A former transport minister who signed off HS2 has told Sky News he wants an inquiry into the chaos of the project “to make sure it doesn’t happen again”.
The northern leg of the high speed rail line – set to run between Birmingham and Manchester – appears to be under threat amid reports the prime minister and chancellor are holding discussions this week on its future due to soaring costs.
Rishi Sunak earlier declined to back building HS2 to the North in the face of warnings by senior Tories not to axe the rail project, hitting out at the “speculation” surrounding its future, but doing nothing to quell fears just ahead of the Conservative Party’s conference.
Former chancellor George Osborne and ex-Conservative deputy prime minister Lord Heseltine were among those saying cutting the Manchester route would be a “gross act of vandalism” and would mean “abandoning” the North and Midlands.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:00
Rishi Sunak on HS2 ‘speculation’
Norman Baker – a former Liberal Democrat MP who worked as a transport minister in the coalition years – said Mr Sunak had an “anti-rail mindset”, and the rumoured scrapping of the northern leg of the line would be “disastrous”.
Speaking to Sky News at the Lib Dem conference in Bournemouth, he said: “Let’s be quite clear about this. If HS2 is cancelled, it’s not simply a question of inconvenience to passengers.
More on Hs2
Related Topics:
“There’s going to be job losses in the rail industry. And it’s going to be massive reputational damage to this country.
“People are going to say, what on earth are you doing? You’re cancelling your environmental policies, you’re pulling out of the European Union, you can’t build a railway. Just what is happening with Britain these days?”
Advertisement
Image: Norman Baker was a transport minister for the Lib Dems during the coalition.
Mr Baker – who now works at the Campaign for Better Transport – said people wanted “more HS2, not less HS2”, but criticised the project for being “very badly handled”.
He added: “It’s been hugely expensive. It’s been out of control financially. And we need to have in conjunction with HS2 going head to Manchester and indeed to Leeds as well, we have a proper inquiry as to understand why this has happened and to make sure it doesn’t happen again.”
However, the Lib Dems’ transport spokesperson in the Lords, Baroness Randerson, had concerns an inquiry would cause further delays.
Committing her party to the “full” HS2 project, the peer told Sky News: “Every time the government changes its mind, every time the government trims a few hundred yards, a mile or two off, one end or the other, they are pushing up the cost per mile and they are fatally undermining the economic arguments for it, the economic impetus for it, and its potential economic success.
“If you keep chopping and changing, playing the ‘hokey cokey’, as someone put it… then you are going to put in uncertainty, you’re going to drive up the costs and people are going to lose their mission on it.”
Image: Baroness Randerson committed her party to HS2 in “full”.
But instead of an inquiry, she called for a “complete review”, adding: “It needs to be reinstated at the heart of government transport strategy, and then it will serve the north of England in the way it was intended to do, to level up.
“I don’t think we need anything that will impede its progress. We need to get on with it. But what we do, what we do need to do, for the sake of any future project, we need to make sure these mistakes aren’t made again because we have to have consistency.
“We are the nation that invented the railways. Now, 200 or so years on from that and we seem incapable of building a modern railway.”
HS2 was first touted by Labour in 2009, but it was the coalition government that signed off the plan, designed to connect the south, the Midlands and the North of England with state-of-the-art infrastructure.
If the Manchester leg is axed it would be the latest watering down of the project, with the eastern leg to Leeds scrapped entirely and work between Birmingham and Crewe delayed due to the impact of inflation.
Pushed on the rumours during a visit to a community centre in Hertfordshire on Monday, Mr Sunak said: “We’re absolutely committed to levelling up and spreading opportunity around the country, not just in the North but in the Midlands, in all other regions of our fantastic country.”
He said that transport is “key” to that vision, “not just big rail projects, but also local projects, improving local bus services, fixing pot holes”.
Pressed for a yes or no answer over whether the northern leg would go ahead, Mr Sunak said: “This kind of speculation that people are making is not right. We’ve got spades in the ground, we’re getting on and delivering.
“Downing Street made clear that he was hitting out at the nature of the speculation, rather than suggesting any of it was incorrect.”
Number 10 refused to provide further details but said there is precedent to delaying aspects of the high speed rail scheme because of “affordability pressures”, pointing towards high inflation.
The prime minister’s official spokesman said that Mr Sunak “always listens to both sides of debate, and it’s for him to make final decisions”.
The uncertainty has fuelled anger among leaders in Manchester, who have sent an “urgent” letter to Mr Sunak warning “the North of England should not have to pay for the government’s mismanagement of the HS2 budget”.
Manchester’s Labour Mayor Andy Burnham and the city council leader Cllr Bev Craig are requesting a meeting with the prime minister as a “courtesy” before a decision is taken, in which they will state “in the strongest possible terms that HS2 should not be scrapped”.
Danielle Sassoon, one of the US attorneys behind the prosecution of former FTX CEO Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried, took the stand in an evidentiary hearing involving a deal with one of the company’s executives.
In a Thursday hearing in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, Sassoon testified about the guilty plea of Ryan Salame, the former co-CEO of FTX Digital Markets, which resulted in his sentencing to more than seven years in prison.
According to reporting from Inner City Press, Sassoon said that her team would “probably not continue to investigate [Salame’s] conduct” if he agreed to plead guilty. Further investigation into the former FTX executive and his then-girlfriend, Michelle Bond, resulted in the latter facing campaign finance charges.
“I’m not in the business of gotcha or tricking people into pleading guilty,” said Sassoon, referring to Bond being charged after Salame’s plea.
Bond, one of the final figures tied to the criminal cases involving former FTX executives, has been attempting to have her charges dismissed based on claims that prosecutors “induced a guilty plea” from Salame. The end of her case would likely mark the final chapter in criminal charges that began when FTX filed for bankruptcy in November 2022.
She pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy to cause unlawful campaign contributions, causing and accepting excessive campaign contributions, causing and receiving an unlawful corporate contribution and causing and receiving a conduit contribution.
The charges are closely tied to Salame allegedly ordering $400,000 in funds connected to FTX, which was used for Bond’s 2022 campaign for a seat in the US House of Representatives.
It’s been three years since FTX collapsed… who’s in prison?
Two other former executives named in the indictment, Nishad Singh and Gary Wang, pleaded guilty and received sentences of time served.
For Bankman-Fried, however, the saga is ongoing. The former CEO has been behind bars since August 2023, when a judge revoked his bail over allegations of witness intimidation. He was later tried, found guilty and sentenced to 25 years in prison as part of proceedings closely monitored by many in the crypto and blockchain industry.
SBF’s lawyers returned to court on Nov. 4 to argue for overturning the former CEO’s conviction and sentence. Filings claimed that Bankman-Fried was “never presumed innocent” during his trial and argued his legal team was not allowed to present information regarding FTX’s solvency.
There is also speculation among many crypto users that SBF may be attempting to obtain a pardon from US President Donald Trump. The president issued a pardon to former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao in October, claiming that “what he did is not even a crime.”
The US Securities and Exchange Commission’s Crypto Task Force has scheduled a roundtable discussion centered on privacy and financial surveillance for December, as a renewed focus on privacy grips the cryptocurrency industry.
The privacy roundtable is slated for Dec. 15. Like other SEC roundtables, crypto industry executives and SEC officials will discuss common pain points and solutions, but no hard policy proposals will be submitted.
Privacy tokens like Zcash experienced a price surge beginning in October. Source: CoinMarketCap
“Authoritarians thrive when people have no privacy. When those in charge start being hostile to privacy protections, it is a major red flag,” said Naomi Brockwell, founder of the Ludlow Institute, an organization advocating for liberty through technology.
The renewed interest in privacy hearkens back to crypto’s cypherpunk roots, and one of the core reasons the cryptographic technology that underpins crypto was invented — to ensure secure communication channels between parties in hostile environments.
Crypto community sounds the alarm about privacy following precedent-setting legal cases
The verdict in the Storm trial and other cases where open-source software developers have been convicted or imprisoned for creating non-custodial, privacy-preserving protocols has set a dangerous precedent for privacy technology in the US, legal experts have said.
Crypto industry executives and advocates argue that the prosecutions are meant to dissuade developers from building privacy-preserving tools.
The verdict in the Samourai Wallet case is analogous to the US government accusing car manufacturer Toyota of a conspiracy because terrorists and criminals also use their cars, according to journalist and crypto advocate Lola Leetz.
“People should not be held accountable for what other people do with the tools they build,” Leetz said.
In August, Matthew Galeotti, the acting assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice’s criminal division, signaled the agency would no longer prosecute open-source software developers for writing code.
“Our view is that merely writing code, without ill intent, is not a crime,” Galeotti said. “The department will not use indictments as a law-making tool. The department should not leave innovators guessing as to what could lead to criminal prosecution.”
All four UK governments failed to appreciate the scale of the threat posed by COVID-19 or the urgency of the response the pandemic required, a damning report published on Thursday has claimed.
Baroness Heather Hallett, the chair of the inquiry, described the response to the pandemic as “too little, too late”.
Tens of thousands of lives could have been saved during the first wave of COVID-19 had a mandatory lockdown been introduced a week earlier, the inquiry also found.
Noting how a “lack of urgency” made a mandatory lockdown “inevitable”, the report references modelling data to claim there could have been 23,000 fewer deaths during the first wave in England had it been introduced a week earlier.
The UK government first introduced advisory restrictions on 16 March 2020, including self-isolation, household quarantine and social distancing.
Had these measures been introduced sooner, the report states, the mandatory lockdown which followed from 23 March might not have been necessary at all.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
6:54
All four UK govts ‘failed to appreciate’ scale of pandemic
COVID-19 first emerged in the Chinese city of Wuhan at the end of 2019, and as it developed into a worldwide pandemic, the UK went in and out of unprecedented lockdown measures for two years starting from March 2020.
More on Covid Inquiry
Related Topics:
Lady Hallett admitted in her summary that politicians in the government and devolved administrations were forced to make decisions where “there was often no right answer or good outcome”.
“Nonetheless,” she said, “I can summarise my findings of the response as ‘too little, too late'”.
Report goes long way to answer inquiry’s critics
This scathing report goes a long way to answer the Covid 19 Inquiry’s critics who have consistently attacked it as a costly waste of time.
They tried to undermine Lady Hallet’s attempt to understand what went wrong and how we might do better as a lame exercise that would achieve very little.
Well, we now know that Boris Johnson’s “toxic and chaotic” government could well have prevented at least 23,000 deaths had they acted sooner and with greater urgency.
The response was “too little, too late”. And that nobody in power truly understood the scale of the emerging threat or the urgency of the response it required.
The grieving families who lost loved ones in the pandemic want answers. They want names. And they want accountability.
But that is beyond the remit of this Inquiry.
The publication of the report into Module 2 will bring them no comfort, it may even cause them more distress but it will bring them closer to understanding why the UK’s response to this unprecedented health crisis was so poor.
And we can easily identify the “advisors and ministers whose alleged rule breaking caused huge distress and undermined public confidence”.
Or who was in charge of the Department of Health and Social Care, as it misled the public by giving the impression that the UK was well prepared for the pandemic when it clearly was not.
‘Toxic culture’ at the heart of UK government
The report said there was “a toxic and chaotic culture” at the heart of the UK government during the pandemic.
The inquiry heard evidence about the “destabilising behaviour of a number of individuals” – including former No 10 adviser Dominic Cummings.
It said that by failing to tackle this chaotic culture – “and, at times, actively encouraging it” – former PM Boris Johnson “reinforced a culture in which the loudest voices prevailed and the views of other colleagues, particularly women, often went ignored, to the detriment of good decision-making”.
‘Misleading assurances’
The inquiry found all four governments in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland failed to understand the urgency of response the pandemic demanded in the early part of 2020.
The report reads: “This was compounded, in part, by misleading assurances from the Department of Health and Social Care and the widely held view that the UK was well prepared for a pandemic.”
The report notes how the UK government took a “high risk” when it significantly eased restrictions in England in July 2020 – “despite scientific advisers’ concerns about the public health risks of doing so”.
Lady Hallett has made 19 key recommendations which, if followed, she believes will better protect the UK in any future pandemic and improve decision-making in a crisis.
Repeated failings ‘inexcusable’
In a statement following the publication of Thursday’s report, Lady Hallett said there was a “serious failure” by all four governments to appreciate the level of “risk and calamity” facing the UK.
She said: “The tempo of the response should have been increased. It was not. February 2020 was a lost month.”
Lady Hallett said the inquiry does not advocate for national lockdowns, which she said should have been avoided if at all possible.
She said: “But to avoid them, governments must take timely and decisive action to control a spreading virus. The four governments of the UK did not.”
Lady Hallett said none of the governments were adequately prepared for the challenges and risks that a lockdown presented, and that many of the same failings were repeated later in 2020, which she said was “inexcusable”.
She added: “Each government had ample warning that the prevalence of the virus was increasing and would continue to do so into the winter months. Yet again, there was a failure to take timely and effective action.”