Asylum seekers should still be put back on the Bibby Stockholm barge despite the row caused by the discovery of Legionella, the health secretary has said.
Legionella bacteria can cause a potentially deadly lung infection known as Legionnaires’ disease. It is contracted by people breathing in droplets of water containing the bacteria.
None of the migrants on the barge have shown any symptoms of the disease, according to the Home Office.
Asylum seekers were removed from the barge on Friday after Legionella bacteria was found in the vessel’s water system.
Dorset Council has said Home Office contractors were notified about the results last Monday – four days before people were moved off the barge.
The council went on to claim a Home Office staff member was informed about the bacteria on Tuesday.
However, a government source previously told Sky News there is no record of this conversation, and claimed the Home Office only received a written notification about the Legionella on Wednesday evening.
Speaking to Sky News, Mr Barclay said ministers were informed about traces of the bacteria only on Thursday.
Advertisement
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:25
‘A huge mess and a waste of money’
Asked about claims the Home Office was informed about test results which discovered the bacteria on Tuesday, he said: “This is a standard thing the council had done. There is no reason to suggest there were concerns. As a precaution the tests were done.
“As soon as ministers were notified on Thursday night, there were some concerns with that, they took instant action.”
He added: “It may be the council notified the Home Office, that is an issue for those in the Home Office to respond to, obviously this is a Home Office lead.
“My understanding from colleagues in the Home Office is it was notified to Home Office ministers on Thursday and they then took very quick action as a result.”
Overcrowding to blame for other disease outbreaks at asylum facilities
There have been outbreaks of various rare infectious diseases at several facilities for asylum seekers in recent years.
Overcrowding and poor hygiene are often to blame along with low vaccination rates in parts of the world migrants arrive from.
According to the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) there have been cases of diphtheria, group A strep, MRSA, scabies, tuberculosis and shigella over the past two years.
Thousands of migrants had to be vaccinated against diphtheria, which children are routinely immunised against in the UK, after cases were identified at the Manston processing centre in Ramsgate, Kent in late 2022.
They were most common in men aged between 14 and 25 who mainly presented with skin lesions. One man who died at the centre was found to have had diphtheria.
Scabies was also a problem there and at the Napier Barracks facility near Folkestone.
When outbreaks happen, guidance stipulates that all skin lesions are tested and antibiotics and vaccinations are offered.
Both the centres at Manston and Napier were recommended for closure over poor conditions.
And asked whether people should be put back on the Bibby Stockholm despite the controversy, Mr Barclay replied: “Yes, I do, because it’s costing around £6m a day in terms of the cost of hotels.
“It’s important that we both maintain safety standards, but also reflect the pressure on the taxpayer position in terms of that £6m.”
The health secretary also said no migrants had shown signs of illness from Legionella.
“There has been no concerns in terms of anyone that has been on the barge and all those people are being subject to health assessments,” he said.
The barge is one of a number of alternative sites the Home Office is using to end reliance on expensive hotels for asylum seekers, which the government says is costing the taxpayer £6m a day.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:17
Asylum seekers ‘not valued’ as humans
Its operation has been mired in controversy after its opening was delayed several times before it finally opened to asylum seekers last Monday.
Conservative ministers have faced calls to resign over the saga, with former cabinet minister David Davis saying the evacuation “revealed the startling incompetence of the Home Office itself”.
“Rather famously many years ago, John Reid, when he took over as home secretary, talked about it being not fit for purpose, and I’m afraid you’re seeing that here,” he told BBC Radio 4’s programme.
“It’s really, really hard to understand how, at all layers, this could not be caught early.”
He added: “Even working properly, the Bibby barge would only take effectively one day’s arrivals. So it’s not a solution to the problem and all of this is going to go on until the Home Office is able to process these arrivals more quickly.”
The government believes the existence of the barge will serve as a deterrent to those arriving in England via small boats in the Channel.
However, in a further blow to Rishi Sunak, last week saw the highest daily number of people cross the Channel, with 755 migrants making the journey on Thursday.
The government was then forced to defend its immigration strategy after at least six people died after a small boat crossing from France to the UK capsized and sank, in what was described as an “appalling and preventable” tragedy.
The chair of the Labour Party has insisted that Sir Keir Starmer will “absolutely” still be prime minister next Christmas, despite the party’s dire position in the polls.
Speaking to Sky’s Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips, Anna Turley acknowledged that “things are still hard” for Britons, but struck an optimistic tone about the year ahead.
She said the government has “taken a lot of difficult decisions this year” to “stabilise the economy”, but we are now “starting to see that recovery”.
“As we go into the new year, I’m really optimistic about delivering the kind of change that people voted for last year, and to see them starting to see and feel it in their pockets and in their local communities,” Ms Turley insisted.
On average over the last 10 polls, the Labour Party is down in third place on 18.2%, while Reform UK is on 29.4%, and the Conservative Party is on 18.9%.
Trevor then asked if the public simply hasn’t noticed “how lucky they’ve been”, and the senior minister said: “Well, I think rightly, people are impatient for change. We all are. And people voted for change – that was on the front of our manifesto last year.
“But it takes time to deliver that. It takes time to stabilise things from the chaos that we inherited.”
More on Conservatives
Related Topics:
She said fundamental changes, particularly those that require legislation, take time to deliver, pointing to the Employment Rights Bill, which only passed through parliament last week after the Lords repeatedly sought to amend it.
Ms Turley continued: “We live in the real world. We know things are still hard.
“But I’m conscious with every single day that goes by next year, people will really start to see and feel more money in their pockets, better public services when they’re looking for an appointment with a doctor, their streets and the neighbourhoods are looking better and better, and that change takes time.
“But we will be delivering that in the new year, and I’m confident people can really start to see that.”
Image: Sir Keir Starmer is under pressure amid Labour’s dire position in the polls. Pic: PA
Asked directly if Sir Keir Starmer will be Labour leader and prime minister by next Christmas, Turley replied: “Of course. Absolutely.
“As I said, people will really start to see and feel the change in their pockets. He has got a very clear vision for making sure that people can really deal with the cost of living, that public services will get back on their […] feet.
“And he’s building a Britain that is one that is tolerant, that is open, that is confident in itself. And that is really about renewal and investment in young people as opposed to the division and the decline of the opposition.”
Her backing of the prime minister comes amid continued unease on the Labour benches about the party’s position in the polls, and the manoeuvrings of some big figures who are rumoured to be plotting a move against the prime minister if May’s local elections go badly.
One such person thought to be preparing for a potential leadership bid is the health secretary, Wes Streeting, who has told The Observer today that he is not ruling himself out as a candidate for the top job in future.
“I’m diplomatically ducking the question to avoid any more of the silly soap opera we’ve had in the last few months,” Streeting said, despite also noting the “pressure” and the “demands of that job”.
Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham is repeatedly refusing to rule out a return to Westminster to challenge Sir Keir for the Labour leadership, and former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner is thought to be preparing to potentially launch a leadership bid of her own.
Tories to ‘smash’ local elections
‘We’re going to smash the local elections’
Also on Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips, the Conservative Party deputy chair, Matt Vickers, was bullish about his party’s prospects at May’s local elections.
“We’re going to go out there and smash these next elections,” he said.
“The reality is we had a tough general election. If anybody thought that we were going to dust ourselves off and be back in the game within months, then they’re a bit mad.”
US lawmakers have introduced a discussion draft that would ease the tax burden on everyday crypto users by exempting small stablecoin transactions from capital gains taxes and offering a new deferral option for staking and mining rewards.
The proposal, introduced by Representatives Max Miller of Ohio and Steven Horsford of Nevada, seeks to amend the Internal Revenue Code to reflect the growing use of digital assets in payments. The draft is set “to eliminate low-value gain recognition arising from routine consumer payment use of regulated payment stablecoins,” per the draft.
Under the draft, users would not be required to recognize gains or losses on stablecoin transactions of up to $200, provided the asset is issued by a permitted issuer under the GENIUS Act, pegged to the US dollar and maintains a tight trading range around $1.
The bill includes safeguards to prevent abuse. The exemption would not apply if a stablecoin trades outside a narrow price band, and brokers or dealers would be excluded from the benefit. Treasury would also retain authority to issue anti-abuse rules and reporting requirements.
Draft bill explains the reasoning behind tax breaks. Source: House
Beyond payments, the proposal addresses long-standing concerns around “phantom income” from staking and mining. Taxpayers would be allowed to elect to defer income recognition on staking or mining rewards for up to five years, rather than being taxed immediately upon receipt.
“This provision is intended to reflect a necessary compromise between immediate taxation upon dominion & control and full deferral until disposition,” the draft said.
The draft also extends existing securities lending tax treatment to certain digital asset lending arrangements, applies wash sale rules to actively traded crypto assets, and allows traders and dealers to elect mark-to-market accounting for digital assets.
Crypto groups urge Senate to rethink stablecoin rewards ban
Last week, the Blockchain Association sent a letter to the US Senate Banking Committee, signed by more than 125 crypto companies and industry groups, opposing efforts to extend restrictions on stablecoin rewards to third-party platforms.
The group argued that expanding the GENIUS Act’s limits beyond stablecoin issuers would curb innovation and increase market concentration in favor of large incumbents. The letter compared crypto rewards to incentives commonly offered by banks and credit card companies, warning that banning similar features for stablecoins would undermine fair competition.
The elections watchdog has criticised the government for offering to consider delaying 63 local council elections next year – as five authorities confirmed to Sky News that they would ask for a postponement.
On Thursday, hours before parliament began its Christmas recess, the government revealed that councils were being sent a letter asking if they thought elections should be delayed in their areas due to challenges around delivering local government reorganisation plans.
The chief executive of the Electoral Commission, Vijay Rangarajan, hit out at the announcement on Friday, saying he was “concerned” that some elections could be postponed, with some having already been deferred from 2025.
“We are disappointed by both the timing and substance of the statement. Scheduled elections should, as a rule, go ahead as planned, and only be postponed in exceptional circumstances,” he said in a statement.
“Decisions on any postponements will not be taken until mid-January, less than three months before the scheduled May 2026 elections are due to begin.
“This uncertainty is unprecedented and will not help campaigners and administrators who need time to prepare for their important roles.”
Mr Rangarajan added: “We very much recognise the pressures on local government, but these late changes do not help administrators. Parties and candidates have already been preparing for some time, and will be understandably concerned.”
He said “capacity constraints” were not a “legitimate reason for delaying long planned elections”, which risked “affecting the legitimacy of local decision-making and damaging public confidence”.
The watchdog chief also said there was “a clear conflict of interest in asking existing councils to decide how long it will be before they are answerable to voters”.
Four mayoral elections due to take place in May 2026 set to be postponed
Sky News contacted the 63 councils that have been sent the letter about potentially delaying their elections.
At the time of publication, 17 authorities had replied with their decisions, while 33 said they would make up their minds before the government’s deadline of 15 January.
Many councils told Sky News they were surprised at yesterday’s announcement, saying that they had been fully intending to hold their polls as scheduled.
They said they were now working to understand the appropriate democratic mechanism for deciding whether to request a postponement of elections. Some local authorities believe it should be a decision made by their full council, while others will leave it up to council leaders or cabinet members to decide.
Multiple councils also emphasised in statements to Sky News that the ultimate decision to delay elections lay with the government.
X
This content is provided by X, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable X cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to X cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow X cookies for this session only.
Reform UK has threatened legal action against ministers, accusing Labour and the Tories of “colluding” to postpone elections in order to lock other parties out of power – a sentiment echoed by Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey.
But shadow local government secretary Sir James Cleverly told Sky News this morning that the Conservative Party “wants these elections to go ahead”. Sky News understands that the national party is making that position clear to local leaders.
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government, said it was taking a “locally-led approach”, and emphasised that “councils are in the best position to judge the impact of postponements on their area”.
They added: “These are exceptional circumstances where councils have told us they’re struggling to prepare for resource-intensive elections to councils that will shortly be abolished, while also reorganising into more efficient authorities that can better serve local residents.
“There is a clear precedent for postponing local elections where local government reorganisation is in progress, as happened in 2019 and 2022.”
The five councils that confirmed they would be seeking postponements were:
Blackburn with Darwen Council (Labour);
Chorley Borough Council (Labour);
East Sussex County Council (Conservative minority);
Hastings Borough Council (Green minority);
West Sussex County Council (Conservative).
The councils in Chorley, and East and West Sussex, had decided prior to Thursday’s government announcement that they would request a delay.
Can the Conservatives make ground at the local elections in 2026?
An East Sussex County Council spokesperson told Sky News: “It is welcome that the government is listening to local leaders and has heard the case for focussing our resources on delivery in East Sussex, particularly with devolution and reorganisation of local government, as well as delivering services to residents, such high priorities.”
They also pointed to the cost of electing councillors for a term of just one year, and argued that it would be “more prudent for just one set of elections to be held in 2027”.
West Sussex County Council echoed those reasons and said it would cost taxpayers across the county £9m to hold elections in 2026, 2027, and 2028, as currently planned.
Chorley and Blackburn councils also cited the cost of delivering elections, and said they would prefer that money be spent on delivering the local government reorganisation and delivering services to local residents.
Meanwhile, 12 councils confirmed to Sky News that they would not be requesting delays:
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (Liberal Democrat-Independents);
Broxbourne Borough Council (Conservative);
Colchester City Council (Labour-Liberal Democrat);
Eastleigh Borough Council (Liberal Democrat);
Essex County Council (Conservative);
Hart District Council (Liberal Democrat-Community Campaign);
Hastings Borough Council (Green minority);
Isle of Wight Council (no overall control);
Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council (Conservative);
Portsmouth City Council (Liberal Democrat minority);