labourlist--2020-09-14--WATCH: “We’ve got to stand up for the rule of law,” says Ed Miliband

Labour ’ s Ed Miliband has said “ we ’ ve got to stand up for the rule of law ” and confirmed that Labour will be voting against the internal market bill at its second reading in parliament today .
The opposition frontbencher told Sky News : “ We ’ re going to vote against the bill today in the House of Commons .
We ’ re going to make strong arguments about why it needs to change .
“ We hope other people will join us .
This isn ’ t about Remain or Leave – that argument @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the European Union .
We accept we lost the general election on those issues.
” He added : “ I hope Conservative MPs will join us .
I don ’ t think this is a party political issue , I think this is uniting people across the political spectrum that says ‘ we ’ ve got to stand up for the rule of law ’ .
” On whether Labour will back Tory MP Bob Neill ’ s amendment to the bill , Miliband said : “ We ’ re going to look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forward .
I ’ d prefer we just got rid of the clauses breaching international law .
”

Labour’s Ed Miliband has said “we’ve got to stand up for the rule of law” and confirmed that Labour will be voting against the internal market bill at its second reading in parliament today.
The opposition frontbencher told Sky News: “We’re going to vote against the bill today in the House of Commons. We’re going to make strong arguments about why it needs to change.
“We hope other people will join us. This isn’t about Remain or Leave – that argument has been settled… We’ve left the European Union. We accept we lost the general election on those issues.”
He added: “I hope Conservative MPs will join us. I don’t think this is a party political issue, I think this is uniting people across the political spectrum that says ‘we’ve got to stand up for the rule of law’.”
On whether Labour will back Tory MP Bob Neill’s amendment to the bill, Miliband said: “We’re going to look at that… That might be a way forward. I’d prefer we just got rid of the clauses breaching international law.”


labourlist--2020-09-14--MPs approve controversial internal market bill by 340 votes to 263

Boris Johnson ’ s controversial internal markets bill passed its second reading in the House of Commons tonight by a majority of 77 , with 340 MPs voting in favour of the legislation and 263 votes against .
The bill has been the source of much tension within the Conservative Party after a minister confirmed last week that it could lead to the UK government breaking international law by overriding the Northern Ireland protocol .
The vote saw a small rebellion by Tory MPs , with a number of them abstaining .
Former Chancellor Sajid Javid was among the rebels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was “ not clear ” why the bill was needed .
Starmer did not himself contribute to the Commons debate today as he entered coronavirus self-isolation this morning after being told that a member of his household had showed possible symptoms of Covid-19 .
Standing in for him , Shadow Business Secretary Ed Miliband argued the new law was a risk to the Northern Ireland peace process , saying : “ This is not just legislative hooliganism , it is hooliganism on the most sensitive of issues.
” He added : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this House to tell us today is that his flagship achievement , the deal he told us was a triumph , the deal he said was ‘ oven-ready ’ , the deal on which he fought and won the general election is now contradictory and ambiguous.
” The government has claimed that the internal markets bill is being put forward in order to protect the Good Friday agreement , but the assertion has been heavily criticised by the Labour Party and former Prime Ministers .
Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis admitted to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would “ break international law ” – though said it would only do so “ in a very specific and limited way ” .

Boris Johnson’s controversial internal markets bill passed its second reading in the House of Commons tonight by a majority of 77, with 340 MPs voting in favour of the legislation and 263 votes against.
The bill has been the source of much tension within the Conservative Party after a minister confirmed last week that it could lead to the UK government breaking international law by overriding the Northern Ireland protocol.
The vote produced a small rebellion, with two Tory MPs voting against – Roger Gale and Andrew Percy – and 30 more appearing to abstain, though some will have had no vote recorded without being active abstentions.
Sajid Javid was among the rebels, saying earlier in the day that he was “regretfully unable” to back the bill. No-show MPs also included former cabinet members Geoffrey Cox, Jeremy Wright, Karen Bradley and Julian Smith.
7 DUP MPs voted with the government, plus Independent Dr Julian Lewis who recently had the Tory whip removed. 195 Labour MPs, as well as SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru and Green MPs, voted against the bill.
Starmer did not himself contribute to the Commons debate today. He entered coronavirus self-isolation this morning after being told that a member of his household had showed possible symptoms of Covid-19.
Standing in for him, Shadow Business Secretary Ed Miliband argued that the new law was a risk to the Northern Ireland peace process, saying: “This is not just legislative hooliganism, it is hooliganism on the most sensitive of issues.”
He added: “What the Prime Minister is coming to this House to tell us today is that his flagship achievement, the deal he told us was a triumph, the deal he said was ‘oven-ready’, the deal on which he fought and won the general election is now contradictory and ambiguous.”
The government has claimed that the internal markets bill is being put forward in order to protect the Good Friday agreement, but the assertion has been heavily criticised by the Labour Party and former Prime Ministers.
Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis admitted to the Commons last week that the new bill would “break international law” – though said it would only do so “in a very specific and limited way”.


labourlist--2020-09-14--Labour: Put winter Covid plan in place for care homes now – or risk repeat of crisis

Labour has called on the government to put in place a plan for care homes now as the UK heads into winter – or risk a repeat of the first coronavirus wave crisis that saw tens of thousands of care home residents die with Covid-19 .
Leaked documents from the Department of Health have showed in recent days that Covid rates recorded through satellite tests , almost all of which are done in care homes , have increased four-fold since the start of September to 1,100 new cases a day .
In a letter to Matt Hancock , shadow social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government to create a plan for care homes that will make sure staff have easy access to rapid testing kits and adequate protective equipment .
Calling for a strategy in response to the new data and to deal with a potential second wave over the coming months , Labour ’ s Liz Kendall said : “ Coronavirus has taken an unimaginable toll on elderly and disabled people and their families .
“ Reports that infection rates are beginning to rise in care homes once more are a matter of serious concern .
With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is vital that the government now puts in place a clear winter plan to support social care .
“ The government must learn the lessons from mistakes that have been made so far , and show users , families and staff that social care will be a top priority in the months ahead.
” UK care homes and their residents have been hit particularly hard by the pandemic , accounting for 25 % of all Covid deaths in England .
In Scotland , the figure is closer to 45 % , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour .
Kendall has highlighted the following five key areas in need of attention as part of Labour ’ s proposed care home plan : • “ A guarantee that weekly , rapid testing of care staff will take place ; • “ Ensuring all care workers get the PPE they need ; • “ Urgent additional support for families and support for families to be able to safely visit care homes ; • “ Care homes should be supported by the NHS ; • “ Social care must have the additional resources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” She added : “ Getting on top of the challenges faced by social care ahead of winter is vital – we can not afford for action to protect care homes and other services to be as slow and chaotic as it was at the start of this pandemic.
” In the early weeks of the epidemic , elderly hospital patients were discharged into the community without testing to free up hospital beds .
This led to a rise in cases in care homes and caused 15,000 Covid-19 deaths among their residents .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Statistics in July showed that care homes using private agency and bank staff , who often work across multiple homes , saw radically higher rates of Covid-19 among both patients and staff .
Below is the full text of Liz Kendall ’ s letter to Matt Hancock .
Coronavirus has taken an unimaginable toll on elderly and disabled people , and their families .
There have been almost 27,000 excess deaths in care homes since the start of the pandemic , with at least 15,000 due to Covid-19 .
Millions of families have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing even more to support their loved ones than before .
These appalling figures should serve as a reminder of how quickly the virus spreads amongst those who rely on social care , and the terrible impact on families and care staff .
Reports that infection rates are beginning to rise in care homes once more are a matter of serious concern .
With winter and the flu season fast approaching , it is vital that the government now puts in place a clear winter plan to support social care .
The government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been made so far , and show users , families and staff that social care will be a top priority in the months ahead .
I have sought to be constructive throughout the course of this pandemic and it is within this spirit that I am outlining the action that I believe needs to be taken to protect care services this winter .
This starts with strong leadership .
I once again ask you to appoint a chief care officer to sit alongside the chief medical officer and help provide the national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sector requires .
You should also re-consider disbanding the social care taskforce at such a critical time .
All of the reports and recommendations from the taskforce , and its working groups , should be immediately published so we fully understand the lessons that need to be learnt and what the sector needs for the future .
There are five specific areas where action is now required : • A guarantee that weekly , rapid testing of care staff will take place The shambolic handling of Covid-19 testing for care staff can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first promised weekly testing for all care staff by July 6th .
This was then pushed back to September , and care homes for working-age adults have only just been able to order regular testing from last week .
Weekly testing for home care staff has not yet been put in place , despite community transmission rising and the R rate now above 1 .
Care workers are looking after people who are at especially high risk from Covid-19 , so increasing reports of delays in care homes getting test results back are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must be expanded to all care settings and care staff as soon as possible and this should include home care staff and those who work in supported living .
It also beggars belief that with CQC inspections rightly restarting , there is no commitment to testing CQC inspectors to stop the very people who are supposed to be helping guarantee the quality of care themselves potentially spreading the virus between care homes .
• Ensuring all care workers get the PPE they need One of the worst problems at the start of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers with proper PPE .
I heard repeated reports from care workers who couldn ’ t even get basic masks and were terrified of infecting the people they cared for and their own families .
It is crucial that lessons are learned as care services can not afford to suffer the same PPE shortages again .
Ministers must spell out what steps it has taken to guarantee the supply chain so all care workers routinely get the PPE they need , including care home staff , home care workers , those who work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assistants currently employed via direct payments .
• Families need urgent additional support and must be able to safely resume visits to care homes .
Millions of families have been under huge strain as a result of Covid-19 , with many separated from their loved ones in care homes or pushed to breaking point because of the strain of their unpaid caring responsibilities .
Action must be taken to ensure families get the support they need during coronavirus and beyond .
As a first step , the government must provide local authorities with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carers , including with proper information , advice and crucially access to respite breaks .
A staggering 4.5 million people have taken on new caring responsibilities since the pandemic began .
70 % of existing unpaid family carers say they are spending even more time caring – an extra 10 hours on average a week .
The physical and mental health consequences of this can no longer be ignored .
I have previously written to you to ask that family members of care home residents be given access to regular testing and PPE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in supporting their relatives .
Without family contact , many care home residents have seen their mental and physical health deteriorate , which is particularly true for people with Alzheimer ’ s or dementia .
Guidance from the Department of Health and Social Care should emphasise the value of family visits and that family members should be treated as key workers , with the priority and focus this should bring .
• Care homes should be supported by the NHS At the start of the pandemic , many care homes felt completely abandoned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hospital without proper testing and staff left to provide care outside of their training or expertise .
Ministers must spell out how they will ensure these mistakes are not made again .
It is vital that the NHS has in place a plan to ensure no one with coronavirus is discharged from the hospital into a care home this winter , to prevent a repeat of the terrible impact this had in the first months of this crisis .
The government has promised ‘ enhanced healthcare ’ in all care homes but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GPs , district nurses and other clinicians providing support , care providers tell me this remains patchy with many care homes still having nothing beyond a ‘ named clinician ’ .
In addition , plans to carry out flu vaccinations for people in social care must be shared with providers at the earliest opportunity , with all care homes residents vaccinated as soon as possible .
• Social care must have the additional resources it needs throughout the winter and beyond It is vital that local authorities and care providers have the resources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 .
Social care services were already stretched to the limit , even before the virus struck .
Local authorities and care providers have since faced substantial extra costs , and these increased pressures – especially for staffing and PPE – are likely to increase over the winter months .
You will be aware that the ONS has set out clear evidence that care homes which provide proper sick pay and that are less reliant on bank or agency staff have lower levels of Covid-19 infections .
To protect both care home staff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that care workers can self-isolate when they are asked to do so .
Ministers must explain why the adult social care infection control fund , currently due to finish at the end of September , is no longer needed since the pandemic has not yet gone away .
This Fund has played a key role not just in providing infection control training , but in reducing the use of agency staff moving between homes and spreading the virus .
Alongside an immediate cash injection , social care services desperately need a long-term plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be kicked into the long grass any longer and I urge you to publish a plan for the future funding and provision of social care by the end of the year , as the Prime Minister promised in January .
Getting on top of challenges faced by social care ahead of winter is vital – we can not afford for action to protect care homes and other services to be as slow and chaotic as it was at the start of this pandemic .
I hope you will consider these suggestions in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and would be happy to discuss these in further detail .
I look forward to hearing from you soon .

Labour has called on the government to put in place a plan for care homes now as the UK heads into winter – or risk a repeat of the first coronavirus wave crisis that saw tens of thousands of care home residents die with Covid-19.
Leaked documents from the Department of Health have showed in recent days that Covid rates recorded through satellite tests, almost all of which are done in care homes, have increased four-fold since the start of September to 1,100 new cases a day.
In a letter to Matt Hancock, shadow social care minister Liz Kendall has asked the government to create a plan for care homes that will make sure staff have easy access to rapid testing kits and adequate protective equipment.
Calling for a strategy in response to the new data and to deal with a potential second wave over the coming months, Labour’s Liz Kendall said: “Coronavirus has taken an unimaginable toll on elderly and disabled people and their families.
“Reports that infection rates are beginning to rise in care homes once more are a matter of serious concern. With winter and the flu season fast approaching, it is vital that the government now puts in place a clear winter plan to support social care.
“The government must learn the lessons from mistakes that have been made so far, and show users, families and staff that social care will be a top priority in the months ahead.”
UK care homes and their residents have been hit particularly hard by the pandemic, accounting for 25% of all Covid deaths in England. In Scotland, the figure is closer to 45%, which has led to criticism from Scottish Labour.
Kendall has highlighted the following five key areas in need of attention as part of Labour’s proposed care home plan:
“A guarantee that weekly, rapid testing of care staff will take place; “Ensuring all care workers get the PPE they need; “Urgent additional support for families and support for families to be able to safely visit care homes; “Care homes should be supported by the NHS; “Social care must have the additional resources it needs throughout the winter and beyond.”
She added: “Getting on top of the challenges faced by social care ahead of winter is vital – we cannot afford for action to protect care homes and other services to be as slow and chaotic as it was at the start of this pandemic.”
In the early weeks of the epidemic, elderly hospital patients were discharged into the community without testing to free up hospital beds. This led to a rise in cases in care homes and caused 15,000 Covid-19 deaths among their residents.
A report by the Office for National Statistics in July showed that care homes using private agency and bank staff, who often work across multiple homes, saw radically higher rates of Covid-19 among both patients and staff.
Below is the full text of Liz Kendall’s letter to Matt Hancock.
Dear Matt,
Coronavirus has taken an unimaginable toll on elderly and disabled people, and their families. There have been almost 27,000 excess deaths in care homes since the start of the pandemic, with at least 15,000 due to Covid-19. Millions of families have taken on new caring responsibilities or are doing even more to support their loved ones than before. These appalling figures should serve as a reminder of how quickly the virus spreads amongst those who rely on social care, and the terrible impact on families and care staff.
Reports that infection rates are beginning to rise in care homes once more are a matter of serious concern. With winter and the flu season fast approaching, it is vital that the government now puts in place a clear winter plan to support social care. The government must learn the lessons from mistakes that have been made so far, and show users, families and staff that social care will be a top priority in the months ahead.
I have sought to be constructive throughout the course of this pandemic and it is within this spirit that I am outlining the action that I believe needs to be taken to protect care services this winter.
This starts with strong leadership. I once again ask you to appoint a chief care officer to sit alongside the chief medical officer and help provide the national leadership, focus and attention that the sector requires. You should also re-consider disbanding the social care taskforce at such a critical time. All of the reports and recommendations from the taskforce, and its working groups, should be immediately published so we fully understand the lessons that need to be learnt and what the sector needs for the future.
There are five specific areas where action is now required:
A guarantee that weekly, rapid testing of care staff will take place
The shambolic handling of Covid-19 testing for care staff cannot continue into winter. Care homes were first promised weekly testing for all care staff by July 6th. This was then pushed back to September, and care homes for working-age adults have only just been able to order regular testing from last week. Weekly testing for home care staff has not yet been put in place, despite community transmission rising and the R rate now above 1.
Care workers are looking after people who are at especially high risk from Covid-19, so increasing reports of delays in care homes getting test results back are especially worrying.
Regular and swift testing must be expanded to all care settings and care staff as soon as possible and this should include home care staff and those who work in supported living. It also beggars belief that with CQC inspections rightly restarting, there is no commitment to testing CQC inspectors to stop the very people who are supposed to be helping guarantee the quality of care themselves potentially spreading the virus between care homes.
Ensuring all care workers get the PPE they need
One of the worst problems at the start of the pandemic was the failure to provide care workers with proper PPE. I heard repeated reports from care workers who couldn’t even get basic masks and were terrified of infecting the people they cared for and their own families.
It is crucial that lessons are learned as care services cannot afford to suffer the same PPE shortages again. Ministers must spell out what steps it has taken to guarantee the supply chain so all care workers routinely get the PPE they need, including care home staff, home care workers, those who work in supported living and the 70,000 Personal Assistants currently employed via direct payments.
Families need urgent additional support and must be able to safely resume visits to care homes.
Millions of families have been under huge strain as a result of Covid-19, with many separated from their loved ones in care homes or pushed to breaking point because of the strain of their unpaid caring responsibilities.
Action must be taken to ensure families get the support they need during coronavirus and beyond. As a first step, the government must provide local authorities with resources they need to support unpaid family carers, including with proper information, advice and crucially access to respite breaks. A staggering 4.5 million people have taken on new caring responsibilities since the pandemic began. 70% of existing unpaid family carers say they are spending even more time caring – an extra 10 hours on average a week. The physical and mental health consequences of this can no longer be ignored.
I have previously written to you to ask that family members of care home residents be given access to regular testing and PPE, recognising the vital role they play in supporting their relatives. Without family contact, many care home residents have seen their mental and physical health deteriorate, which is particularly true for people with Alzheimer’s or dementia. Guidance from the Department of Health and Social Care should emphasise the value of family visits and that family members should be treated as key workers, with the priority and focus this should bring.
Care homes should be supported by the NHS
At the start of the pandemic, many care homes felt completely abandoned, with older people being discharged from the hospital without proper testing and staff left to provide care outside of their training or expertise.
Ministers must spell out how they will ensure these mistakes are not made again. It is vital that the NHS has in place a plan to ensure no one with coronavirus is discharged from the hospital into a care home this winter, to prevent a repeat of the terrible impact this had in the first months of this crisis.
The government has promised ‘enhanced healthcare’ in all care homes but whilst there are some excellent examples of GPs, district nurses and other clinicians providing support, care providers tell me this remains patchy with many care homes still having nothing beyond a ‘named clinician’. In addition, plans to carry out flu vaccinations for people in social care must be shared with providers at the earliest opportunity, with all care homes residents vaccinated as soon as possible.
Social care must have the additional resources it needs throughout the winter and beyond
It is vital that local authorities and care providers have the resources they need to meet the challenges of Covid-19. Social care services were already stretched to the limit, even before the virus struck. Local authorities and care providers have since faced substantial extra costs, and these increased pressures – especially for staffing and PPE – are likely to increase over the winter months.
You will be aware that the ONS has set out clear evidence that care homes which provide proper sick pay and that are less reliant on bank or agency staff have lower levels of Covid-19 infections. To protect both care home staff and residents, the government must ensure that care workers can self-isolate when they are asked to do so.
Ministers must explain why the adult social care infection control fund, currently due to finish at the end of September, is no longer needed since the pandemic has not yet gone away. This Fund has played a key role not just in providing infection control training, but in reducing the use of agency staff moving between homes and spreading the virus.
Alongside an immediate cash injection, social care services desperately need a long-term plan for reform. This issue cannot be kicked into the long grass any longer and I urge you to publish a plan for the future funding and provision of social care by the end of the year, as the Prime Minister promised in January.
Getting on top of challenges faced by social care ahead of winter is vital – we cannot afford for action to protect care homes and other services to be as slow and chaotic as it was at the start of this pandemic. I hope you will consider these suggestions in the positive and constructive spirit they are made and would be happy to discuss these in further detail. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Yours sincerely,
Liz Kendall
Shadow Minister for Social Care


labourlist--2020-09-14--Starmer to PM: “Defeat virus” and stop trying to “reopen old wounds over Brexit”

Keir Starmer will use his TUC Congress 2020 speech on Tuesday morning to urge the Prime Minister to “ get on with defeating this virus ” and stop trying to “ reopen old wounds over Brexit ” amid a row over new legislation .
In his speech to the trade union federation conference , the Labour leader is set to call on the government to replace the coronavirus furlough scheme with new mechanisms that can protect jobs and support hard-hit UK sectors .
He also wants the Tories to outlaw ‘ fire and rehire ’ practices , whereby workers are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on worse pay and conditions , and will describe them as “ not just wrong but against British values ” .
Setting out Labour ’ s alternative to the government plan of ending the coronavirus job retention scheme next month in a “ one-size-fits-all ” approach , Starmer will say : “ At this moment of national crisis , we should take inspiration from our past .
“ Be willing to put party differences aside and work together in the interest of the country .
Imagine how powerful it would be if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect jobs , create new ones and investing in skills and training ?
“ I ’ m making an open offer to the Prime Minister : work with us to keep millions of people in work .
Work with the trade unions and work with businesses .
Do everything possible to protect jobs and to deliver for working people.
” On the ‘ fire and rehire ’ practice , which British Airways have been accused by trade unions of using against its workers , the Labour leader will add : “ These tactics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard and harm our economy .
“ After a decade of pay restraint , that ’ s the last thing working people need – and in the middle of a deep recession , it ’ s the last thing our economy needs.
” MPs and former Prime Ministers have criticised the internal market bill in recent days after a minister confirmed last week that the legislation could lead to the UK government breaking international law on Brexit .
Starmer told Boris Johnson over the weekend to “ get Brexit done ” and not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” during a pandemic .
He will similarly tell the Prime Minister tomorrow : “ Get your priorities right .
Get on with defeating this virus.
” The Labour leader will stress the need for a “ genuine national plan ” to prevent mass unemployment that would expand part-time working , target sectors most in need , such as aviation and retail , and offer training to workers .
Paying tribute to the labour movement during the pandemic and recognising that unions proposed the furlough scheme , Starmer will say : “ When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and keeping people safe at work it was the union movement that stood up .
“ Without you , there would have been no furlough scheme .
No life raft for seven million people .
The trade unions have always been the unsung heroes of our national story – and through this crisis you have helped to write another proud chapter.
” Starmer delivered a speech as Shadow Brexit Secretary at TUC Congress 2019 in circumstances not unlike the current situation .
He talked about Boris Johnson “ openly talking about breaking the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be clear that you will follow the law ” .
He will deliver the address this year from home , rather than a studio as planned , as he is self-isolating after being told on Monday morning that a member of his household was showing possible symptoms of Covid-19 .
TUC general secretary Frances O ’ Grady on Monday issued a personal challenge to Rishi Sunak at the opening of the Congress 2020 by telling the Conservative Chancellor to “ stand by working families – don ’ t walk away ” .

Keir Starmer will use his TUC Congress 2020 speech on Tuesday morning to urge the Prime Minister to “get on with defeating this virus” and stop trying to “reopen old wounds over Brexit” amid a row over new legislation.
In his speech to the trade union federation conference, the Labour leader is set to call on the government to replace the coronavirus furlough scheme with new mechanisms that can protect jobs and support hard-hit UK sectors.
He also wants the Tories to outlaw ‘fire and rehire’ practices, whereby workers are given notice of redundancy and later rehired on worse pay and conditions, and will describe them as “not just wrong but against British values”.
Setting out Labour’s alternative to the government plan of ending the coronavirus job retention scheme next month in a “one-size-fits-all” approach, Starmer will say: “At this moment of national crisis, we should take inspiration from our past.
“Be willing to put party differences aside and work together in the interest of the country. Imagine how powerful it would be if we could form a genuine national plan to protect jobs, create new ones and investing in skills and training?
“I’m making an open offer to the Prime Minister: work with us to keep millions of people in work. Work with the trade unions and work with businesses. Do everything possible to protect jobs and to deliver for working people.”
On the ‘fire and rehire’ practice, which British Airways have been accused by trade unions of using against its workers, the Labour leader will add: “These tactics punish good employers, hit working people hard and harm our economy.
“After a decade of pay restraint, that’s the last thing working people need – and in the middle of a deep recession, it’s the last thing our economy needs.”
MPs and former Prime Ministers have criticised the internal market bill in recent days after a minister confirmed last week that the legislation could lead to the UK government breaking international law on Brexit.
Starmer told Boris Johnson over the weekend to “get Brexit done” and not to be “banging on about Europe” during a pandemic. He will similarly tell the Prime Minister tomorrow: “Get your priorities right. Get on with defeating this virus.”
The Labour leader will stress the need for a “genuine national plan” to prevent mass unemployment that would expand part-time working, target sectors most in need, such as aviation and retail, and offer training to workers.
Paying tribute to the labour movement during the pandemic and recognising that unions proposed the furlough scheme, Starmer will say: “When it came to protecting millions of jobs and keeping people safe at work it was the union movement that stood up.
“Without you, there would have been no furlough scheme. No life raft for seven million people. The trade unions have always been the unsung heroes of our national story – and through this crisis you have helped to write another proud chapter.”
Starmer delivered a speech as Shadow Brexit Secretary at TUC Congress 2019 in circumstances not unlike the current situation. He talked about Boris Johnson “openly talking about breaking the law” and urged him to “be clear that you will follow the law”.
He will deliver the address this year from home, rather than a studio as planned, as he is self-isolating after being told on Monday morning that a member of his household was showing possible symptoms of Covid-19.
TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady on Monday issued a personal challenge to Rishi Sunak at the opening of the Congress 2020 by telling the Conservative Chancellor to “stand by working families – don’t walk away”.


labourlist--2020-09-14--Marsha de Cordova criticises government inaction on workplace racism

Labour ’ s Marsha de Cordova has criticised government inaction on workplace racism at a TUC Congress fringe event and noted that “ nothing has been done ” on mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting .
At a Zoom talk hosted by CLASS think tank director Faiza Shaheen , the Shadow Equalities Secretary suggested she also did not “ hold out much hope ” for the government ’ s new race equality commission .
The Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced in June a commission into all “ aspects of inequality ” in response to the Black Lives Matter movement , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying actions , not more inquiries , were needed .
On the new commission , de Cordova said : “ In the past three years this government has led many reviews into racial inequality and racial injustices and many recommendations have been made on the changes that need to happen .
“ A few years ago , it was the race in the workplace review that recommended 26 clear , concise recommendations mostly targeted at businesses that focused on publishing data , providing career pathways and building inclusive networks .
“ But I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at government and it actually called for mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting and even though the government has consulted on this , two years later nothing has been done.
” De Cordova was referring to the 2017 McGregor-Smith Review that found racism and bias affected BAME people at every career stage .
It offered 26 recommendations to the government that have yet to be implemented .
The Shadow Equalities Secretary added : “ Whilst the government also had a golden opportunity to show that it cared and wanted to tackle some of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold out much hope for the commission they ’ ve set up.
” She concluded : “ There have been many reports with 200 recommendations that they could get about implementing and have chosen not .
Racism is systemic and will require systemic solutions.
” The panel featured prominent BAME activists including War on Want executive director Asad Rehman , general secretary of teacher ’ s union NASUWT Patrick Roach and race equality campaigner Sandra Kerr .
Also speaking at the event was Gloria Mills , chair of the TUC Black members committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of racism ” had worsened during Covid and that politicians had been “ fanning the flames of racism ” in recent years .
Responding to the economic struggles faced by BAME people she said : “ There are huge economic injustices , huge economic inequalities and we know that unemployment rates have not changed for the past five decades.
” She added : “ We could do a lot more in the trade union movement .
And this is where I want unions to be more proactive .
Because we need to step @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and we need to speak up more to protect Black workers.
” The fringe talk at the TUC ’ s 2020 Congress was jointly run by the CLASS think tank and TUC Black members committee and focused on racism in the workplace after the launch of the TUC ’ s new anti-racism taskforce .
At her opening address to the 2020 conference , TUC general secretary Frances O ’ Grady called on the government to “ stand by working families ” affected by Covid and offer a targeted extension to the furlough scheme @

Labour’s Marsha de Cordova has criticised government inaction on workplace racism at a TUC Congress fringe event and noted that “nothing has been done” on mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting.
At a Zoom talk hosted by CLASS think tank director Faiza Shaheen, the Shadow Equalities Secretary suggested she also did not “hold out much hope” for the government’s new race equality commission.
The Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced in June a commission into all “aspects of inequality” in response to the Black Lives Matter movement, but Labour criticised the move at the time saying actions, not more inquiries, were needed.
On the new commission, de Cordova said: “In the past three years this government has led many reviews into racial inequality and racial injustices and many recommendations have been made on the changes that need to happen.
“A few years ago, it was the race in the workplace review that recommended 26 clear, concise recommendations mostly targeted at businesses that focused on publishing data, providing career pathways and building inclusive networks.
“But I think the most significant recommendation was aimed at government and it actually called for mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting and even though the government has consulted on this, two years later nothing has been done.”
De Cordova was referring to the 2017 McGregor-Smith Review that found racism and bias affected BAME people at every career stage. It offered 26 recommendations to the government that have yet to be implemented.
The Shadow Equalities Secretary added: “Whilst the government also had a golden opportunity to show that it cared and wanted to tackle some of those racial disparities, I don’t hold out much hope for the commission they’ve set up.”
She concluded: “There have been many reports with 200 recommendations that they could get about implementing and have chosen not. Racism is systemic and will require systemic solutions.”
The panel featured prominent BAME activists including War on Want executive director Asad Rehman, general secretary of teacher’s union NASUWT Patrick Roach and race equality campaigner Sandra Kerr.
Also speaking at the event was Gloria Mills, chair of the TUC Black members committee. She suggested that “the potency of racism” had worsened during Covid and that politicians had been “fanning the flames of racism” in recent years.
Responding to the economic struggles faced by BAME people she said: “There are huge economic injustices, huge economic inequalities and we know that unemployment rates have not changed for the past five decades.”
She added: “We could do a lot more in the trade union movement. And this is where I want unions to be more proactive. Because we need to step up, we need to stand up and we need to speak up more to protect Black workers.”
The fringe talk at the TUC’s 2020 Congress was jointly run by the CLASS think tank and TUC Black members committee and focused on racism in the workplace after the launch of the TUC’s new anti-racism taskforce.
At her opening address to the 2020 conference, TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady called on the government to “stand by working families” affected by Covid and offer a targeted extension to the furlough scheme.


labourlist--2020-09-14--Boris Johnson squirms as Ed Miliband grills him on law-breaking Brexit bill

Boris Johnson squirmed in his seat on the government frontbench this afternoon as Ed Miliband , standing in for Labour leader Keir Starmer , grilled him on the controversial internal market bill being put to the Commons today .
With Starmer self-isolating after being told this morning that a member of his household was showing possible symptoms of Covid-19 , the Shadow Business Secretary and former party leader opened the debate for Labour .
Responding to the Prime Minister ’ s claims that the bill is needed for barrier-free trade with Northern Ireland , Miliband said : “ This bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the transport of food from Great Britain to Northern Ireland .
“ It is about two issues where they ’ re going to override international law .
It ’ s about exit declarations – Northern Ireland to GB – and the definition of state aid relating to Northern Ireland .
“ If the Prime Minister wants to tell us that there ’ s another part of this bill that I haven ’ t noticed that will deal with this supposed threat of a blockade , I ’ ll give way to him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way to him .
“ He can tell us .
I ’ m sure he ’ s read it , I ’ m sure he knows it , I ’ m sure he knows it in detail – because he ’ s a details man .
Come on , tell us , what clause protects protect the threat that he says he is worried about ?
” Boris Johnson did not accept Miliband ’ s invitation to intervene in the debate and clarify why the bill that would give the UK government the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Later in the parliamentary debate , Miliband said of the bill : “ What the Prime Minister is coming to this House to tell us today is that his flagship achievement , the deal he told us was a triumph , the deal he said was ‘ oven-ready ’ , the deal on which he fought and won the general election is now contradictory and ambiguous .
“ What incompetence , what failure of governance .
And how dare he try to blame everyone else ?
This time , he can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he can ’ t blame John Major , he can ’ t blame the judges , he can ’ t sack the civil servants , he can ’ t sack the Cabinet Secretary again .
“ There is one person responsible for it , and that ’ s him .
This is his deal , it ’ s his mess , it ’ s his failure .
For the first time in his life , it ’ s time to take responsibility .
It ’ s time to ‘ fess up .
Either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country about the deal in the first place or he didn ’ t understand it.
” Below is the full text of Ed Miliband ’ s speech .
I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of the leader of the opposition and other right honourable and honourable friends .
There are two questions at the heart of this bill and why will be opposing it tonight .
First , how do we get an internal market after January 1st within the UK while upholding the devolution settlements which have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades and are vital to our Union ?
Secondly , is our country going to abide by the rule of law , a rules-based international order for which we are famous around the world and have always stood up for ?
These are not small questions but go the heart of our character as a country .
Let me start with the first question .
An internal market is vital for trade and jobs at home , but also for our ability to strike trade deals .
And it is the responsibility of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that market .
On this , we agree with the government .
But it must be carried out understanding that the last two decades of devolution settlements were a decision that we would share power across our four nations .
Including devolving key powers over issues like animal welfare , food safety and aspects of environmental legislation .
So we should be legislating for an internal market but in a way that respects the role of devolved governments in having a voice in setting those standards .
What we ’ ve heard from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not the government ’ s approach .
They want to legislate with a blunderbuss approach that does not do that .
And simply says the lowest standard in one parliament must become the standard for all , with no proper voice for devolved governments .
The way through this would have been not just to agree common frameworks , but to legislate for them .
That is what we will be arguing for during the passage of this bill .
These issues were prefigured in the white paper but since then we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Let me say right at the outset .
We want the smoothest trade across our United Kingdom , including Northern Ireland .
There is a way to resolve these issues in the joint committee set up for the purpose .
Only this Prime Minister would think taking a wrecking ball to the NI protocol would be the right way to resolve them .
While I have been part of many issues of contention across this despatch box , I never thought respecting international law would in my lifetime be a matter of disagreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s predecessor but one , David Cameron , as leader of the opposition for five years .
I disagreed with him profoundly on many issues , but I could never have imagined him coming along and saying we are going to legislate to break international law on an agreement we had just signed less than a year earlier as a country .
But that is what this bill does in the government ’ s own words .
Let me address the three questions at the heart of this issue .
Is it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the way the government proposes ?
Is it necessary to do so ?
Will it help our country ?
The answers to each of these questions is no .
Let us first of all start with the principles here .
If there is one thing we are known for around the world , it is the rule of law .
The country of the Magna Carta .
The country that is known for having the mother of all parliaments .
The country that out of the darkness of the Second World War @ @ @ @ @ @ @ global reputation for rule-making , not rule-breaking , is one of the reasons we have been so respected around the world .
When you ask people to think of Britain , they think of the rule of law .
Let ’ s be clear after the PM ’ s speech .
This is not an argument about Remain vs Leave , it is an argument about right vs wrong .
The Brexiteer and former Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord Lamont says the bill is “ impossible to defend ” .
The Brexiteer and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negotiate and signed off this deal as Attorney General , says the bill is “ unconscionable ” .
And the Brexiteer , the Lord Howard , his former boss said : “ I never thought it was a thing I ’ d hear a British minister , far less a Conservative minister , say , which is that the government was going to invite parliament to act in breach of international law… We have a reputation for probity , for upholding the rule of law , and it ’ s a reputation that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safeguarded , and I am afraid it was severely damaged…by the bill.
” The Prime Minister has said many times he wants to bring unity to the country during his premiership .
I therefore congratulate him on having in just one short year united his five predecessors .
Unfortunately , their point of agreement is that he is trashing the reputation of this country and trashing the reputation of his office .
And why are the five former Prime Ministers so united on this point ?
Because they know our moral authority in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rule of law and keeping our word .
We rightly condemn China when it rides roughshod over the treaties dictating the future of Hong Kong .
We say they signed them in good faith .
We say they are going back on their word .
We say they can ’ t be trusted .
And his defence : ‘ Don ’ t worry I can ’ t be trusted either ’ .
And we know from now what they will throw back at us .
That we too don ’ t keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to dispense with each of the government ’ s arguments for why they should be allowed to get away with this and believe me there have been many over the last few days .
I ’ ve lost count .
Let me give the House the top five .
First , let ’ s deal with the argument about blockades which made its first outing in the Telegraph on Saturday from the Prime Minister and it certainly made a big appearance today .
This is as ridiculous an argument as I have heard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is what Article 16 says : “ If the application of the protocol leads to serious , economic , societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist , or to diversion of trade , the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures.
” In the words of the former Attorney General , someone who knows this protocol better than the Prime Minister I think , “ there are clear and lawful responses available to her majesty ’ s government… ” .
Far from upending the protocol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if that wasn ’ t enough , the bill does precisely nothing to address the transport of food from Great Britain to Northern Ireland , it is about exit declarations NI-GB and the narrow definition of state aid relating to Northern Ireland .
It ’ s a completely bogus argument .
Second , he claimed on Wednesday it was necessary to protect the Good Friday agreement .
I have to say I would rather trust the authors of the Good Friday agreement than a Prime Minister who has prominent members of the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what John Major and Tony Blair wrote “ [ the bill ] puts the Good Friday agreement at risk because it negates the predictability , the political stability , and legal clarity that are integral to the delicate balance between the north and south of Ireland that is at the core of the peace process ” .
He may not want to believe them but maybe he will believe himself .
Because this is what he said about the NI protocol : “ there are particular circumstances in Northern Ireland at the border @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that is what they have received in the deal. This is… a great deal for Northern Ireland ” .
This is not just legislative hooliganism , it is hooliganism on the most sensitive of issues .
Third , there was the other argument on Saturday .
It was all a bit of a rush .
Or as the PM says – times were “ torrid ” and “ there was a serious misunderstanding ” .
But they were warned for months about the way the protocol would work .
Like the CDL @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March .
The business secretary at the House of Lords committee in April .
Let ’ s get this straight for a minute .
What he ’ s telling us is that his flagship achievement .
The deal the prime minister told us was a triumph .
The deal he said was oven-ready .
The deal on which he fought and won a general election .
Now he says far from being oven-ready , it is completely half baked .
Or in the words of No .
10 , it is “ contradictory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What failure of governance .
How dare he try and blame everyone else .
Can I say to the Prime Minister .
This time He can ’ t blame the right honourable member for Maidenhead .
He can ’ t blame John Major .
He can ’ t blame the judges .
He can ’ t blame the civil servants .
He can ’ t sack the cabinet secretary again .
There is only one person responsible for this .
Him .
This is his deal .
His mess .
His failure .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s time to take responsibility .
It ’ s time to fess up .
Either he wasn ’ t straight with the country about the deal or he didn ’ t understand it .
A competent government would never have entered into a binding agreement with provisions it could not live with .
And if such a government somehow missed the point but woke up later it would have done what any competent business would do after it realises it can ’ t live with the terms of a contract , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good faith .
This is why it ’ s all so unnecessary .
There is a mechanism designed for exactly this purpose .
The Joint Committee on the Northern Ireland Protocol .
What did the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster say on March 11th at the Brexit Select Committee and he said : “ the effective working of the protocol is a matter for the joint committee to resolve ” .
The remaining issues which this bill speaks to are not insignificant , but nor are they insurmountable .
On exit summary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an agreement that can and should be reached Fourth , on Sunday , there was the Justice Secretary ’ s ‘ the fire alarm ’ defence – ‘ we don ’ t want to have to do this but we might have to ’ .
Let us be clear , as I said at the outset , the very act of passing this bill breaks international law , not just exercising the power .
And nothing at issue in this agreement justifies trashing our reputation , putting at risk the chances of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Finally , let us deal with the last defence first floated as a trial balloon by the Northern Ireland Secretary who said it was a breach of the law in a “ specific and limited way ” .
This really is a new way of thinking about legal questions .
It now turns out that breaking the law specifically and in a limited way is a reasonable defence for this government .
We have all heard of self-defence , the alibi defence , the innocence defence .
Now we have the Johnson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a specific and limited way .
Think about the current grave context we face .
The Home Secretary came out today in the newspapers warning everyone .
You must abide by the law .
By the way , she ’ s right .
“ I know that , as part of our national effort , the law-abiding majority will stick to these new rules .
But there will be a small minority who do not ” .
You couldn ’ t make it up .
But what she doesn ’ t say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very specific .
That there is one rule for the British public and another rule for this government .
Pioneered by Cummings , implemented by Johnson .
So this is the wrong thing to do , it is not necessary and it is also deeply damaging for the country .
Let ’ s just think about this in terms of the impact on our country and the negotiations .
The government ’ s hope is that this will make a deal more likely but that relies on the notion that reneging on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago with the party we are negotiating with will make them more likely to trust us — not less .
This feels pretty hard to believe .
And we know the risks of no-deal if this strategy goes wrong .
The Prime Minister said last week that no-deal is somehow a “ good outcome ” .
He is wrong .
I hear from businesses all the time who are deeply worried about the danger of no-deal .
I know what he thinks about their views on this because of his famous four-letter rant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Nissan says there could be no guarantees about its Sunderland plant if there were tariffs on UK-to-EU trade .
Ford have said no-deal would be “ disastrous ” .
The NFU say it would be “ catastrophic ” for British farming .
The CDL said something similar .
We are in the biggest economic crisis for 300 years .
No-deal is not some game , it is about the livelihoods of millions of people across our country .
And what about the prized trade deal with the United States .
I know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friend in President Trump but even he must recognise he must be able to deal with both sides .
This is what the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said : “ The UK must respect the Northern Ireland protocol as signed with the EU … If the UK violates that international treaty and Brexit undermines the Good Friday accord , there will be absolutely no chance of a US-UK trade agreement passing the Congress.
” We can not support this bill and we will oppose it tonight .
The government must go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law and ensure the bill works in a way that respects the devolution settlements .
That is what a responsible , competent and law-abiding government would do .
This is a pivotal moment in determining the future architecture of our country , who we are and how we operate .
In shaping that future we have to stand up for our traditions that matter .
Our commitment to the rule of law .
This bill speaks of a government , a Prime Minister , that is casual , not to say cavalier and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues it confronts .
He should be focusing on securing a Brexit deal , not breaking international law and risking no-deal .
He is cavalier on international law .
This is not the serious leadership we need .
That is why we will oppose this bill tonight .

Boris Johnson squirmed in his seat on the government frontbench this afternoon as Ed Miliband, standing in for Labour leader Keir Starmer, grilled him on the controversial internal market bill being put to the Commons today.
With Starmer self-isolating after being told this morning that a member of his household was showing possible symptoms of Covid-19, the Shadow Business Secretary and former party leader opened the debate for Labour.
Responding to the Prime Minister’s claims that the bill is needed for barrier-free trade with Northern Ireland, Miliband said: “This bill does precisely nothing to address the issue of the transport of food from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
“It is about two issues where they’re going to override international law. It’s about exit declarations – Northern Ireland to GB – and the definition of state aid relating to Northern Ireland.
“If the Prime Minister wants to tell us that there’s another part of this bill that I haven’t noticed that will deal with this supposed threat of a blockade, I’ll give way to him. I’ll very happily give way to him.
“He can tell us. I’m sure he’s read it, I’m sure he knows it, I’m sure he knows it in detail – because he’s a details man. Come on, tell us, what clause protects protect the threat that he says he is worried about?”
Boris Johnson did not accept Miliband’s invitation to intervene in the debate and clarify why the bill that would give the UK government the power to break international law is needed.
Later in the parliamentary debate, Miliband said of the bill: “What the Prime Minister is coming to this House to tell us today is that his flagship achievement, the deal he told us was a triumph, the deal he said was ‘oven-ready’, the deal on which he fought and won the general election is now contradictory and ambiguous.
“What incompetence, what failure of governance. And how dare he try to blame everyone else? This time, he can’t blame [Theresa May], he can’t blame John Major, he can’t blame the judges, he can’t sack the civil servants, he can’t sack the Cabinet Secretary again.
“There is one person responsible for it, and that’s him. This is his deal, it’s his mess, it’s his failure. For the first time in his life, it’s time to take responsibility. It’s time to ‘fess up. Either he wasn’t straight with the country about the deal in the first place or he didn’t understand it.”
Below is the full text of Ed Miliband’s speech.
I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of the leader of the opposition and other right honourable and honourable friends. There are two questions at the heart of this bill and why will be opposing it tonight. First, how do we get an internal market after January 1st within the UK while upholding the devolution settlements which have been part of our constitution now for two decades and are vital to our Union? Secondly, is our country going to abide by the rule of law, a rules-based international order for which we are famous around the world and have always stood up for? These are not small questions but go the heart of our character as a country.
Let me start with the first question. An internal market is vital for trade and jobs at home, but also for our ability to strike trade deals. And it is the responsibility of the UK government at Westminster to safeguard that market. On this, we agree with the government. But it must be carried out understanding that the last two decades of devolution settlements were a decision that we would share power across our four nations. Including devolving key powers over issues like animal welfare, food safety and aspects of environmental legislation. So we should be legislating for an internal market but in a way that respects the role of devolved governments in having a voice in setting those standards.
What we’ve heard from across the UK is that that is not the government’s approach. They want to legislate with a blunderbuss approach that does not do that. And simply says the lowest standard in one parliament must become the standard for all, with no proper voice for devolved governments. The way through this would have been not just to agree common frameworks, but to legislate for them. That is what we will be arguing for during the passage of this bill.
These issues were prefigured in the white paper but since then we have an even bigger question to confront. Let me say right at the outset. We want the smoothest trade across our United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. There is a way to resolve these issues in the joint committee set up for the purpose. Only this Prime Minister would think taking a wrecking ball to the NI protocol would be the right way to resolve them.
While I have been part of many issues of contention across this despatch box, I never thought respecting international law would in my lifetime be a matter of disagreement. I stood opposite the Prime Minister’s predecessor but one, David Cameron, as leader of the opposition for five years. I disagreed with him profoundly on many issues, but I could never have imagined him coming along and saying we are going to legislate to break international law on an agreement we had just signed less than a year earlier as a country. But that is what this bill does in the government’s own words.
Let me address the three questions at the heart of this issue. Is it right to threaten to break the law in the way the government proposes? Is it necessary to do so? Will it help our country? The answers to each of these questions is no. Let us first of all start with the principles here. If there is one thing we are known for around the world, it is the rule of law. The country of the Magna Carta. The country that is known for having the mother of all parliaments. The country that out of the darkness of the Second World War helped found the United Nations. Our global reputation for rule-making, not rule-breaking, is one of the reasons we have been so respected around the world. When you ask people to think of Britain, they think of the rule of law.
Let’s be clear after the PM’s speech. This is not an argument about Remain vs Leave, it is an argument about right vs wrong. The Brexiteer and former Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord Lamont says the bill is “impossible to defend”. The Brexiteer and former Attorney General, who helped to negotiate and signed off this deal as Attorney General, says the bill is “unconscionable”.
And the Brexiteer, the Lord Howard, his former boss said: “I never thought it was a thing I’d hear a British minister, far less a Conservative minister, say, which is that the government was going to invite parliament to act in breach of international law… We have a reputation for probity, for upholding the rule of law, and it’s a reputation that is very precious and ought to be safeguarded, and I am afraid it was severely damaged…by the bill.”
The Prime Minister has said many times he wants to bring unity to the country during his premiership. I therefore congratulate him on having in just one short year united his five predecessors. Unfortunately, their point of agreement is that he is trashing the reputation of this country and trashing the reputation of his office. And why are the five former Prime Ministers so united on this point? Because they know our moral authority in the world comes from our commitment to the rule of law and keeping our word.
We rightly condemn China when it rides roughshod over the treaties dictating the future of Hong Kong. We say they signed them in good faith. We say they are going back on their word. We say they can’t be trusted. And his defence: ‘Don’t worry I can’t be trusted either’. And we know from now what they will throw back at us. That we too don’t keep to international law.
And I want to dispense with each of the government’s arguments for why they should be allowed to get away with this and believe me there have been many over the last few days. I’ve lost count. Let me give the House the top five. First, let’s deal with the argument about blockades which made its first outing in the Telegraph on Saturday from the Prime Minister and it certainly made a big appearance today.
This is as ridiculous an argument as I have heard even by the standards of this government. This is what Article 16 says: “If the application of the protocol leads to serious, economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures.” In the words of the former Attorney General, someone who knows this protocol better than the Prime Minister I think, “there are clear and lawful responses available to her majesty’s government…”. Far from upending the protocol, it offers protection.
And as if that wasn’t enough, the bill does precisely nothing to address the transport of food from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, it is about exit declarations NI-GB and the narrow definition of state aid relating to Northern Ireland. It’s a completely bogus argument. Second, he claimed on Wednesday it was necessary to protect the Good Friday agreement. I have to say I would rather trust the authors of the Good Friday agreement than a Prime Minister who has prominent members of the government who opposed the agreement.
This is what John Major and Tony Blair wrote “[the bill] puts the Good Friday agreement at risk because it negates the predictability, the political stability, and legal clarity that are integral to the delicate balance between the north and south of Ireland that is at the core of the peace process”. He may not want to believe them but maybe he will believe himself. Because this is what he said about the NI protocol: “there are particular circumstances in Northern Ireland at the border that deserve particular respect and sensitivity, and that is what they have received in the deal. This is… a great deal for Northern Ireland”. This is not just legislative hooliganism, it is hooliganism on the most sensitive of issues.
Third, there was the other argument on Saturday. It was all a bit of a rush. Or as the PM says – times were “torrid” and “there was a serious misunderstanding”. But they were warned for months about the way the protocol would work. Like the CDL was warned at the select committee in March. The business secretary at the House of Lords committee in April. Let’s get this straight for a minute. What he’s telling us is that his flagship achievement. The deal the prime minister told us was a triumph. The deal he said was oven-ready. The deal on which he fought and won a general election. Now he says far from being oven-ready, it is completely half baked. Or in the words of No. 10, it is “contradictory and ambiguous”.
What incompetence. What failure of governance. How dare he try and blame everyone else. Can I say to the Prime Minister. This time He can’t blame the right honourable member for Maidenhead. He can’t blame John Major. He can’t blame the judges. He can’t blame the civil servants. He can’t sack the cabinet secretary again. There is only one person responsible for this. Him. This is his deal. His mess. His failure. For the first time in his life it’s time to take responsibility. It’s time to fess up. Either he wasn’t straight with the country about the deal or he didn’t understand it. A competent government would never have entered into a binding agreement with provisions it could not live with.
And if such a government somehow missed the point but woke up later it would have done what any competent business would do after it realises it can’t live with the terms of a contract, it would negotiate a way out in good faith. This is why it’s all so unnecessary. There is a mechanism designed for exactly this purpose. The Joint Committee on the Northern Ireland Protocol. What did the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster say on March 11th at the Brexit Select Committee and he said: “the effective working of the protocol is a matter for the joint committee to resolve”. The remaining issues which this bill speaks to are not insignificant, but nor are they insurmountable. On exit summary declarations and on state aid there is an agreement that can and should be reached
Fourth, on Sunday, there was the Justice Secretary’s ‘the fire alarm’ defence – ‘we don’t want to have to do this but we might have to’. Let us be clear, as I said at the outset, the very act of passing this bill breaks international law, not just exercising the power. And nothing at issue in this agreement justifies trashing our reputation, putting at risk the chances of a deal and the situation in Northern Ireland. Finally, let us deal with the last defence first floated as a trial balloon by the Northern Ireland Secretary who said it was a breach of the law in a “specific and limited way”.
This really is a new way of thinking about legal questions. It now turns out that breaking the law specifically and in a limited way is a reasonable defence for this government. We have all heard of self-defence, the alibi defence, the innocence defence. Now we have the Johnson defence. You can break the law in a specific and limited way. Think about the current grave context we face. The Home Secretary came out today in the newspapers warning everyone. You must abide by the law. By the way, she’s right.
“I know that, as part of our national effort, the law-abiding majority will stick to these new rules. But there will be a small minority who do not”. You couldn’t make it up. But what she doesn’t say is that the Johnson defence means something very specific. That there is one rule for the British public and another rule for this government. Pioneered by Cummings, implemented by Johnson.
So this is the wrong thing to do, it is not necessary and it is also deeply damaging for the country. Let’s just think about this in terms of the impact on our country and the negotiations. The government’s hope is that this will make a deal more likely but that relies on the notion that reneging on a deal we made less than a year ago with the party we are negotiating with will make them more likely to trust us — not less. This feels pretty hard to believe.
And we know the risks of no-deal if this strategy goes wrong. The Prime Minister said last week that no-deal is somehow a “good outcome”. He is wrong. I hear from businesses all the time who are deeply worried about the danger of no-deal. I know what he thinks about their views on this because of his famous four-letter rant. But this is what they say. Nissan says there could be no guarantees about its Sunderland plant if there were tariffs on UK-to-EU trade. Ford have said no-deal would be “disastrous”. The NFU say it would be “catastrophic” for British farming. The CDL said something similar. We are in the biggest economic crisis for 300 years. No-deal is not some game, it is about the livelihoods of millions of people across our country.
And what about the prized trade deal with the United States. I know the Prime Minister thinks he has a friend in President Trump but even he must recognise he must be able to deal with both sides. This is what the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said: “The UK must respect the Northern Ireland protocol as signed with the EU … If the UK violates that international treaty and Brexit undermines the Good Friday accord, there will be absolutely no chance of a US-UK trade agreement passing the Congress.”
We cannot support this bill and we will oppose it tonight. The government must go back, remove the sections breaking international law and ensure the bill works in a way that respects the devolution settlements. That is what a responsible, competent and law-abiding government would do. This is a pivotal moment in determining the future architecture of our country, who we are and how we operate. In shaping that future we have to stand up for our traditions that matter. Our commitment to the rule of law.
This bill speaks of a government, a Prime Minister, that is casual, not to say cavalier and reckless, about the gravity of the issues it confronts. He should be focusing on securing a Brexit deal, not breaking international law and risking no-deal. He is cavalier on international law. This is not the serious leadership we need. That is why we will oppose this bill tonight.


labourlist--2020-09-14--Free our trade unions, say Labour MPs, union leaders and grassroots activists

Labour MPs , trade union leaders and grassroots activists have signed an open letter organised by the Free Our Unions campaign to highlight “ the urgency of fighting the anti-trade union laws ” amid the coronavirus pandemic .
A group of parliamentarians , including Jonathan Ashworth ’ s parliamentary private secretary Nadia Whittome , have come together with the UCU , party-affiliated Bakers ’ Union and other trade unions to support the move .
The joint statement criticises the last Labour government for failing to repeal anti-union legislation and accuses the Tories now of seeking to “ further restrict rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during transport strikes .
On the Conservative government , the letter predicts : “ As we move forward , they will seek to make workers pay the price for the pandemic , obstruct the demands of the anti-racism movement , and block the path out of catastrophic climate change.
” “ We will need the maximum legal and effective freedom for our movement to resist , including an unimpeded right to strike… Workers need the right to strike as an instrument of political protest and social solidarity.
” The signatories have committed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the anti-union laws and their replacement with strong legal rights for workers and unions , including strong rights to strike and picket ” .
Commenting on the open letter , Free Our Unions co-organiser Daniel Randall said : “ The pandemic has reinforced how much of a barrier Britain ’ s anti-union and anti-strike laws are to defending and improving workplace health and safety .
“ The lengthy notice periods and bureaucratic hurdles placed in front of unions are designed to slow us down and prevent us from using industrial action as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from asserting our own demands .
“ That ’ s why much of the workers ’ action to defend rights , safety , and conditions we ’ ve seen around pandemic-related issues has been ‘ unofficial ’ , such as the Glasgow refuse workers ’ walkout on September 8th.
” The SNP-controlled Glasgow City Council was criticised by figures on the left including Labour councillor Matt Kerr after describing the strike action organised by GMB Scotland as “ illegal ” .
The staff have since returned to work .
The RMT activist added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers ’ ability to leverage our power over the production process as part of political and democratic self-expression is radically restricted by the ban on strikes over “ political ” issues .
“ This ban is one of the most significant brakes on democratic action in Britain today .
How much more powerful would the Black Lives Matter struggle and movements against climate change be if they could call on the power of strikes and other industrial action as well as marches and rallies ?
” Below is the full text of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 to climate change and Black Lives Matter , the multiple crises we are facing highlight the urgency of fighting the anti-trade union laws .
Workers ’ rights , particularly the right to strike , are key to protecting and promoting our collective health and welfare and enforcing social change .
By taking action together , workers create power to win their demands .
Faced with so many injustices – deaths of key workers like Belly Mujinga , millions forced to work in unsafe conditions , the lack of action to prevent mass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be vehicles to right these wrongs .
Successive Tory governments have legislated to restrict union and strike activity ; the last Labour government did nothing to repeal them .
The coronavirus crisis , which has made postal ballots difficult and demanded swift and decisive action unrestricted by arduous legal procedures , has highlighted the damaging effect of these restrictions .
The Tories already have policy to further restrict rights by imposing “ minimum service requirements ” during transport workers ’ strikes .
As we move forward , they will seek to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , obstruct the demands of the anti-racism movement , and block the path out of catastrophic climate change .
We will need the maximum legal and effective freedom for our movement to resist , including an unimpeded right to strike .
Both the Black Lives Matter struggle and the ongoing climate crisis are highlighting the need for a right to take action over wider issues than only wages , terms and conditions .
Workers need the right to strike as an instrument of political protest and social solidarity .
We therefore commit to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws and their replacement with strong legal rights for workers and unions , including strong rights to strike and picket .
We welcome the policy to this effect passed at TUC Congress last year and at multiple Labour Party conferences , and will campaign actively to achieve it .
Letter organised by the Free Our Unions campaign ( freeourunions.org )

Labour MPs, trade union leaders and grassroots activists have signed an open letter organised by the Free Our Unions campaign to highlight “the urgency of fighting the anti-trade union laws” amid the coronavirus pandemic.
A group of parliamentarians, including Jonathan Ashworth’s parliamentary private secretary Nadia Whittome, have come together with the UCU, party-affiliated Bakers’ Union and other trade unions to support the move.
The joint statement criticises the last Labour government for failing to repeal anti-union legislation and accuses the Tories now of seeking to “further restrict rights” via “minimum service requirements” during transport strikes.
On the Conservative government, the letter predicts: “As we move forward, they will seek to make workers pay the price for the pandemic, obstruct the demands of the anti-racism movement, and block the path out of catastrophic climate change.”
“We will need the maximum legal and effective freedom for our movement to resist, including an unimpeded right to strike… Workers need the right to strike as an instrument of political protest and social solidarity.”
The signatories have committed to “fighting for the repeal of all the anti-union laws and their replacement with strong legal rights for workers and unions, including strong rights to strike and picket”.
Commenting on the open letter, Free Our Unions co-organiser Daniel Randall said: “The pandemic has reinforced how much of a barrier Britain’s anti-union and anti-strike laws are to defending and improving workplace health and safety.
“The lengthy notice periods and bureaucratic hurdles placed in front of unions are designed to slow us down and prevent us from using industrial action as an immediate response to workplace issues, and from asserting our own demands.
“That’s why much of the workers’ action to defend rights, safety, and conditions we’ve seen around pandemic-related issues has been ‘unofficial’, such as the Glasgow refuse workers’ walkout on September 8th.”
The SNP-controlled Glasgow City Council was criticised by figures on the left including Labour councillor Matt Kerr after describing the strike action organised by GMB Scotland as “illegal”. The staff have since returned to work.
The RMT activist added: “At the same time, workers’ ability to leverage our power over the production process as part of political and democratic self-expression is radically restricted by the ban on strikes over “political” issues.
“This ban is one of the most significant brakes on democratic action in Britain today. How much more powerful would the Black Lives Matter struggle and movements against climate change be if they could call on the power of strikes and other industrial action as well as marches and rallies?”
Below is the full text of the open letter and its signatories.
From Covid-19 to climate change and Black Lives Matter, the multiple crises we are facing highlight the urgency of fighting the anti-trade union laws.
Workers’ rights, particularly the right to strike, are key to protecting and promoting our collective health and welfare and enforcing social change. By taking action together, workers create power to win their demands. Faced with so many injustices – deaths of key workers like Belly Mujinga, millions forced to work in unsafe conditions, the lack of action to prevent mass unemployment – it is vital that unions can be vehicles to right these wrongs.
Successive Tory governments have legislated to restrict union and strike activity; the last Labour government did nothing to repeal them. The coronavirus crisis, which has made postal ballots difficult and demanded swift and decisive action unrestricted by arduous legal procedures, has highlighted the damaging effect of these restrictions.
The Tories already have policy to further restrict rights by imposing “minimum service requirements” during transport workers’ strikes. As we move forward, they will seek to make workers pay the price for the pandemic, obstruct the demands of the anti-racism movement, and block the path out of catastrophic climate change. We will need the maximum legal and effective freedom for our movement to resist, including an unimpeded right to strike.
Both the Black Lives Matter struggle and the ongoing climate crisis are highlighting the need for a right to take action over wider issues than only wages, terms and conditions. Workers need the right to strike as an instrument of political protest and social solidarity.
We therefore commit to fighting for repeal of all the anti-union laws and their replacement with strong legal rights for workers and unions, including strong rights to strike and picket.
We welcome the policy to this effect passed at TUC Congress last year and at multiple Labour Party conferences, and will campaign actively to achieve it.
Letter organised by the Free Our Unions campaign (freeourunions.org)
Signed (all in a personal capacity):
Nadia Whittome MP
Apsana Begum MP
Clive Lewis MP
Claudie Webbe MP
Ian Byrne MP
Mick Whitley MP
Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP
Michelle Rodgers (President, RMT)
Roger McKenzie (Assistant General Secretary, UNISON)
Hugo Pierre (National Executive Committee, UNISON)
Paul Holmes (National Executive Committee, UNISON)
Ruth Cashman (Joint Branch Secretary, Lambeth UNISON)
Simon Hannah (Joint Branch Secretary, Lambeth UNISON)
Jo Grady (General Secretary, UCU)
Henry Lopez (President, IWGB)
Sarah Woolley (General Secretary, BFAWU)
Ian Hodson (President, BFAWU)
John Moloney (Assistant General Secretary, PCS)
Chris Marks (National Executive Committee, PCS)
Bev Laidlaw (National Executive Committee, PCS)
Phil Dickens (National Executive Committee, PCS)
Riccardo La Torre (National Officer, FBU)
Ben Selby (National Executive Committee, FBU)
Hazel Danson (National Treasurer, NEU)
Patrick Murphy (National Executive Committee, NEU)
Tracey McGuire (National Executive Committee, NEU)
Rob Illingworth (National Executive Committee, NEU)
Kirstie Paton (National Executive Committee, NEU)
Nicky Downes (National Executive Committee, NEU)
Annette Pryce (National Executive Committee, NEU)
Nick Wigmore (National Executive Committee, NEU)
Daniel Randall (Assistant Chair, RMT Bakerloo branch and Free Our Unions co-organiser)


labourlist--2020-09-14--Health unions jointly criticise government plans to scrap Public Health England

Trade unions and professional organisations representing health workers have come together to criticise government plans to abolish Public Health England that they say risk the independence of the UK ’ s health system .
The government last month announced plans to replace PHE with a new body , the National Institute for Healthcare Protection ( NIHP ) , which is set to be chaired by NHS Test and Trace head and Tory peer Dido Harding .
Labour described the move as a “ desperate attempt to shift the blame after years of cutting public health budgets ” .
Shadow Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ time consuming ” , “ energy sapping ” , “ risky ” and “ irresponsible ” .
11 organisations involved in the healthcare sector – including Unite , the British Medical Association , UNISON , the Federation of Clinical Scientists and the Royal College of Nursing – have now also jointly criticised the overhaul .
In a letter to Health Secretary Matt Hancock , the groups have said the government decision was made “ without properly consulting expert staff ” and “ without a clear plan for the future of large swathes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government for a “ binding commitment ” to ensure the independence of the new NIHP body and protect the ability of public health professionals to “ speak truth to power and to the public ” .
The trade unions and professional associations are also calling for an “ open and transparent consultation process ” on the transition from PHE to NIHP , which should be “ marked by a commitment to collaborate ” with them .
Jackie Williams , Unite national officer for health , said : “ Unite is the lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have already stated that we believe that PHE was being lined up as the fall guy for ministers ’ bungling over the handling of the coronavirus pandemic .
“ There has been a complete lack of consultation with expert stakeholders and the unions representing the staff about the future functions of PHE at a time when the country is still in the middle of a global pandemic .
“ The dire situation is compounded by Tory peer Dido Harding being parachuted in to run the NIHP with no apparent qualifications for the job.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ongoing controversy during the pandemic after she was made head of the government ’ s highly criticised test and trace programme despite having no experience working in healthcare .
The Unite officer added : “ The NIHP needs to be fully resourced and independent with the ability to speak ‘ truth to power ’ on the key public health issues of the day .
Unite is also calling for the swingeing cuts to PHE ’ s budget over recent years to be restored.
” Labour has asked for more clarity on who will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – delivering the obesity strategy , screening , immunisation , mental health , sexual health , smoking cessation and addiction services – once PHE is scrapped .
Commenting on his own letter to Hancock at the time , Jonathan Ashworth said : “ Years of public health cuts and wider austerity has left us with pernicious health inequalities contributing to us having a tragically high excess death rate… “ We ’ re calling on the government to invest in public health services and locally led public testing and tracing , rather than squandering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with more cash going to private contractors and outsourcing companies.
” Recent data has showed that just 60 % of people who had been exposed to someone with coronavirus were contacted by Serco , one of the outsourcing companies , compared to 80 % being reached by local public health teams .

Trade unions and professional organisations representing health workers have come together to criticise government plans to abolish Public Health England that they say risk the independence of the UK’s health system.
The government last month announced plans to replace PHE with a new body, the National Institute for Healthcare Protection (NIHP), which is set to be chaired by NHS Test and Trace head and Tory peer Dido Harding.
Labour described the move as a “desperate attempt to shift the blame after years of cutting public health budgets”. Shadow Health Secretary Jon Ashworth said the reorganisation was “time consuming”, “energy sapping”, “risky” and “irresponsible”.
11 organisations involved in the healthcare sector – including Unite, the British Medical Association, UNISON, the Federation of Clinical Scientists and the Royal College of Nursing – have now also jointly criticised the overhaul.
In a letter to Health Secretary Matt Hancock, the groups have said the government decision was made “without properly consulting expert staff” and “without a clear plan for the future of large swathes of PHE”.
They have asked the government for a “binding commitment” to ensure the independence of the new NIHP body and protect the ability of public health professionals to “speak truth to power and to the public”.
The trade unions and professional associations are also calling for an “open and transparent consultation process” on the transition from PHE to NIHP, which should be “marked by a commitment to collaborate” with them.
Jackie Williams, Unite national officer for health, said: “Unite is the lead union for staff at PHE and we have already stated that we believe that PHE was being lined up as the fall guy for ministers’ bungling over the handling of the coronavirus pandemic.
“There has been a complete lack of consultation with expert stakeholders and the unions representing the staff about the future functions of PHE at a time when the country is still in the middle of a global pandemic.
“The dire situation is compounded by Tory peer Dido Harding being parachuted in to run the NIHP with no apparent qualifications for the job.”
Harding has been the subject of ongoing controversy during the pandemic after she was made head of the government’s highly criticised test and trace programme despite having no experience working in healthcare.
The Unite officer added: “The NIHP needs to be fully resourced and independent with the ability to speak ‘truth to power’ on the key public health issues of the day. Unite is also calling for the swingeing cuts to PHE’s budget over recent years to be restored.”
Labour has asked for more clarity on who will be responsible for key public health services – delivering the obesity strategy, screening, immunisation, mental health, sexual health, smoking cessation and addiction services – once PHE is scrapped.
Commenting on his own letter to Hancock at the time, Jonathan Ashworth said: “Years of public health cuts and wider austerity has left us with pernicious health inequalities contributing to us having a tragically high excess death rate…
“We’re calling on the government to invest in public health services and locally led public testing and tracing, rather than squandering vital time on a top down reorganisation with more cash going to private contractors and outsourcing companies.”
Recent data has showed that just 60% of people who had been exposed to someone with coronavirus were contacted by Serco, one of the outsourcing companies, compared to 80% being reached by local public health teams.


labourlist--2020-09-15--Former Tory MP dubbed “sexual predator” and jailed for two years

A former Conservative MP has been dubbed a “ sexual predator ” and sentenced to two years in prison for one count of sexual assault against a woman in 2007 and two further counts against a second woman in 2016 .
Charlie Elphicke was convicted in July after having denied groping both women .
He was one of two Tories who had the whip restored in 2018 while facing claims of inappropriate sexual behaviour by the then Prime Minister Theresa May .
The former Conservative MP and lawyer was sentenced today .
The judge this afternoon described Elphicke as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position of power in parliament to target his victims .
She said : “ Both women describe very similar and shocking assaults on them… You are a sexual predator who used your success and respectability as a cover .
In each case , you took advantage of your position.
” The court heard that Elphicke had lunged at a woman at his London home in 2007 , and that he had force her onto a sofa and groped her breast while trying to kiss her , before chasing her and chanting “ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The MP for the South East constituency for nine years reportedly told the court that he had attempted to kiss her “ under a misapprehension ” after she became “ tactile ” but denied sexual assault .
The court heard that he had tried to kiss and grope a women in her 20s working in his office on one occasion in 2016 .
She also told the court that he had run his hand up her thigh towards her groin the following month .
The complainant said the MP had said “ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of these assaults .
Elphicke ’ s wife Natalie now sits in his place as MP for Dover and Deal .
She tweeted shortly after his conviction to say it had ended their 25-year marriage .
Elphicke is one of two MPs replaced by their spouse at the 2019 general election after facing misconduct claims .
MP for Burton in Staffordshire Kate Griffiths also took over from her partner Andrew Griffiths .

A former Conservative MP has been dubbed a “sexual predator” and sentenced to two years in prison for one count of sexual assault against a woman in 2007 and two further counts against a second woman in 2016.
Charlie Elphicke was convicted in July after having denied groping both women. He was one of two Tories who had the whip restored in 2018 while facing claims of inappropriate sexual behaviour by the then Prime Minister Theresa May.
The former Conservative MP and lawyer was sentenced today. The judge this afternoon described Elphicke as a “bully” who had used his position of power in parliament to target his victims.
She said: “Both women describe very similar and shocking assaults on them… You are a sexual predator who used your success and respectability as a cover. In each case, you took advantage of your position.”
The court heard that Elphicke had lunged at a woman at his London home in 2007, and that he had force her onto a sofa and groped her breast while trying to kiss her, before chasing her and chanting “I’m a naughty Tory”.
The MP for the South East constituency for nine years reportedly told the court that he had attempted to kiss her “under a misapprehension” after she became “tactile” but denied sexual assault.
The court heard that he had tried to kiss and grope a women in her 20s working in his office on one occasion in 2016. She also told the court that he had run his hand up her thigh towards her groin the following month.
The complainant said the MP had said “I’m so naughty sometimes” after one of these assaults. Elphicke’s wife Natalie now sits in his place as MP for Dover and Deal. She tweeted shortly after his conviction to say it had ended their 25-year marriage.
Elphicke is one of two MPs replaced by their spouse at the 2019 general election after facing misconduct claims. MP for Burton in Staffordshire Kate Griffiths also took over from her partner Andrew Griffiths.