First workers were disappointed in Labour – now they're angry. To understand why, visit Birmingham
Six months ago, it was a stirring, a mood felt in many workers' meetings, on picket lines and doorsteps. What started as disappointment in Labour is now giving way to anger for many British workers and their communities. 'Aren't Labour supposed to be for workers?' is a line I hear daily now. Most recently, this sentiment has been felt in Birmingham, where bin workers for the Labour-run city council have been on indefinite strike since 11 March.
These workers woke up one morning to be told they would lose up to a quarter of their pay – what Unite believes to be up to £8,000. This is 'fire-and-rehire' by any other name. Bin lorry drivers are now being told they are next in line to lose the same amount in pay. What makes this scandal all the more egregious is that it is being perpetrated by a Labour council – enthusiastically backed by a Labour government. One bin worker said this government 'might be Labour in name, but it isn't Labour in nature'.
That specific is mirrored in much more general conceptions. Labour voters can't believe that this government would, with almost its first act, cut the winter fuel allowance for pensioners, regardless of the U-turn it has now made. Then it attacked those on welfare benefits. Why would a Labour administration target some of the country's most vulnerable people instead of making the rich pay more, through a real wealth tax? Unite research shows that the assets of the richest 50 families in the UK are worth £500bn. That's more than the wealth of a third of Britain. A 1% tax on the richest 1% would raise £25bn. Labour in name but not in nature is right.
And nothing is more symbolic of Labour's disconnection from its core mission than the catastrophe of the Birmingham bin strike. Angela Rayner, Labour MPs, and the leader of Birmingham city council, John Cotton, who incidentally has not attended one single negotiation on the bin strike, have spent weeks, if not months, demanding that our members should simply accept 'the fair and reasonable offer on the table'. The problem is there isn't one.
I've seen this charade play out week after week since the strike began: Unite decision-makers are in the room with a group of council employees who clearly do not have the power to make any decisions. Hence, there have been no real negotiations and certainly no settlement of the dispute.
When Acas conciliation was suggested, I said I would be there in person and that I expected the leader of the council to do the same. After all, he had said in public just days before that 'nobody needs to lose any pay' – surely we should have been in touching distance of a deal? But Cotton, once again, did not turn up to the talks, sending Joanne Roney, the managing director of the city council instead, who introduced herself as a decision-maker. I asked for a copy of the 'fair and reasonable offer', but yet again, none was produced.
Both Rayner and Cotton have cited lump sums in the thousands being put on the table, together with moves that would result in no loss of pay. None of this was seen at Acas. Nonetheless, the talks began, and a 'ballpark' deal was discussed, one that could finally be taken back to workers to ballot. That was on the 6 May. Roney said she would send a written draft by 8 May, but at the time of writing, we have yet to receive the offer. A simple written offer dictating terms.
So why the delay? The government's own commissioners – who have been in place since just after the council effectively declared itself bankrupt in 2023 – are now apparently blocking the deal, despite Rayner previously claiming central government has 'no part in the decision-making of the dispute'. Roney is reportedly being prevented from putting in writing what we discussed at conciliation unless they agree to it. Of course, this is what Unite has been saying all along: Birmingham city council's decision-makers are simply not in the room.
In 35 years of negotiating huge disputes, I have never seen such a shambles. Our members can see through Labour's spin. How can a Labour council be doing this to their own workers? What happened to the 'change' promised by Starmer? Make no mistake, these workers have the full backing of Unite. Losing up to a quarter of their pay means many won't be able to pay mortgages or rent, or cover other basic living costs. This cannot be allowed to happen.
How can a Labour council and a Labour government preside over these pay cuts and say with a straight face that they are the party of workers? The recent local election results are a warning to Labour that the anger is becoming more widespread. The party needs to change course; driving 'further and faster' while you are heading for a cliff doesn't usually end well.
Sharon Graham is the general secretary of Unite
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
38 minutes ago
- The Sun
Nigel Farage casts doubts over Lucy Letby's murder convictions as he becomes latest MP to wade into debate
NIGEL Farage has revealed he has "doubts" over the Lucy Letby case as he becomes the latest MP to join the debate. Letby, 35, from Hereford, is serving 15 whole-life orders after she was convicted across two trials at Manchester Crown Court of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others. 6 6 6 Letby lost two attempts to challenge her convictions at the Court of Appeal last year. The Reform UK leader spoke about the case off the back of Jeremy Hunt's comment piece in the Mail last week. The former health secretary called for an "urgent re-examination" of Letby after "serious and credible" questions were raised by experts. The MP urged Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, to "speed up their normally painfully slow process". Speaking on GB News, Mr Farage agreed that he was also beginning to have 'doubts' about the case. He said: 'I have a feeling, actually, Jeremy Hunt might be right about the Lucy Letby case. "I'm just beginning to get more and more doubts about that issue." Cheshire Constabulary is still conducting a review of deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the neonatal units of the Countess of Chester and Liverpool Women's Hospital during Letby's time as a nurse from 2012 to 2016. The force have also launched another probe into allegations of corporate manslaughter and gross negligence manslaughter at the Countess of Chester Hospital. Meanwhile Lady Justice Thirlwall is due to publish in November the findings from the public inquiry into how the former nurse was able to commit her crimes. Argentina's Lucy Letby' in court after murdering 5 newborns & trying to kill 8 more in chillingly similar case to UK's baby killer The Sun revealed earlier this year what Letby's own parents, Jonathan, 79, and Susan Letby, 65, said about the case. In one correspondence, seen by The Sun, Letby's parents reveal they "firmly believe" their daughter's convictions will be "the biggest miscarriage of justice in British history". They also said they're pleased "public opinion is beginning to sway" in her favour "at last". 'FRESH' EVIDENCE This all comes after Letby's lawyers say they have a bombshell report that reveals "fresh" evidence she didn't kill any babies. Mark McDonald told reporters the convicted child serial killer has "a new hope" as he visited the Birmingham offices of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). He said the new evidence "blows the case out the water". He was there to deliver the full findings of a 14-strong international panel of neonatologists and paediatric specialists who say poor medical care and natural causes were the reasons for babies collapsing at the Countess of Chester Hospital neonatal unit. Also passed to the CCRC, which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, was a separate report from seven medics which claims the results of insulin tests on two infants, which a jury concluded Letby poisoned, were unreliable. Mr McDonald said in April: "Today I've put in 23 expert reports from 24 experts from across the realm covering eight separate countries," he said. "Those expert reports completely demolish the prosecution's case that was put before the jury. "It is now hoped that the CCRC will not take long to look at this evidence and refer it back to the Court of Appeal. "These reports show that no crime was committed... This blows the case out the water. The charges Letby was convicted on in full Child A, allegation of murder. The Crown said Letby injected air intravenously into the bloodstream of the baby boy. COUNT 1 GUILTY. Child B, allegation of attempted murder. The Crown said Letby attempted to murder the baby girl, the twin sister of Child A, by injecting air into her bloodstream. COUNT 2 GUILTY. Child C, allegation of murder. Prosecutors said Letby forced air down a feeding tube and into the stomach of the baby boy. COUNT 3 GUILTY. Child D, allegation of murder. The Crown said air was injected intravenously into the baby girl. COUNT 4 GUILTY. Child E, allegation of murder. The Crown said Letby murdered the twin baby boy with an injection of air into the bloodstream and also deliberately caused bleeding to the infant. COUNT 5 GUILTY. Child F, allegation of attempted murder. Letby was said by prosecutors to have poisoned the twin brother of Child E with insulin. COUNT 6 GUILTY. Child G, three allegations of attempted murder. The Crown said Letby targeted the baby girl by overfeeding her with milk and pushing air down her feeding tube. COUNT 7 GUILTY, COUNT 8 GUILTY, COUNT 9 NOT GUILTY. Child H, two allegations of attempted murder. Prosecutors said Letby sabotaged the care of the baby girl in some way which led to two profound oxygen desaturations. COUNT 10 NOT GUILTY, COUNT 11 JURY COULD NOT REACH VERDICT. Child I, allegation of murder. The prosecution said Letby killed the baby girl at the fourth attempt and had given her air and overfed her with milk. COUNT 12 GUILTY. Child J, allegation of attempted murder. No specific form of harm was identified by the prosecution but they said Letby did something to cause the collapse of the baby girl. COUNT 13 JURY COULD NOT REACH VERDICT. Child K, allegation of attempted murder. The prosecution said Letby compromised the baby girl as she deliberately dislodged a breathing tube. COUNT 14 JURY COULD NOT REACH VERDICT. Child L, allegation of attempted murder. The Crown said the nurse poisoned the twin baby boy with insulin. COUNT 15 GUILTY. Child M, allegation of attempted murder. Prosecutors said Letby injected air into the bloodstream of Child L's twin brother. COUNT 16 GUILTY. Child N, three allegations of attempted murder. The Crown said Letby inflicted trauma in the baby boy's throat and also injected him with air in the bloodstream. COUNT 17 GUILTY, COUNT 18 JURY COULD NOT REACH VERDICT, COUNT 19 JURY COULD NOT REACH VERDICT. Child O, allegation of murder. Prosecutors say Letby attacked the triplet boy by injecting him with air, overfeeding him with milk and inflicting trauma to his liver with "severe force". COUNT 20 GUILTY. Child P, allegation of murder. Prosecutors said the nurse targeted the triplet brother of Child O by overfeeding him with milk, injecting air and dislodging his breathing tube. COUNT 21 GUILTY. Child Q, allegation of attempted murder. The Crown said Letby injected the baby boy with liquid, and possibly air, down his feeding tube. COUNT 22 JURY COULD NOT REACH VERDICT. "I'm absolutely confident that the expert evidence that has appeared post-conviction totally undermines the safety of the conviction. "I'm very confident that we're going to get back to the Court of Appeal." Asked how Letby "is doing", he said: "I don't talk about Lucy herself as a person but to say this: She's read all the reports, she's seen the reports, we have a new hope now. "A new hope that, in fact, the truth will come out. So yes, she has a new hope." Last month, lawyers for the families of Letby's victims rubbished the international panel's findings as "full of analytical holes" and "a rehash" of the defence case heard at trial. Mr McDonald also gave the CCRC a separate report on the insulin cases of Child F and Child L from seven experts including two consultant neonatalogists, a retired professor in forensic toxicology and a paediatric endocrinologist. Their report summary concluded the jury was misled in a number of "important areas" including medical and evidential facts, and that key information on the insulin testing procedure was not submitted. It added that the biomechanical test used in both cases "can give rise to falsely high insulin results" due to the presence of antibodies which can interfere with the outcome. On Thursday, Mr McDonald released the independent panel's case summaries of all 17 babies that were said by trial prosecutors to have been deliberately harmed on the Countess of Chester Hospital's neonatal unit. The 14-strong panel concluded that no criminal offences had been committed at the Countess of Chester Hospital in 2015 and 2016 and instead provided alternative causes of deterioration. Among the findings of the panel, working pro bono for Letby's defence team, was that baby boy Child C died following ineffective resuscitation from a collapse after an "acute small bowel obstruction" that went unrecognised, rather than from a deliberate administration of air. Child P, a triplet boy, was also found by the jury to have been fatally injected with air but the panel ruled he died from a collapsed lung that was "suboptimally managed". Letby's experts said there was no evidence of air embolism - in which bubbles form and block the blood supply - in Child E, a twin boy, and that bleeding was not caused by inflicted trauma but from either a lack of oxygen pre-birth or a congenital blood vessel condition. The panel said insulin-related levels for Child E's brother, Child F, insulin were within the norm for preterm infants and it did not prove that synthetic insulin was administered. The same conclusion was reached for Child L, another twin boy that Letby was convicted of attempting to murder by insulin poisoning, and both cases were said to have involved sub-standard medical management of hypoglycaemia. BOMBSHELL EMAIL Meanwhile, an explosive email has also been found which appears to cast more doubt on the prosecution claims that Letby was caught "red-handed". A new email - sent on May 4 2017 to colleagues at the Countess of Chester Hospital - suggests there could be discrepancies over the chronology of events. The memo, revealed in April, is a significant boost to Letby's legal fight to overturn her convictions. Dr Ravi Jayaram is the only hospital staff member to have claimed to see Letby act suspiciously and link her behaviour directly to babies' deaths. Medical experts provided case summaries on all 17 babies from the Letby trial An international panel of medical experts has provided case summaries on all 17 babies who featured in the 10-month trial of Lucy Letby. The 14-strong panel concluded that no criminal offences had been committed at the Countess of Chester Hospital in 2015 and 2016 and instead provided alternative causes of deterioration: - Baby 1 (known as Child A in the trial): The prosecution said the boy was murdered by an injection of air into the bloodstream which caused an air embolism where bubbles form and block the blood supply. The panel found no evidence of air embolism and said the child had died from thrombosis, where a blood clot forms in a vessel. - Baby 2 (Child B): The prosecution said Letby attempted to murder Child A's twin sister by also injecting air into her bloodstream. The panel found no evidence of air embolism and said the child had collapsed from thrombosis. - Baby 3 (Child C): The prosecution said the boy was murdered with air forced down his feeding tube and into his stomach. The panel said the child died following ineffective resuscitation from a collapse after an "acute small bowel obstruction" that went unrecognised. - Baby 4 (Child D): The prosecution said the girl was murdered by an injection of air into the bloodstream. The panel found no evidence of air embolism and ruled the child died of systemic sepsis, pneumonia and disseminated intravascular coagulation (blood clotting). Issues with failures to give relevant antibiotics were also identified. - Baby 5 (Child E): The Crown said Letby murdered the twin boy with an injection of air into the bloodstream and she also deliberately caused bleeding to the infant. The panel said there was no evidence of air embolism and bleeding was caused either by a lack of oxygen pre-birth or a congenital blood vessel condition. - Baby 6 (Child F): The prosecution said Letby attempted to murder Child E's twin brother by administering insulin. The panel ruled that the child's insulin levels and insulin/C-peptide ratio did not prove that exogenous insulin was used and were within the norm for pre-term infants. It added that there was poor medical management of the child's prolonged hypoglycaemia. - Baby 7 (Child G): The prosecution said Letby attempted to murder the girl by overfeeding her with milk and forcing air down her feeding tube. The panel said there was no evidence to support air injection into the stomach or overfeeding. The infant's vomiting and clinical deterioration was due to infection, it found. - Baby 8 (Child H): Jurors cleared Letby of one count of attempted murder and failed to reach a verdict on a second count. Prosecutors said the nurse sabotaged the girl's care in some way which led to two profound oxygen desaturations. The panel said the deteriorations were due to medical mismanagement of a tension pneumothorax where air is trapped between the lung and chest wall. - Baby 9 (Child I): The prosecution said Letby murdered the infant by injecting air into her bloodstream and stomach. The panel said it found no evidence of air injections and that the baby died of breathing complications caused by respiratory distress syndrome and chronic lung disease. - Baby 10 (Child J): Jurors could not reach a verdict on an allegation of attempted murder. No specific form of harm was identified by the prosecution but they said Letby did something to cause the collapse of the girl. The panel said the deterioration was caused by sepsis and there was no evidence to support malicious airway obstruction. - Baby 11 (Child K): The prosecution said Letby attempted to murder the girl by deliberately dislodging her breathing tube. Among its findings the panel said there was no evidence to support a dislodged endotracheal tube (ETT) and the clinical deterioration was caused by use of an undersized ETT. - Baby 12 (Child L): The Crown said the nurse poisoned the boy with insulin. The panel said the infant's insulin-related levels were within the norm for pre-term infants and there was no evidence of deliberate administration. - Baby 13 (Child M): Prosecutors said Letby attempted to murder Child L's twin brother by injecting air into his bloodstream. The panel said there was no evidence of air embolism and his collapse was caused by sepsis or a heart problem. - Baby 14 (Child N): The Crown said the boy was the victim of attempted murder by inflicted trauma in his throat and an air injection into his bloodstream. The panel said there was no air embolism and it was likely his blood oxygen levels dropped due to his haemophilia condition or routine cares, which was "exacerbated" by repeated attempts to insert a breathing tube. - Baby 15 (Child O): The prosecution said Letby murdered the triplet boy by injecting air into his bloodstream and inflicting trauma to his liver. The panel said he died from liver damage caused by traumatic delivery, resulting in bleeding in the abdomen and profound shock. - Baby 16 (Child P): Prosecutors said Letby murdered Child O's brother by injecting him with air. The panel said there was no evidence to support that mechanism and that he died from a collapsed lung that was "suboptimally managed". - Baby 17 (Child Q): Jurors could not reach a verdict on an allegation of attempted murder. The Crown said Letby attempted to murder the boy by injecting liquid, and possibly air, down his feeding tube. The panel said there was no evidence to support air injection into the stomach and the child deteriorated because he had early symptoms of a serious gastrointestinal problem, or sepsis. He testified that the nurse was seen standing over Baby K's cot as the infant's condition deteriorated. Taking the stand, the doctor said Letby failed to call for help as the newborn's condition declined, insisting the nurse had virtually been caught "red handed". But prior to the start of the police investigation, Dr Jayaram wrote in an email to colleagues: "At time of deterioration ... Staff nurse Letby at incubator and called Dr Jayaram to inform of low saturations." The revelatory memo appears to contradict previous testimony, with the evidence not making it into documents handed to cops before the start of the investigation. In the newly released email, Dr Jayaram also suggested Baby K's fragile premature condition was instead the cause of death, saying: "Baby subsequently deteriorated and eventually died, but events around this would fit with explainable events associated with extreme prematurity." The note sees him suggest that the baby's death was explained by issues associated with extreme prematurity. Appearing at the 2024 trial, the doctor framed her behaviour as suspicious, telling the court: "Lucy Letby was stood next to the incubator. "She wasn't looking at me. She didn't have her hands in the incubator." Asked by prosecutor Nick Johnson KC whether he had "any call for help from Lucy Letby?", he replied: "No, not at all. "I was surprised that the alarm was not going off, although my priority was (Baby K) and I didn't question it at the time.'In retrospect, I was surprised that help was not called, given (Baby K) was a 25-week gestation baby and her saturations were dropping." However, at the recent Thirlwall Inquiry, the doctor expressed regret at not raising the alarm over the nurse's behaviour sooner He explained: "I lie awake thinking about this ... I should have been braver." 6 6
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
John Swinnney: 'World must pull itself back from the brink'
He said he agreed with the UN Secretary General on the need for an end to the conflict through diplomacy. Mr Swinney said: 'The conflict in the Middle East has escalated to an intensely more dangerous and alarming level as a result of the US intervention overnight, which risks spiralling into disaster for the region and the wider world. 'The world finds itself at a profoundly dangerous moment and must pull itself back from the brink.' READ MORE: He added: 'It is vital that the UK Government takes any and all steps it can through diplomatic channels to insist upon that. We also call on Iran to return to negotiations.' United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said earlier on Sunday he was "gravely alarmed by the use of force" by the United States against Iran. 'This is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security," he said. He added that there is a 'growing risk' that this conflict could 'rapidly get out of control – with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world'. Mr Guterres called on member states to 'de-escalate' and 'uphold their obligations under the UN Charter and other rules of international law'. He said: 'At this perilous hour, it is critical to avoid a spiral of chaos. There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy. The only hope is peace.' The First Minister's response to the developments in the Middle East came after Sir Keir Starmer urged Iran to return to negotiations. UK minister Douglas Alexander said the Government 'has been putting contingencies in place' as the region braces for any potential retaliation from Iran. US President Donald Trump said early on Sunday that three key nuclear sites in Iran were 'completely and fully obliterated' in the military strikes. The US is thought to have used B-2 stealth bombers to drop bunker-busting munitions on the sites – including the deeply-buried Fordo facility – as well as 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from submarines. The US-UK base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean is not thought to have been used in the operation. The Prime Minister had earlier said Iran should 'return to the negotiating table', noting the region remains 'volatile'. He said: 'Iran's nuclear programme is a grave threat to international security. 'Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat.' Former Scottish first minister Humza Yousaf was critical of the Prime Minister's response. He posted on social media: 'An awful statement from the PM, which ignores our collective responsibility to uphold international law. 'Supporting illegal military action in Iran, and gas-lighting us about an imminent nuclear threat, is hauntingly reminiscent of the lies told in the run up to the Iraq war.' During a protest march in London, Mr Yousaf had earlier accused the UK Government of 'abusing' anti-terror laws against the Palestine Action group, which vandalised two aircraft at RAF Brize Norton. Trade policy minister Mr Alexander, who is the MP for Lothian East and a former international development minister, spoke to the BBC's Sunday Show. He said: 'I understand that people have woken up this morning to the news that was breaking overnight with a real sense of concern. 'I want to assure your viewers that the British Government has been putting contingencies in place. 'There have been a whole series of meetings, I and other have been attending Cobra meetings in the course of the week.' He said plans are being put in place to move UK nationals in affected countries to safety, stressing the UK 'took no part in this military action'.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Rayner facing fight over China ‘super-embassy' in heart of London
Robert Jenrick has called for a judicial review if the Government approves plans for a new Chinese 'super-embassy' in London. In a highly controversial move, Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, is expected to wave through proposals for a new Chinese complex near the city's financial hub within weeks. The proposed 'mega embassy' at the former Royal Mint site, near the Tower of London, has been locked in a planning battle for years, with the decision called in for review by Ms Rayner last year. The Planning Inspectorate, a Government agency, has now reportedly given the development the green light, with the Deputy Prime Minister set to rubber stamp the decision by September. There have been fears the building could effectively become a nest of spies in the heart of London. The US has reportedly warned the UK to reject the proposals on security grounds given the site's proximity to a hub of sensitive data near key financial centres. Tory critics of the controversial proposals have accused the Government of capitulating to China and warned that the new embassy would pose a threat to Britain's national security. Ms Rayner also faces a backlash from her own party if she waves through the application, with one Labour MP telling The Telegraph they thought it would be wrong to approve it. The backbencher said they had concerns about the possible security implications and warned the UK would 'do well' to listen to Sir Richard Dearlove, a former head of MI6, who highlighted the site's proximity to sensitive communication cables. Mr Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, said he would support a judicial review into the decision if the plans were approved. This would involve challenging the lawfulness of the decision, raising the prospect of it being overturned in the courts. A judicial review is different to an appeal. It would look at whether the decision was made in the proper manner, rather than the merits of the decision itself. Mr Jenrick told The Telegraph: 'The super-embassy 'spy hub' would be damaging for our national security, and must be stopped. The process is a fiasco and needs to be reviewed.' The expectation that the decision will be approved by September was first reported by The Sunday Times, which said the Planning Inspectorate's report had landed on Ms Rayner's desk just under two weeks ago. Mark Francois, the shadow defence minister, told The Telegraph: 'This Government is rapidly running out of people to surrender to. 'Whether it's the transport unions over drivers' pay, the EU over our fishing rights, Mauritius over the Chagos Islands, Spain over the border at Gibralta, Gerry Adams over Northern Ireland Veterans and now China over their desired 'mega embassy' – atop cables which are critical to the financial security of the Western economies. And this all in less than a year. 'Just think how many other countries and organisations they could abjectly capitulate to, with a bit of real extra effort, over a whole Parliament?' In a debate on the development earlier this month, Marie Rimmer, the Labour MP for St Helens South and Whiston, warned that China had a 'track record of aggressive state-backed espionage'. 'Surely this country cannot afford to make a massive underestimation of the risk should this go ahead as expected,' she said. 'Experts warn that there could be the foreign leverage of signals, interception and monitoring of sensitive Government and corporate communications. To what extent can individuals make representations, because everyone is extremely concerned that such a massive and historic building was sold some years ago? 'This is pre-empted. This is how China works – it plans years ahead. We cannot not say anything in this House, we must comment on what we see. Please, understand that we must.' Mark Sewards, the Labour MP for Leeds South West and Morley, added: 'I appreciate that the Minister cannot comment on individual planning applications from the despatch box, but when I speak to Hong Kongers in my constituency, they are seriously concerned about the risks that come with transnational repression and that might come along with the creation and construction of this embassy.' The row presents an awkward dilemma for Sir Keir Starmer, who has pursued a strategy of engagement with Beijing while attempting to maintain a positive relationship with Donald Trump, a prominent China sceptic. Earlier this month, Peter Kyle, the Science Secretary, said the UK would offer a 'fulsome response' to any security fears raised. He said: 'These issues will be taken care of assiduously in the planning process. But just to reassure people, we deal with embassies and these sorts of infrastructure issues all the time. We are very experienced of it, and we are very aware of these sorts of issues constantly, not just when new buildings are being done, but all the time.'
