to their residents to provide good value for money. At the heart of our decision to intervene in Liverpool, and to commission Max Caller and his report, was persuasive evidence that it was falling below that standard, and that is what Max Caller has indeed concluded today. All councils need to ensure they are providing good-quality public services and are taking care with the money entrusted to them. I hope we can correct the situation in Liverpool, which has now gone on for too long, and that other councils across the country in different situations also take note and take particular care when spending the public’s money.

    Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)

    I also pay tribute to the incredible staff at Liverpool City Council at this very difficult time. I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House today, and I hope he will agree to meet the five Members representing Liverpool at the earliest opportunity.

    I, for one, do not doubt the seriousness of the issues that have been raised today, and I look forward to receiving a copy of the Caller report. That public resources have been put at risk is deeply worrying, because resources are needed for investment in the vital services on which my constituents depend, even more so at a time when funding has been cut year on year. Will the Secretary of State take this chance to reassure my wonderful city, and anyone concerned, that commissioners will be totally independent and their focus will be on working in the interests of the people of Liverpool?

    Robert Jenrick

    I certainly can. The commissioners will be appointed by me and will report to me. Their task is to support the city and its elected leadership to ensure that a good and credible improvement plan is brought forward and implemented as quickly as possible, and that the mistakes, errors and omissions of the past are put right, so that confidence can be restored to the city and the hon. Lady’s constituents can know and have confidence that they have a well-functioning city council and we can move forward as swiftly as possible.

    I share the hon. Lady’s support for the city. It is a great city, and it deserves a good, functioning city council, which is exactly what we want to achieve.

    John Howell (Henley) (Con) [V]

    Does this sad but very welcome action not send a firm indication to all councils that we will step in where irregularities over best value, particularly in planning, occur? Will my right hon. Friend comment on his remarks about the need for whole-council elections, and does that mark a change across the whole country, in trying to rid ourselves of those councils that go for elections every year?

    Robert Jenrick

    The report that we have laid today makes two specific recommendations with regard to Liverpool City Council, as I outlined earlier, first recommending that we move as swiftly as possible to whole-council elections, and secondly recommending single-member wards. That recommendation will, subject to the views of those who come forward over the coming weeks, be implemented, but I agree that it has wider application. A thread that we have seen in a number of failed councils has been a lack of scrutiny and accountability for members where they have been in multi-member wards and where having elections time and again in thirds has led to a lack of scrutiny and a lack of focus in the council. I would like to see more councils take note of these recommendations and implement them.

    Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)

    I am a very proud Scouser, but listening to the Secretary of State read the contents of this damning report makes me angry, as it will the whole city when the report is made public. But we are a resilient city, and we will fight back from this. The city deserves a well-run council, with stronger, more transparent governance procedures, that is more able to manage public finances. Important steps have been made to right the wrongs at the council by the current chief executive, Tony Reeves, and the acting Mayor. Can the Secretary of State confirm the timetable for the proposed intervention by commissioners? Will that be reviewed and monitored, and reduced if progress is made at speed? What role will the chief executive and the elected councillors who have supported our community so well during this crisis play in rebuilding the public’s trust?

    Robert Jenrick

    Like her fellow Liverpool colleagues, I thank the hon. Lady for the way in which spoke. The timetable for the period ahead is that the report is now available for members of the public, colleagues in Parliament and the council to review and consider at length. The council has until 24 May to revert to me with comments and representations. We have chosen a longer than normal period, reflecting the fact that the local elections will now take place, to give the new council and the newly elected Mayor the time after the local elections have concluded to meet to consider this and make those representations to me. Once those representations have been made, I will consider them carefully and decide whether to proceed with the proposal that I have outlined today or to change it in any way, and I will then revert to the House with my final decision. If that is to appoint commissioners, we will set out the process and the names of the individuals I have chosen.

    Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]

    The allegations that my right hon. Friend describes will be familiar to many residents of Sandwell borough. As a former local councillor, I know how important it is that elected members are able to both guide and scrutinise officers. Does he think that Liverpool city councillors have been unable to do that in this instance due to lack of powers, lack of capacity or lack of capability?

    Robert Jenrick

    I recommend that my hon. Friend reads the report by Max Caller, which sets out his observations, having spent the last three months working in and around the council and having dozens, if not hundreds, of conversations and interviews with councillors and officers. He concludes that the council needs to raise its game substantially in respect of some officers and also some elected members; that there needs to be much greater scrutiny and accountability; that there needs to be much greater care in the way that those elected members manage public money and how they manage directly owned and operated companies that the council has chosen to use; and that it needs a greater sense of vision for the future and a business plan for its activities. There is a great deal of work ahead for those individuals who are elected in May, and I hope that they will show the leadership that is required to turn the city around. It will be a big task, but we are here to support them.

    Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)

    I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. As he knows, my constituency of Southport, although not in the Liverpool city area, is part of the Liverpool city region. Given our proximity, this situation is causing alarm to my constituents. Will he take further action to allay any fears that my constituents have about our own local authority, and will he meet me to discuss better scrutiny arrangements for local authorities such as mine to give further reassurance to constituents?

    Robert Jenrick

    I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend, and I should have said in answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) that I would of course be happy to meet Liverpool city Members too. I believe that they met the Local Government Minister earlier today, but I would be happy to have a further conversation with them. I should say again that this report is specific to Liverpool City Council—it is not a comment on the neighbouring councils that make up the Liverpool city region—but I understand that my hon. Friend may have concerns about his own council, and I would be happy to discuss those.

    Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) [V]

    I am grateful to the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), for their statements. We all appreciate the seriousness of the situation. Clearly, we need to see real change and robust new safeguards that guarantee transparency and accountability, but the people of Liverpool must be part of that process. This week, I have been contacted by local people concerned that sending commissioners into Liverpool amounts to a takeover by Whitehall, so will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to outline to my constituents how their voice and their democratic rights will be respected?

    Robert Jenrick

    The elections will go ahead in May, and they will see the election of a new directly elected Mayor. They will also see new councillors elected to the council, and the cabinet appointed by the new Mayor. It is important, first, that those individuals make representations to me about the report and what they want to see happen. Depending on the ultimate course of action that I take, having listened carefully to those views, if we do choose to appoint commissioners, as I have proposed today, those commissioners will be going to Liverpool to stand behind the elected Mayor, the cabinet and the elected members of the city council—not to tell them what to do but to guide and support them.

    I very much hope that the members elected by the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will rise to the occasion and drive the change and reform that is needed on the city council, and that the commissioners will never need to exercise their powers. We have given them the authority to act should they need to, given the seriousness of some of the allegations, but it is not our hope or expectation that those powers will be exercised.

    Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]

    As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), said, my party supports the seven Nolan principles on standards in public life, be it in town halls or Whitehall, underpinning the councillors’ code of conduct and the ministerial code. The Standards Board, which promoted high ethical standards in local government and oversaw the nationally imposed code of conduct, was abandoned in 2012 by the Secretary of State’s Government. Considering today’s statement, does he think that was a mistake?

    Robert Jenrick

    A significant piece of work has been undertaken by the Committee on Standards in Public Life with respect to the way ethics and standards are applied in local government at all levels, from parish councils, where unfortunately we do, very rarely but on occasion, see issues of misconduct, bullying and harassment, right the way up to larger councils of the scale of Liverpool City Council. I am carefully considering the committee’s views on how we should proceed, and we will respond in due course, setting out the Government’s view and the actions that we are minded to take to ensure that there are always correct processes and always routes for redress, regardless of who is at stake. I think that will provide many of the answers to the right hon. Lady’s questions.

    Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)

    The report outlined by my right hon. Friend mentioned a number of very serious failings by Liverpool City Council over many years. Does he agree that, in addition to the steps being taken to improve the council’s financial position, an entirely new culture needs to be embedded at the council that puts residents and Liverpool first?

    Robert Jenrick

    Yes, the report is clear that a major cultural change is required at the council. Mr Caller concludes that that will require radical change both by some members and some officers, and I hope that those steps will now be taken. They are absolutely essential if we are going to restore confidence in the council. That is our objective. I am sure that it is the objective of most reasonable people in the city of Liverpool, and we will be working together to achieve it.

    Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]

    I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

    Having served as a local councillor, I have seen the positive difference that local government can make in our communities, despite tough financial circumstances. I know that there will be thousands of councillors and council officers going above and beyond during the pandemic—including in Liverpool—who will be shocked and saddened by the report’s findings and today’s announcement. Would the Secretary of State agree that today’s announcement is the exception, not the norm, for local government, so that we can reassure those from across all our political parties who are standing for election in May and who want to do the right thing by serving their local communities to the best of their abilities?

    Robert Jenrick

    The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point; it is one that I made in my opening remarks. This is a rare intervention. Interventions of this nature have been made on only a handful of occasions in the last 20 years. We do so carefully and with a heavy heart, but because it is necessary to ensure that this council can reform and change its ways and that we can ensure that people in Liverpool get the good-quality government that they deserve. This is not a reflection on local government more generally across this country. In fact, we are taking this action to defend the good name of local government across the country, and I pay tribute to officers and councillors the length and breadth of England for the good work they do day in, day out.

    Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]

    I thank the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), for the comments that they made in a bipartisan manner. Clearly, one of the issues of concern to Liverpool residents will be what extra costs may be borne as a result of this decision. Clearly, the commissioners may be in place for some considerable period of time, so will my right hon Friend reassure us that Liverpool council tax payers will not be picking up the costs of these commissioners, if they are duly appointed, and that if the commissioners recommend further proposals to him on expenditure, he will consider those appropriately?

    Robert Jenrick

    The costs of the report that has been undertaken by Max Caller and of the commissioners will be borne by Liverpool City Council. However, I expect that the work to come will save the taxpayers of Liverpool a great deal of money, because underlying the report by Mr Caller is the sense that many millions of pounds have been wasted as a result of mismanagement by the city council, and I very much hope that we can put that right.

    Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)

    Newspaper headlines in this kind of situation can often make it appear that a whole council or, indeed, a whole city is being traduced, so I welcome the Secretary of State’s recognition that there are a number of good people in the council doing a good job. I also welcome his emphasis on partnership moving forward because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) said, no one likes to feel that things are being done to them, and it will be much better all round if this is done in a collegiate manner.

    I want to ask about transport. Many of my constituents use Merseytravel facilities to get to work and visit families. The Secretary of State did not expressly refer to that in his statement. Does he know whether that was looked at as part of this investigation?

    Robert Jenrick

    I do not believe that was looked at as part of this investigation. The highways function of Liverpool City Council was investigated by Mr Caller. He has made some remarks on some of its processes and contracts that have been entered into with regard to that function, but I do not believe that he has looked at the broader transport network across the Liverpool city region or made any comment one way or another on that.

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)

    We now go by video link—

    Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)

    Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

    Mr Deputy Speaker

    I was not expecting that link. I was expecting Tim Farron, but you are clearly not Tim Farron! It has been switched again. I call Wera Hobhouse.

    Wera Hobhouse

    Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Not so long ago, Liverpool was the European capital of culture, under the Liberal Democrats, and it is a shame to see it in its current position as a result of the failings of Labour government. I know that my council colleagues, who have a lot of experience on Liverpool City Council, will do their utmost and co-operate to turn the city around. Many of the problems in Liverpool have been caused by creating the post of Mayor, concentrating a lot of power in one hand. Will the Secretary of State make sure that the people in cities and city regions have a democratic choice on whether they want to have an elected Mayor or not, and not leave the decisions to councils and politicians?

    Robert Jenrick

    I hope that, given the remarks the hon. Lady has just made, she is supporting the report that Max Caller has produced and our proposed intervention, and that the Liberal Democrat group on Liverpool City Council will make similar comments to those made on behalf of the Labour group on the council by the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed). The report concludes that the issues faced by the city council are much greater than one individual and much wider than simply the role of elected Mayor, so I do not think it would be correct to say that this issue emanates from the decision to have an elected Mayor. However, the hon. Lady is correct to say that that creates a degree of concentration of power, which means that accountability and scrutiny are all the more important. I very much hope that that will be corrected as a result of the work to come.

    Mr Deputy Speaker

    You are keeping me on my toes, Wera. Well done.

    Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) [V]

    I am shocked by the findings that the Secretary of State has outlined to the House today and I assure him that I will read the report extremely carefully once it is published. Does he agree that the priority now must be to protect Liverpool council tax payers’ money and the services the people of Liverpool rely on? Does he also agree that it is in the public interest to put in place effective procedures for obtaining best value in all that the council does going forward? Given that the council is to pay the costs of the interventions, as he has set out, is there an opportunity, if swift improvement is made, for the intervention to be shorter than the three years he has set out today?

    Robert Jenrick

    I am grateful, once again, for the constructive way in which the hon. Lady has approached this issue, like her fellow Liverpool MPs today. The intervention I am proposing is for a maximum of three years, so she is correct to say that there is no need for the commissioners, if they are put in place, to be there for that full term if progress is made faster than that. They will report to me on a six-monthly basis. We can review the matter on each of those occasions, and I will keep the hon. Lady and her colleagues fully informed of my decisions on each occasion. She is absolutely right to say that our sole interest here is the people of Liverpool, the taxpayers of Liverpool, and ensuring that their public services are delivered properly, their money is safeguarded and the city is one in which people feel complete confidence to invest, do business and work with the city council. I hope that, together, that is exactly what we can achieve.

    Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)

    The report concludes that the cycle of elections in Liverpool reduces scrutiny and inhibits long-term focus. Of course this problem is not just unique to Liverpool. For example, Calderdale, where I was formerly a councillor, is one of the handful of local authorities still yet to approve a local development plan, 10 years into the process. The Labour administration there kicks the can down the road from year to year because it elects in thirds. To help avoid the issues in Liverpool being replicated elsewhere, would the Secretary of State support a review of the current electoral cycle in metropolitan borough councils?

    Robert Jenrick

    I will give further thought to my hon. Friend’s suggestion, but I agree that it would be better for councils to move to all-out elections, and—unless there are exceptional reasons to the contrary—it would be better if councillors were elected in single-member wards. Max Caller’s report clearly makes that recommendation for Liverpool, and he had made that recommendation in the past, having witnessed dysfunctional councils with poor scrutiny and accountability in other parts of the country. It seems to be a thread running through those councils that have got into extreme difficulties. That is something we should reflect on, and I will refer to it in due course.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2021 Statement on Liverpool City Council

    Robert Jenrick – 2021 Statement on Liverpool City Council

    The statement made by Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons on 24 March 2021.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about Liverpool City Council.

    Merseyside police have been carrying out an investigation involving a significant link with Liverpool City Council. Last year, this led to arrests on suspicion of fraud, bribery, corruption, misconduct in public office and witness intimidation. On 17 December, I informed the House that, additionally, persuasive evidence had been presented to me regarding the council’s planning, highways, regeneration, property management functions and associated audit and governance arrangements.

    In light of that evidence, I commissioned Max Caller to conduct a best value inspection of the council. I want to thank Max and his assistant inspectors, Vivienne Geary and Mervyn Greer, for their thorough and evidence-based review. I have today placed a copy of their report in the Library of the House.

    The report paints a deeply concerning picture of mismanagement, the breakdown of scrutiny and accountability, and a dysfunctional culture, putting the spending of public funds at risk and undermining the city’s economic development. The report identifies multiple apparent failures by Liverpool City Council in complying with its best value duty. This includes: a failure of proper and due process across planning and regeneration, including a worrying lack of record keeping—indeed, documentation had sometimes been created retrospectively, discarded in skips, or even destroyed—a lack of scrutiny and oversight across highways, including dysfunctional management practices, no coherent business plan, and the awarding of dubious contracts; a failure of proper process relating to property management, including compliance with the council’s own standing orders, leading to a continued failure to correctly value land and assets, meaning that taxpayers frequently lost out. When selling land, the report states that Liverpool City Council’s best interests were not on the agenda. There were also poor governance arrangements for council-operated companies and an overall environment of intimidation, described as one in which

    “the only way to survive was to do what was requested without asking too many questions or applying normal professional standards.”

    The review finds that there was a fundamental failure by members to understand and appreciate the basic standards governing those in public service and, with no regular ethics or standards committee and no means of monitoring complaints effectively, there was no established way to hold those falling below those acceptable standards to account.

    As a whole, the report is unequivocal that Liverpool City Council has failed in numerous respects to comply with its best value duty. It concludes that the council consistently failed to meet its statutory and managerial responsibilities and that the pervasive culture appeared to be “rule avoidance”. It further concludes that changes need to be radical and delivered at pace, and that there was no confidence that the council itself would be able to implement these to any sensible timescale. There may also be further issues of which we are not yet aware, and the report is careful not to speak to matters that might compromise the ongoing police investigation.

    I want to underline that the report is not a verdict on all the staff working at Liverpool City Council. In fact, it commends the hard work and dedication of many. The report is also clear that the current chief executive, Tony Reeves, and statutory officers have taken positive remedial steps, and I wish to thank Tony for his dedication and service. Neither does it comment on the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, Mayor Steve Rotheram, or other councils in Merseyside.

    Despite the good work undertaken by Mr Reeves, there is a clear picture showing that there has been a serious breakdown of governance at the council. If unchecked, it will allow improper conduct to persist, further undermining public confidence and putting public services at risk. It will damage the city’s ability to attract investment from reputable developers and investors for regeneration, or to take full advantage of new economic opportunities, such as the recent successful application for freeport status.

    Expressed in formal terms, I am satisfied that the council is failing to comply with its best value duty. Therefore, I need to consider exercising my powers of intervention to secure compliance with the duty. To that end, in line with the procedures laid down in the Local Government Act 1999, I am writing today to the council asking it to make representations, both on the inspector’s report and on a proposed intervention package. This package is centred on putting in place commissioners, whom I will appoint to exercise certain and limited functions of the council as required for a minimum of three years.

    I am also proposing that the council will, under the oversight of the commissioners, prepare and implement an improvement plan. This would require the following provisions: within six months, to approve a suitable officer structure providing sufficient resources to deliver the council’s functions in an effective way, including the improvement plan and its monitoring and reporting; within 12 months, to review and change the council’s constitution; within 24 months, to conduct a review of the roles and case for continuing with each subsidiary company of Liverpool City Council; to create a detailed structure and strategy for the highways function; to establish a plan to deliver an effective file management system; to implement a programme of cultural change, so both members and officers understand their roles, and so that the council’s activities are regulated and governed, and breaches are rectified swiftly; and to require the consent of commissioners before either member or officer level agrees heads of terms for any property transaction and subsequent consent before any legally binding commitment is entered into.

    I also propose to direct that prior agreement of commissioners must be obtained to any dismissal or suspension of statutory officers or the assistant director of governance, audit and assurance, or equivalent. Furthermore, any appointments to positions designated as a statutory officer or the head of internal audit must be conducted under the direction of, and to the satisfaction of, the commissioners.

    I hope and expect Liverpool City Council to take the lead in this path to improvement. However, given the gravity of the inspection findings, I must consider what would happen if the council fails to deliver the necessary changes at the necessary speed. I am consequently proposing to direct the transfer of all executive functions associated with regeneration, highways and property management at the authority to the commissioners. These are for use should the council not satisfy the commissioners in their improvement processes. As I say, I hope it will not be necessary for the commissioners to use those powers, but they must, in my view, be empowered to do so to deliver the reforms that are required. The commissioners will report to me at six-monthly intervals on progress being made.

    The report also considers the impact of the council’s cycle of elections, where every year is an election year, concluding that this system reduces scrutiny and inhibits long-term focus. It recommends that the council should move to “all-out elections”, and for the council’s size to be reconsidered. Accordingly, I am also proposing to use my powers under the Local Government Act 2000 to provide for Liverpool City Council to hold whole-council elections for the first time from 2023. That will be in addition to proposals for a reduced number of councillors, elected on single-member wards, which the report also recommends. I believe it would be preferable to move to a single-member ward system at the earliest available opportunity.

    I am now seeking representations from the council on the report and the decisions I am proposing to take by 24 May. The forthcoming elections will proceed as planned, and the Liverpool City Mayor will be elected on 6 May; the cabinet will then have time to provide its views. If I decide to intervene along the lines I have set out today, I will then make the necessary statutory directions under the 1999 Act and appoint the commissioners, and I will update the House on any conclusions in due course.

    This is a rare occasion when central intervention is required. In addition to the measures I propose today, the Government will work closely with the political, the business and the cultural leadership of the city and with the wider region, including with Steve Rotheram, the Mayor of the Liverpool city region. We will do all we can to support the city as it recovers from the covid-19 pandemic, and to give confidence to those who want to invest in the city, to contract with the council and to do business in Liverpool.

    As the son and grandson of Liverpudlians, I know Liverpool and I appreciate the sense of humour, the loyalty and the warmth of its residents. I also understand the city’s independent spirit, so I am clear that we are embarking on a partnership—to mend a politics that for too long has been rooted in a pervasive and rotten culture.

    I am hopeful that this is the start of a new chapter for Liverpool City Council, because in all of this it is the residents of Liverpool who are being let down, whose regeneration is being undermined, whose taxpayers’ money is being wasted and whose city is being besmirched, rather than cited with municipal pride.

    Despite the rare cases like Liverpool City Council, as a whole, councils in this country have a good record of transparency, probity, scrutiny and accountability. It is a reputation worth protecting. I will take whatever steps are necessary to uphold the good name of local government and to weed out practices that do it down. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Andrew Stephenson – 2021 Statement on HS2 Update

    Andrew Stephenson – 2021 Statement on HS2 Update

    The statement made by Andrew Stephenson, the Minister of State at the Department for Transport, on 23 March 2021.

    I wish to make the following statement:

    Overview

    This is the second bi-annual update to Parliament on the progress of High Speed Two (HS2). It marks one year since the Government gave phase 1 of the scheme, between the west midlands and London, the green light to begin civils construction. The report uses data provided by HS2 Ltd to the HS2 ministerial taskforce for phases 1 and 2a and covers the period between September 2020 and January 2021 inclusive. Copies of this report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

    Covid-19 has made this an incredibly challenging year, and the pandemic has had a devastating effect on individuals, our economy and our communities. However, as we look to the future, with the roll-out of the vaccine firmly under way and a road map out of lockdown now in place, this Government are more committed than ever to “build back better”. HS2 remains at the forefront of our long-term investment plan to better connect people and places, boost productivity and create jobs to help rebalance opportunity across the UK.

    Just as importantly, HS2 will play a pivotal role in creating a greener alternative to regional air and road travel. This is essential if we are to meet our commitment to bring greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050.

    The key achievements of the HS2 programme in this reporting period include:

    Progressing the remaining enabling works and mobilising main civils construction for phase 1 while employing covid-safe working practices.

    Achieving Royal Assent of the Phase 2a High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Bill, cementing in law the Government’s commitment to bring the new high-speed railway to the north of England.

    Evolving our approach to community engagement, including an enhanced complaints procedure to address concerns about how HS2’s impact on communities along the line of route is managed.

    Speedy implementation of over a quarter of the proposed reforms recommended by the land and property review of November 2020, improving the experience of property owners most immediately and directly affected by HS2.

    Supporting over 15,000 skilled jobs and creating more than 500 apprenticeships. Over 2,100 companies now have contracts with HS2 Ltd, with 97% of these being UK-based businesses. At its peak the programme will support over 30,000 jobs and create at least 2,000 apprenticeships.

    Establishing HS2 Ltd’s Environmental Sustainability Committee to strengthen oversight and reporting of efforts to limit and mitigate the environmental impacts from the construction of the railway.

    Planting over 430,000 trees so far, with the number expected to rise to over 730,000 trees by spring 2021.

    Programme update on schedule, affordability and delivery

    Schedule

    Some schedule pressures on phase 1 have emerged from delays in completing enabling works including issues with completing utilities diversions, postponed land acquisition and access during the first covid-19 lockdown, and slower than planned development of detailed designs by the main works contractors.

    HS2 Ltd is currently re-planning its schedule for phase 1 in conjunction with its construction suppliers with a view to mitigating these delays. The schedule pressures reported above will not impact the projected delivery into service date range of 2029 to 2033 set last year, but further cost pressures could still emerge if mitigation activity is required. The re-planning exercise is due to conclude in the spring and I will update Parliament on its outcome in my next report. We should continue to remain cautious of the accuracy of long-range estimates this early in a 10-year programme.

    Affordability

    The overall budget for phase 1, including Euston, is £44.6 billion (2019 prices). This is composed of the target cost of £40.3 billion and additional Government-retained contingency of £4.3 billion. The target cost includes contingency delegated to HS2 Ltd of £5.6 billion for managing the risk and uncertainties that are an inherent part of delivering major projects.

    The target cost for phase 1 remains at £40.3 billion. Around £11.0 billion (actual prices) has been spent to date, including land and property provisions. Approximately £12.6 billion (2019 prices) has additionally been contracted, with the remaining amount yet to be contracted.

    To date HS2 Ltd has drawn £0.4 billion of its £5.6 billion delegated contingency to specific additional costs, which represents 4% of the overall contingency for phase 1, and reflects an increase of £0.2 billion since my last report. HS2 Ltd is currently reporting potential cost pressures of around £0.8 billion over and above this. If these, or other costs, come to pass, then they would be managed from within the existing total budget using the remaining HS2 Ltd delegated contingency. In the case of verified cost increases resulting from covid-19, these will be managed from within the Government-retained contingency.

    The cost pressures currently being reported by HS2 Ltd which may require a call on contingent if not mitigated are:

    An estimate of £0.4 billion, predominantly due to slower than expected mobilisation of main works civils contractors, associated with delays to approvals of designs, planning consents, protester action and some covid-19 impacts.

    As already reported in the autumn report to Parliament, an estimate of £0.4 billion that relates to Euston station remains. Work to consider opportunities, efficiencies and scope reductions to address potential pressures is now under way. This may be an underestimate of the unmitigated pressure, so the Department has asked HS2 Ltd to provide a revised estimate once it has concluded its initial design work on the revised design as set out below.

    My last report to Parliament included £0.4 billion from expected increases in the scope and duration of enabling works. These costs are now expected to be incurred and so are not shown as pressures but have instead been taken into the core cost estimate. They will be funded through surplus provision within HS2 Ltd’s core budget rather than from its delegated contingency. Estimates of the impact of covid-19 are set out below.

    Other pressures will arise as the programme progresses, some of which may crystallise into additional costs that will need to be covered from the contingency within the existing budget, and some of which will be mitigated or avoided.

    Over the last six months HS2 Ltd has made progress on a programme of opportunities for efficiencies designed to identify and realise tangible savings in delivering the agreed scope of phase 1. From a deeper pool of potential opportunities, HS2 Ltd has so far identified up to £0.2 billion to pursue to the next stages of development. Going forward I will report on progress towards realisation of these opportunities as well as the identification of others through this efficiency programme.

    Delivery

    On phase 1 the focus has primarily been on progressing the remaining enabling works and preparatory works, and the start of main works. This includes dedicated power at launch sites for the tunnel boring machines (TBMs) by the M25 and Long Itchington in Warwickshire, and moving two huge modular bridges into place at the Birmingham Interchange station site. The first pair of TBMs, Florence and Cecilia, will launch this summer.

    Elsewhere, progress continues to be made on the four new HS2 stations. At Euston, work is under way to develop an optimised design and delivery strategy, alongside work by the Euston Partnership to integrate the HS2 and Network Rail stations and wider placemaking across the Euston campus. The Department has instructed HS2 Ltd to investigate whether building the station in a single construction stage can speed up delivery and address cost pressures. Notwithstanding this, bringing the station fully back within its existing budget presents a significant challenge. The initial stage of this work is expected to conclude in the coming months, at which point the Government will confirm any design changes and set out their intended way forward at Euston.

    The start of main construction of Old Oak Common station has now been approved and excavation work for the HS2 underground platforms can begin. I also note the High Court’s dismissal of Bechtel Ltd’s legal challenge to the Old Oak Common station construction partner award, which found that HS2 Ltd’s procurement process was in accordance with the rules of the tender and procurement law.

    Tender evaluation is under way ahead of the planned award by the summer of a construction partner for Birmingham Curzon Street station and tendering for a construction partner at Birmingham Interchange station is expected to begin this summer. Budget 2021 announced £50 million of funding to develop transport proposals around Birmingham Interchange. This will be matched by £45 million of funding from Arden Cross Ltd and Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council. This will support the goal of the West Midlands Combined Authority, by reconfiguring planned car parking at the regional hub station, releasing 28 hectares of land space for new businesses, homes and jobs in the area.

    Qualification of bidders is under way for the majority of the rail systems packages for phases 1 and 2a ahead of inviting tenders. HS2 Ltd is finalising the procurement of the new HS2 rolling stock for phases 1 and 2a, with the contract to be awarded later this spring.

    I am a very pleased to report that the HS2 Phase 2a Act, for the section of the route between Lichfield and Crewe, was given Royal Assent in February, after its passage through Parliament. This represents a major milestone for the programme and HS2 Ltd can now begin accessing and acquiring land for the necessary construction works as well as taking forward early environmental and enabling works.

    Phase 2a will bring high-speed services to the north, helping to realise the benefits of the whole programme and to underpin future phases of the scheme, while also supporting regional economic growth through the construction stage.

    Local consultation on the scheme was undertaken during February and I will publish the consultation report in April before detailing the response to its findings in June, following the election period.

    With formal agreement on the scope of the phase 2a scheme now set, the funding and schedule ranges will be finalised alongside the delivery model for the construction works. I will provide more information to Parliament once this work has concluded.

    Before the end of spring, the Department will publish the integrated rail plan for the north and midlands (IRP) which will consider how best to deliver and sequence HS2 phase 2b, Northern Powerhouse Rail, and other major rail schemes including schemes within midlands engine rail such as midlands rail hub, to ensure transformational rail improvements are delivered to passengers and communities more quickly.

    Preparations are under way for a Hybrid Bill for the western leg (Crewe to Manchester) and supporting outline business case (OBC) to be deposited in Parliament in early 2022, or sooner if possible. Further updates on cost and schedule will be provided at the time the OBC is published.

    Impacts from covid-19

    Although covid-19 continues to pose a considerable challenge to the programme, HS2 Ltd and its supply chain continues to adapt positively. In the early stages of the pandemic, HS2 Ltd successfully kept a high proportion of its sites open and operating safely and at the time of writing this report 100% of HS2 sites are open, in part due to the collaboration and innovation between HS2 Ltd and its supply chain through initiatives such as rapid testing and the introduction of new social distancing technology. Health and safety guidance at work sites continues to be rigorously followed and remains under constant review. Nothing is more important than the wellbeing of the communities we are working in and the safety of everyone working on HS2.

    HS2 Ltd’s initial estimates suggest that the financial impact of covid-19 on the cost of delivering phase 1 up to December 2020 is between £0.3 billion and £0.4 billion, largely as a consequence of schedule prolongation from access delays and reduced productivity.

    A proportion of this estimate is already captured within the cost pressures that I have set out above. The full impact of covid-19 on cost and schedule will continue to be assessed, including work to disaggregate covid-19 impacts from other cost and schedule impacts on the programme. The Department will be scrutinising these costs very carefully, and only validated and unavoidable costs arising from covid-19 will be funded from the Government-retained contingency, and therefore covered by the existing HS2 budget. I will continue to update Parliament through my reports as this work progresses.

    Local community impact and engagement

    Since my appointment as Minister for HS2 I have been clear that managing the programme’s impact on communities along the line of the route is one of my key priorities. That is why last autumn I commissioned a detailed review of the acquisition and compensation process for land and property affected by HS2. The conclusions of the review, detailing opportunities for change across a wide variety of policies and activities, were published in November and will ensure that there is a renewed focus on those people who are being directly impacted by the new railway.

    The proposals vary in scale and context, but all seek to improve the experience of property owners most immediately and directly affected by HS2 by improving existing processes and interaction with the public. The Department has worked quickly on implementing the proposals, in close conjunction with HS2 Ltd, the residents’ commissioner (Deborah Fazan) and relevant Government Departments, with 25% now in place. I expect to begin a public consultation later this spring to focus on aspects of the proposals that require further engagement. Alongside the land and property review, I am continuing to engage closely with parliamentary colleagues and the communities they represent.

    Due to the scale and nature of the HS2 project, some impacts of construction on line of route communities are unfortunately unavoidable. This January, at the Transport Select Committee, I heard first-hand how HS2 construction is impacting on communities. The testimonies I heard were powerful and strengthened my resolute commitment to ensure that HS2 Ltd properly informs and consults communities and minimises negative impacts wherever possible. I have therefore tasked HS2 Ltd to look again at the way it engages communities to improve the responsiveness, sensitivity and objectivity of its approach.

    In response, HS2 Ltd is deploying a package of measures to strengthen its community handling approach including:

    A unified single management system for community engagement and complaints handling across HS2 Ltd and the supply chain, so there is a single consistent record for all organisations operating in a single location.

    Additional proactive local communications to provide notice and raise awareness of HS2 activity in impacted communities.

    Shortened HS2 Ltd helpdesk response times so that construction issues can be picked up, assessed and mitigated quickly.

    New area-based delivery unit managers with geographical responsibility for joining up construction contractors and communities to prevent and tackle local issues.

    New briefing materials to alert MPs and councillors of the agreed single points of contact along the phase 1 and 2a routes so issues can be escalated if they are not resolved in the first instance.

    Enhanced engagement and assurance from the construction commissioner (Sir Mark Worthington) and the residents’ commissioner to provide independent advice on potential improvements to HS2 Ltd complaint handling and community engagement operations.

    I have furthermore established a small team of construction inspectors reporting to the Department to support the assurance of the delivery of works along the route. An important part of their role will also be to provide a capability to investigate intractable or persistent construction issues working independently of HS2 Ltd and its suppliers where needed.

    I expect these measures to improve engagement and responsiveness in relation to avoidable impacts of construction on local communities. I will continue to review this and remain committed to taking further action if necessary.

    Environmental Impact

    Another of my key pledges as HS2 Minister is to limit the unavoidable impact of HS2 construction on the natural environment both in terms of direct impacts on biodiversity and its carbon impact.

    The first report of the HS2 Ltd Environmental Sustainability Committee will be published in the autumn. The approach and content of the report will be informed by the global reporting initiative methodology, and will also be shaped by seeking input from Natural England, the Environment Agency, the Forestry Commission, the HS2 Independent Design Panel and members of HS2 Ltd’s Ecology Review Group. The Government have also given a statutory commitment to provide an impact assessment of construction on ancient woodland within the report, building on previously conducted assessments. The environmental impact data in the report will be verified externally.

    Alongside the new Committee, HS2 Ltd launched its “Green Corridor Prospectus” in December, providing information to the public on projects along the route which are being introduced to mitigate and compensate for the environmental impact of HS2’s construction. This includes over 30 projects funded through the community and environment fund, and the business and local economy fund, which add benefit over and above committed mitigation and statutory compensation.

    Further to the commitments made in my last report to support biodiversity improvements on phase 2a, the Department and HS2 Ltd have initiated a study to investigate options to consider whether and how we might move the HS2 phase 2b western leg scheme from seeking no net loss to aiming to deliver net gains in biodiversity.

    HS2 Ltd has become the first UK transport client organisation to achieve PAS 2080 accreditation a gold standard for carbon management across the globe. It will continue its work to reduce carbon emissions during construction and operation ahead of COP26 later this year.

    Forward look

    As well as continued focus on its construction programme for phase 1, the next six months will see HS2 Ltd award contracts for a construction partner at Birmingham Curzon Street and for the supply of the new HS2 rolling stock. Work to identify affordable design and delivery arrangements for Euston station is also expected to progress.

    On phase 2a we will conclude work on a preferred delivery model for the construction stage as well as finalising the funding and schedule ranges for the project’s schedule and cost. Work on the legislation and business case for the phase 2b western leg will also continue and the integrated rail plan will be published this spring.

    I will continue to engage closely with Members of Parliament and will provide my next report to Parliament in October 2021.

    Financial Annex

    Annex A: Six-monthly financial report
    Phase

    Target Cost

    Total Estimated Costs Ranges

    1

    £40.3 billion

    £35.0-£45.0 billion

    Forecast costs by phase

    2a

    Not set yet

    £5.0-£7.0 billion

    2b

    Not set yet

    £32.0-£46.0 billion*

    *Validation of the Phase 2b cost range is ongoing and will be updated to support the bringing forward of separate legislation for the HS2 route into Manchester, in line with the conclusions of the Oakervee review. The range provided excludes scope intended to be funded by other sources such as Northern Powerhouse Rail.

    Phase

    Spend to date**

    2020-21 Budget

    2020-21 Forecast

    1

    £11.0 billion***

    £3.79 billion

    £3.33 billion

    Historic and forecast expenditure

    2a

    £0.4 billion

    £0.18 billion

    £0.13 billion

    2b

    £1.0 billion

    £0.25 billion

    £0.16 billion

    Total

    £12.4 billion

    £4.22 billion

    £3.62 billion

    All figures in 2019 prices, are exclusive of VAT and correct as of 31 January 2021 and made up of a combination of resource and capital spend.

    **Spend to date is represented in outturn prices.

    ***Spend to date includes a £1 billion liability (provision) representing the Department’s obligation to purchase land and property.

  • James Cleverly – 2021 Statement on the Report on Victim Compensation for Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism

    James Cleverly – 2021 Statement on the Report on Victim Compensation for Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism

    The statement made by James Cleverly, the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, in the House of Commons on 23 March 2021.

    In March 2019, the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) appointed Mr William Shawcross as his special representative on UK victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism. Mr Shawcross was commissioned to write an internal scoping report on the subject of compensation for UK victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism. Mr Shawcross submitted his report in March 2020.

    The Government thank Mr Shawcross for his report. Since it was commissioned as an internal scoping report, to provide internal advice to Ministers, and draws on private and confidential conversations held by Mr Shawcross, the Government will not be publishing the report.

    These important issues have needed careful and thorough consideration across Government given the complexity and sensitivity of the issues raised.

    The UK Government reiterate their profound sympathy for UK victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism and indeed for all victims of the Troubles. We recognise the pain and suffering of victims of violent crime, including terrorism, and provide publicly funded support and compensation schemes for those affected.

    The UK Government are clear that the primary responsibility for the actions of the IRA lies with the IRA. Nevertheless, the Gaddafi regime’s support for the IRA was extensive. It is widely documented in the public domain. It involved money, weapons, explosives and training from the 1970s onwards. It helped fuel the Troubles in Northern Ireland and enhanced the IRA’s ability to carry out attacks in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

    The responsibility for providing compensation specifically for the actions of the Gaddafi regime lies with the Libyan state. The Government have therefore repeatedly urged the Libyan authorities, including at the highest levels of the Libyan Government, to engage with UK victims and their representatives, and to address their claims for compensation.

    However, there are clear practical difficulties in obtaining compensation from Libya for Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism. The conflict, political instability and economic instability that have prevailed in Libya for most of the last 10 years since the fall of the Gaddafi regime present particular challenges.

    Mr Shawcross has considered these issues, including the difficulties of defining UK victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism given the extensive nature of Libyan support for the IRA, and the range of proposals for providing compensation to victims. The Government have reflected fully on these issues. The Government’s considered view is that an additional, UK-funded mechanism for providing compensation to victims of the Troubles would not provide accountability for the specific role of the Gaddafi regime in supporting the IRA.

    Mr Shawcross also considered whether compensation for UK victims should be funded from Libyan frozen assets in the UK. Under international law, when assets are frozen, they continue to belong to the designated individual or entity. Frozen assets may not be seized by the UK Government.

    In implementing financial sanctions, the UK is obliged to comply with the relevant United Nations obligations. UN Security Council resolution 2009 (2011) states that the aim of the Libya financial sanctions regime is

    “to ensure that assets frozen pursuant to resolutions 1970 (2011) and 1973 (2011) shall as soon as possible be made available to and for the benefit of the people of Libya”.

    There is also no legal basis for the UK to refuse the release of frozen assets once conditions for delisting or unfreezing those assets set out in UN Security Council resolution 2009 of 2011 are met.

    Therefore, regrettably, the UK has no legal basis to seize frozen Libyan assets or to refuse the release of frozen assets. The Government cannot lawfully use Libyan assets frozen in the UK to provide compensation to victims.

    The UK Government have also considered whether they should provide compensation to victims from public funds, which it may subsequently recoup from Libya. The responsibility for providing compensation specifically for the actions of the Gaddafi regime is the direct responsibility of the Libyan state. It is not therefore for the UK Government to divert UK public funds specifically for this particular purpose.

    Victims of violent crime, including terrorism, occurring in Great Britain can access the criminal injuries compensation scheme, funded by the UK Government, subject to eligibility criteria and time limits. Bereaved family members can access bereavement and funeral payments. In Northern Ireland, victims have access to the Northern Ireland criminal injuries compensation scheme. The Troubles permanent disablement scheme, to be delivered by the Northern Ireland Executive, will provide acknowledgement payments to people living with permanent physical or psychological disablement resulting from being injured in Troubles-related incidents. Details of when the scheme will be open for applications, and how people can apply, will be published by the Northern Ireland Executive.

    The UK will continue to press the Libyan authorities to address the Libyan state’s historic responsibility for the Gaddafi regime’s support for the IRA.

  • Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2021 Speech on the Government’s Plan for Immigration

    Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2021 Speech on the Government’s Plan for Immigration

    The speech made by Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Shadow Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 24 March 2021.

    I am grateful to the Home Secretary for her statement and for advance sight of it. She said in her statement that the asylum system is broken, and she talked about a persistent failure of the rules. They are stark admissions for a Conservative Home Secretary whose party has been in power for 11 years.

    The truth is, we have seen Conservative failure across the board. The Home Secretary mentioned the Windrush generation, while this Government presides over a compensation scheme that their own figures show has helped only 338 people. Then there is the asylum processing system, which is appallingly slow. The share of applications that received an initial decision within six months fell from 87% in 2014 to just 20% in 2019. There is no point blaming others. This is the fault of Conservative Ministers and a failure of leadership at the Home Office, and there has not been the progress we need on the promised agreement with France on dealing with appalling criminal gangs and rises in the horrific crime of human trafficking.

    Yes, the Government policy is defined by a lack of compassion and a lack of competence, and I am afraid that the plans outlined by the Government today look like they are going to continue in exactly the same vein. No wonder the plans outlined have been described as “inhumane” by the British Red Cross. They risk baking into the UK system the callousness, frankly, of this Government’s approach. No wonder, either, that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has expressed concerns about the Government’s understanding of international law.

    The Home Secretary spoke today about the importance of safe and legal routes, yet the resettlement scheme was suspended, and the Dubs scheme was shamefully closed down after accepting just 480 unaccompanied children rather than the 3,000 expected. [Interruption.] The Immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), continues to shout at me; he cannot hide from the Government’s record of the last 11 years. And the Government looked the other way last summer; rather than help children stuck in the burning refugee camp of Lesbos, they turned the other way.

    At the same time, these changes risk making the situation even worse for victims of human trafficking, as it would be even harder to access help in the UK, helping criminal gangs escape justice. Ministers have abolished the Department for International Development, the very Department that helped address the forces that drive people from their homes in the first place—war, poverty and persecution.

    Not only are Government plans lacking in compassion, but the Government do not even have the competence to explain how their plans would work. A central part of the measures briefed out by the Government relies on new international agreements, yet the Home Secretary could not mention one of those agreements that have been concluded this morning. Sources close to the Home Secretary have briefed out ridiculous, inhumane schemes such as processing people on Ascension Island, over 4,000 miles away, and wave machines in the English channel to drive back boats. When the Government recently briefed out plans for Gibraltar and the Isle of Man, they were dismissed within hours.

    The proposals also show that the Government have not woken up to the urgent need to protect the UK against the pandemic and support our health and social care system to rebuild. We have heard the Prime Minister this week be dangerously complacent about a third wave of covid from Europe, and the threat of new variants continues to grow, yet none of the UK Government plans includes measures desperately required to protect the UK. We need world-leading border protections against covid, including a comprehensive hotel quarantine system, yet throughout this pandemic the Government have done too little, too late. The proposals do nothing to address the recruitment crisis in the health and social care system, where urgent changes are needed to help recruit the medical and social care staff to deal with covid and NHS waiting lists.

    The reality is that the measures outlined today will do next to nothing to stop people making dangerous crossings, and they risk withdrawing support from desperate people. The Conservatives have undoubtedly broken the immigration system over the last 11 years, but the reality today is that they have absolutely no idea how to fix it.