UK politics: I never called for rainbow lanyard ban, claims Esther McVey – as it happened (2024)

• Hundreds of court hearings have been postponed at the last minute after ministers introduced emergency measures to deal with overcrowded prisons.

• Keir Starmer accused Rishi Sunak of using the early release scheme to give dangerous prisoners “get-out-of-jail” cards at PMQs. In response, Sunak claimed dangerous prisoners were not being let out – even though Starmer was able to quote from a report saying this is exactly what has happened at Lewes prison. (See 1.29pm.)

• More than 2,000 households a month are facing homelessness in England because private landlords say they are selling up, with some blaming uncertainty caused by government delays to renting reforms.

• Esther McVey, the Cabinet Office minister, has claimed that she never proposed a ban on civil servants wearing rainbow lanyards in her speech on Monday. (See 5.12pm.)

MPs have been debating amendments to the criminal justice bill, and will vote on some of them later. It has been a rather rambling debate, mainly because the list of amendments is enormous. It runs to 183 pages, and more than 150 amendments are from the government.

One of the amendments will make cuckooing a specific offence. This is when criminals take over a vulnerable person’s home and use it for illicit purposes, such as drug dealing or prostititution. Offenders will face a fine, or a jail sentence of up to five years.

Welcoming the government amendment on this, the shadow justice minister Alex Cunningham said:

As has been clear in the committee discussion of cuckooing, the level of harm caused by cuckooing is very substantial.”

Cuckooing is a terrifying experience for the vulnerable adults targeted by these criminals.

I do not think that any of us can comprehend what it would mean to have our home taken over in such a way.

As Sam Lister reports in a story for the Daily Express, Keir Starmer has had a conversation with Rosie Duffield, the Labour MP for Canterbury who has complained about being in effect ostracised by the party, and ignored by the leadership, because she is a vocal gender critical feminist who has spoken out against the pro-trans views held by many or most of her colleagues. Lister describes it as peace talks after three years of being cold shouldered.

Judging by Duffield’s response, in terms of making up, there is still some way to go.

Not quite true. I told a whip that I had not been spoken to for 2.5yrs when Natalie Elphicke was welcomed with open arms. I got 17 minutes and still no apology for being briefed against by Head of Comms or investigated for 12 months....!

UPDATE: My colleague Jessica Elgot writes:

Duffield faced public criticism and was censured by LGBT Labour after saying only women could have a cervix and campaigning with activists critical of changes to trans rights, which led to party calls for Starmer to remove the whip from Duffield.

But in the wake of the Cass Review into Gender Identity, Starmer has said he now believes Duffield “biologically, she of course is right” he said, having previously said it was “something that shouldn’t be said.”

The MP said it was the first time she had seen Starmer in almost three years, having complained to Labour whips that she had never received a response to requests to see Starmer and had been annoyed by how he had received Elphicke, the former Tory MP for Dover.

Esther McVey, the Cabinet Office minister, has claimed that she never proposed a “ban'” on civil servants wearing rainbow lanyards, or other ones conveying a political message, in her speech on Monday. The idea has been much ridiculed, and dropped by No 10.

Only – she did say she wanted to ban rainbow lanyards, even if she did not use the word. In her speech she said:

I want a very simple but visible change to occur too – the lanyards worn to carry security passes shouldn’t be a random pick and mix, they should be a standard design reflecting that we are all members of the government delivering for the citizens of the UK.

She also elaborated on this.

As Alex Lawson reports, International Distributions Services (IDS), the owner of Royal Mail, has accepted a £3.5bn bid for the postal company from Daniel Křetínský, a Czech billionaire, after he ramped up the value of the takeover.

In a fascinating move, the Labour party has written to Křetínský demanding certain assurances if the takeover goes ahead. In an open letter Jonathan Reynolds, the shadow business secretary, says:

While I recognise that a takeover by EP Group is far from complete, with positive reports of progress towards a deal emerging in the media, I write to ask whether you would offer myself and the Labour party commitments to undertaking certain safeguards should a takeover be completed.

Firstly, the Royal Mail is a national asset and its ability to use the royal cypher of HRH King Charles III is an important symbol of its unique place in British life and the value British people rightly place in it. Taking IDS into private ownership risks seeing the company be operated overseas, something which the Labour party would never accept. As such, can you confirm that, should EP Group complete a takeover of IDS, the Royal Mail would continue to be headquartered in the UK and remain tax resident in the UK?

Secondly, the Labour party believes that Royal Mail staff are essential workers that offer great social value to our communities. Postal workers are Royal Mail’s greatest asset, can you confirm, should this deal go through, that you will work closely with the Communication Workers Union to build a sustainable Royal Mail?

Finally, Labour is committed to the universal service obligation (USO) as Royal Mail’s central mission. We believe the USO underpins our postal service and the enormous value it has for communities and businesses as well as being an important foundation of the union. In that spirit, can you confirm EP Group’s commitment to the USO and that it would be your intention for Royal to remain the universal service provider.

Whilst it’s important that Britain remains open and attractive to foreign investment, Royal Mail is an iconic British institution with a unique place in our society and infrastructure. Royal Mail is as British as it gets, and Labour will take the necessary steps to safeguard its undeniable identity and place in public life. Given the importance of the matter, I would be grateful if you would consider these issues as a matter of urgency. I look forward to hearing from you.

Alert readers will remember that Reynolds is not the actual business secretary, Labour is not in power and in theory in Reynolds is in no position to dictate terms to anyone involved in a corporate takeover. In reality, though, power starts to transfer well before a general election (especially if you have an opinion poll lead like Labour’s) and this reads like an intervention with clout.

The Bar Council has criticised the Ministry of Justice for seeming to blame the strike by criminal defence barristers in 2022 for overcrowding in prisons.

In a statement given to the media about today’s decision to delay some court hearings because of the overcrowding crisis (see 10.39am), the MoJ said: “We continue to see pressure on our prisons following the impact of the pandemic and barristers’ strike which is why we have initiated a previously used measure to securely transfer prisoners between courts and custody and ensure there is always a custody cell available should they be remanded.”

In response, Sam Townend KC, chair of the Bar Council, said:

To blame the Bar for this, as the Ministry of Justice’s statement seems to, is wrong. Covid and the criminal Bar action happened in the past. It is how you respond to it that is the test for government.

Townend also said “chronic lack of investment” in the criminal justice system was to blame. He said:

Operation Early Dawn is just one symptom of the chronic lack of investment in the criminal justice system for so long, along with up to 70-day early release of prisoners, the average time to trial now at a year, and the backlogs worsening.

We cannot continue like this.

With reducing numbers of guilty pleas and victims of crime giving up on criminal cases, the government must now show that it takes criminal justice seriously. Real and sustained investment in prisons, courts, judges, solicitors and barristers is needed and now, otherwise these emergency measures will just precipitate more.

Townend is a former Labour parliamentary candidate.

Joanna Cherry told Michael Tomlinson small boat arrival numbers were going up. (Recent figures show they are about a third higher than they were at the same point last year.)

Q: Doesn’t that prove the Rwanda policy is not working as a deterrent?

Tomlinson started to talk about Albania. Cherry said she would accept that the Albanian scheme had been a success, but she wanted him to address the point.

Tomlinson started by saying we are “early on in the year”. He said it was too soon to say that the arrival numbers for 2024 would be higher than last year.

He said the experience in Ireland showed the Rwanda policy was having a deterrent effect.

And he said, once the scheme was operationalised, the full deterrent effect would kick in.

Q: Even if you are can get 2,000 people to Rwanda, what will happen to the other 90,000 or so asylum seekers who are here but who cannot apply for asylum?

Tomlinson said the Rwanda scheme was uncapped.

And he said 26,000 people returned to their home country last year.

Labour says Rishi Sunak was being misleading at PMQs when he said dangerous prisoners were not included in the early release scheme. (See 1.29pm and 2.25pm.) At his post-PMQs briefing, a Labour spokesperson said:

It is clear from the inspector’s reports that [Sunak’s] statement was misleading given the evidence that we have seen of what is happening.

I am sure that the prime minister would never want to do that and would want to look to correct the record as soon as he can.

As PA Media reports, the spokesperson also said it was “factually inaccurate” to suggest the last Labour government’s early release scheme had led to the release of some of the most serious offenders. The Labour scheme, he said, only released people when they had 18 days of their sentence to go, and had exclusions for sex offences, serious violence, and those awaiting extradition.

The post-PMQs lobby briefing was mostly taken up with questions about prisons. Here are the main points.

• No 10 rejected suggestions that Rishi Sunak misled MPs at PMQs when he said dangerous prisoners were not getting out under the government’s early release scheme. (The No 10 argument seemed to be that Sunak was setting out what the policy should be, but it was not entirely clear. No 10 did not say that the report from the Chief Inspector of Prisons saying dangerous prisoners have been released early from Lewes prison was wrong.) Asked if Sunak was misleading the Commons, the PM’s spokesperson said: “I do reject that.”

• The spokesperson rejected suggestions that Sunak was trying to “pass the buck” to prisoner governors. At PMQs Sunak said that prison governors had a “lock” that allowed them to veto the early release of any prisoner they considered dangerous. The spokesperson said he did not accept this was buck passing, but he defended the system. He explained:

Prison governors and the probation service have a veto which we fully expect them to use to block any offender moving onto licence before their release date if they could pose an increased risk to the public.

Governors are obviously best placed to take these individual judgments in combination with the probation service, but they have a specific veto on top of the automatic exclusion that will apply to anyone who is convicted of a sexual, terrorist or serious violent offence.

• The spokesperson said it was wrong to say the prisons in England are full. “This is an existing operation that is used from time to time to manage immediate localised pressures on the prison estate,” he said.

• The spokesperson defended the government’s policy of making prison sentences longer while also letting inmates out early because the jail are at or near capacity. The criminal justice bill being debated by MPs this afternoon will introduce tougher sentences for sexual and violent offenders. The impact assessment for the bill says this will require new prison places to be built at a cost of £31m, and that ongoing extra prison costs will run to £36m over 10 years. But the spokesperson rejected suggestions it was pointless increasing sentences while at the same time letting offenders out early. He said:

These are two sides of the same coin … We are taking action to lock up the worst offenders for longer and in order to ensure that we can put the worst offenders away for longer we must make sure that there are sufficient spaces to lock up the most dangerous criminals.

Not everyone seems convinced. This is from Jason Groves, the Daily Mail’s political editor.

No 10 confirms it will press ahead with the Sentencing Bill, which brings in longer sentences for serious crimes, while simultaneously releasing people early from existing sentences because the prisons are full

Here is the PA Media story from PMQs.

Keir Starmer has urged Rishi Sunak to stop trying to issue “get-out-of-jail” cards to criminals, as he compared the prime minister to a “jumped-up milk monitor”.

The Labour leader used PMQs to press Sunak for assurances that domestic abusers and other serious offenders would not be freed from jail early as part of a government bid to cut overcrowding.

Starmer said Sunak should focus on the “chaos” facing prisons instead of “colourful lanyards”, a nod to suggestions from a minister over a ban on civil servants wearing rainbow lanyards.

The government has insisted the early release measure would be temporary and would only allow “low-level offenders” out of prison up to 18 days early under strict supervision.

It has since emerged that ministers were preparing to extend the scheme for a second time so some criminals could be freed from jail up to 70 days before their release date.

Starmer, who mocked Sunak for launching “version 7.0” of himself earlier this week, said: “Does the early release of stalkers, domestic abusers and those considered a risk to children sound like the work of someone who is making the country more secure?”

Sunak replied: “No-one should be put on this scheme if they are a threat to the public. And let me be crystal clear, it does not apply to anyone serving a life sentence, anyone convicted of a serious violent offence, anyone convicted of terrorism, anyone convicted of a sex offence and, crucially, in contrast to the system Labour put in place, governors in the prison service have an absolute lock so that no-one is put on the scheme who shouldn’t be.”

Sunak went on to criticise the efforts of previous Labour governments, with Starmer countering: “I’m glad to hear those on life sentences aren’t being released early. He may not think that releasing domestic abusers is a problem but Labour has repeatedly called for domestic abusers to be exempt from his scheme to release prisoners early. His government has shamefully ignored those calls.”

Sunak repeated there is an “absolute governor lock” on who is put on the scheme before defending the government’s approach and claiming a Labour frontbencher believes “prison doesn’t prevent crime”. He added: “It’s always the same with the Labour party, soft on crime and soft on criminals.”

Starmer said: “He’s literally letting criminals out early and the only answer to the question I asked – whether domestic abusers should be exempt from his early release scheme, from anyone serious about security – is yes.

“Perhaps the most ludicrous part of the prime minister’s speech on Monday was when he said he won’t accept the idea that any of the problems people are facing are caused by the 14 years of Conservative government.

“He won’t say how many prisoners they’ve released early, he won’t say if they’re burglars, abusers or stalkers. He won’t say where they are or what support their victims are getting. Yet he thinks he has the right to tell people they can’t blame his government for any of it.

“Doesn’t he think that rather than confiscating lanyards like some jumped-up milk monitor he should stop issuing ‘get out of jail free cards’ to prisoners considered a risk to children?”

Sunak replied: “Another week with no ideas and absolutely no plan for the country. They’ve had 14 years to think about nothing but the future, but all they can do is talk about the past.”

There are many ways of judging who has peformed best at PMQs, but two of the most reliable are: who had the best soundbite, and who made the best argument? On both counts, Keir Starmer (as is usual these days) was comfortably ahead.

Soundbites matter because they are the bits most likely to be clipped for the TV news, and Starmer’s best one came in his final question.

[Rishi Sunak] won’t say how many prisoners they’ve released early. He won’t say if they’re burglars, abusers or stalkers. He won’t say where they are, or what support the victims are getting. Yet he thinks he has the right to tell people they can’t blame his government for any of it.

Doesn’t he think that, rather than confiscating lanyards like some jumped-up milk monitor, he should stop issuing get-out-of-jail cards free to prisoners considered a risk to children?

Assuming you are old enough to know what a milk monitor is or was, this is good: funny, scathing, neatly juxtaposing two of the stories of the week, and implying a commitment of sorts (to stop the early release of prisoners deemed a risk to the public). TV producers trying to select the best Sunak clip are going to have a harder job. He delivered some polished, punchy lines attacking Labour’s voting record on tougher sentences, and anti-Trident votes by Angela Rayner and David Lammy (eight years ago), but these are ancient CCHQ talking points, and (unlike Starmer) Sunak could not manage humour.

A better measure is to ask who won the argument. Sunak used PMQs to focus on Labour’s refusal to give a firm commitment to raising defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. But he is finding it hard to make this one fly, because Starmer can say, as he did, “I was the first to call for 2.5% on defence spending” and then you need to have more than a casual grasp of how public spending works to understand that there is a difference (real, but not huge) between an aspiration to hit 2.5% (Labour’s position) and a (slightly sketchy) plan to get there by 2030 (the Tories’).

Starmer, by contrast, had a PMQs plan, laid a trap, and then watched Sunak walk right into it. After twice getting Sunak to give an assurance that criminals considered threat to the public aren’t getting out as a result of the early prisoner release scheme implemented to deal with jail overcrowding, he then confronted Sunak with the evidence that, in fact, this is happening. Asked to respond to quotes from a report on Lewes prison that contradicted what he had just told MPs, Sunak resorted to saying that that shouldn’t happen, and that it was worse when Labour was in power. Neither of those are reassuring answers.

The Lewes prison report did not attract much attention when it came out earlier this week (although Rajeev Syal wrote it up for us here.). But Starmer has now plonked the incriminating evidence on the record. Helpfully, he even gave us the page references. This is from page 5.

Under the end of custody supervised licence scheme, some high-risk prisoners were being released at short notice without sufficient risk management planning.

And this is from page 46.

In one case, a high-risk prisoner had his release date brought forward under the ECSL scheme, despite having a history of stalking, domestic abuse and being subject to a restraining order. He was a risk to children and subject to an exclusion zone that included the local authority responsible for trying to house him.

Job done.

For the record, here is the passage in Sunak’s speech on Monday that the SNP claim amounts to equating Scottish nationalists with extremists and autocrats.

Iranian proxies are firing on British ships in the Red Sea, disrupting goods destined for our high streets. Here at home, China has conducted cyber targeting of our democratically elected MPs. Russia has poisoned people with chemical weapons. And when Putin cut off the gas supplies it had a devastating impact on people’s lives and threatened our energy security.

And in this world of greater conflict and danger, 100 million people are now displaced globally. Countries like Russia are weaponising immigration for their own ends, and criminal gangs keep finding new routes across European borders. Illegal migration is placing an intolerable strain on our security and our sense of fairness, and unless we act now and act boldly this problem is only going to grow.

Extremists are also exploiting these global conflicts to divide us. People are abusing our liberal democratic values – the freedom of speech and right of protest - to intimidate, threaten and assault others, to sing antisemitic chants on our streets and our university campuses, and to weaponise the evils of antisemitism or anti-Muslim hatred in a divisive, ideological attempt to set Briton against Briton.

And from gender activists hijacking children’s sex education to cancel culture, vocal and aggressive fringe groups are trying to impose their views on the rest of us. They’re trying to make it morally unacceptable to believe something different and undermine people’s confidence and pride in our own history and identity. Scottish nationalists are even trying to tear our United Kingdom apart.

Rishi Sunak is facing Keir Starmer at PMQs in half an hour. Last week Sunak was upended at PMQs by the defection of Natalie Elphicke, and so at least this week, assuming he does not lose another Tory MP between now and noon, he should start from a slightly stronger position.

Here is the list of MPs down to ask a question.

Labour says the Ministry of Justice’s decision to delay court hearings because of prison overcrowing (see 10.39am) shows that people are “less safe” under the Tories. That’s a very convenient retort to Rishi Sunak, because only two days ago he gave a major speech arguing that security was a key reason why his party deserved to win the election.

In a statement, Shabana Mahmood, the shadow justice secretary, said:

The Tories continue to make major and unprecedented changes to the justice system without so much as a word to the public. It’s completely unacceptable and the public will be alarmed at this latest panic measures.

The government is stalling justice and leaving victims in limbo because of the mess they have created. This comes days after they hid from the public that they’re now letting criminals out of jail earlier than ever before.

It is astonishing that lawyers and witnesses, let alone the public, are none the wiser on which cases will actually be affected – how many people will be let out on bail when they should have been remanded, and how will the government ensure public safety is not compromised?

This is no way to run the justice system, and it is certainly no way to run the country. Communities will rightly conclude that they’re less safe under Rishi Sunak’s Tory party.

The Law Society has issued this statement about today’s decision to delay some court hearings because of prison overcrowding.

We have been made aware that from today, the lord chancellor is triggering an emergency measure, Operation Early Dawn, to deal with the worsening problem of the prison population.

Many magistrates’ court cases will be delayed. Practitioners will not know if their clients’ cases will be delayed for sure until they get there.

This particular impact will be caused by a triage process for defendants being transferred from police custody suites to the magistrates courts and then likely to be transferred to prison. We understand priority will be given to defendants in the most serious cases. We understand that defendants who are not prioritised will be released on police bail.

We are awaiting further urgent information from HMCTS and MoJ to clarify the practical implications of this decision, including how they will deal with the issue of the wasted costs members may incur in these circ*mstances.

We will update members in due course.

Some court hearings in England are going to be delayed because of prison overcrowding, the BBC is reporting. In their story Chris Mason and Jennifer McKiernan report:

Courts in England in areas with a lack of prison places will be affected for around a week.

A solicitors’ group said many magistrates’ court cases will be affected as officials decide which defendants will be prioritised.

The move, called Operation Early Dawn, is expected to impact courts in England for around a week in regions where there is a lack of prison places.

The Ministry of Justice told the BBC that the government is creating thousands more prison places to meet demand. The Criminal Law Solicitors Association said:

We are appalled of the state of our criminal justice system and have been campaigning on this from our inception and whilst we recognise the need for some action, this is a symptom of a systemic problem caused by more than 40 years of neglect of our criminal justice system.

Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, and Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary, have suggested that too many people are claiming unemployment benefit as a lifestyle choice in a joint article published in the Times. Matthew Weaver has the story here.

School leaders have accused the government of using children as “a political football” over its proposals to restrict sex education lessons in England, Richard Adams reports.

Good morning. It would be nice to think that the government is not entirely focused on re-election, and that not all decisions are being made with partisan considerations to the fore, but it can be hard to sustain that view after a glance at the papers. Today the government has put two issues on the table – both of which might appeal to a Tory election strategist hoping to find something (anything?) that might create a dividing line with Labour.

First, sex education. Gillian Keegan, the education secretary, is expected to publish plans tomorrow, but right-leaning papers have been briefed that the rules for schools in England will be stricter and that they will be told not to teach pupils about gender identity issues.

Our story, by Richard Adams and Pippa Crerar, is here.

The advantage of briefing out a story like this in advance, from the government’s point of view, is that reports get written up on the basis of what sources tell reporters, not on the basis of what a document actually says. But the disadvantage is that this makes it easy for Labour to say it won’t comment until it has seen the detail, but which time the media caravan will have moved on.

And, second, there is an announcement about ramping up stop and search to counter knife crime.

Chris Philp, the policing minister, has been giving interviews about this topic this morning and he told LBC:

I’d like to see officers, of course, use the power lawfully and also respectfully, but it does need to be used more to protect the public and particularly the kind of young men who often end up being victims of knife crime.

When it was put to him that in the past stop and search has been used disproportionately against young black men, he replied:

The sad truth is that young black men are disproportionately victims of knife crime and we’re doing this as much to protect them as anything else.

He also said that stop and search success rates typically have a success rate of 25 to 30%.

That percentage is pretty much the same across something to within 1% across all ethnicities so that gives me quite a high degree of confidence that police are not unreasonably picking on particular parts of the community.

Philp was also on the Today programme where Emma Barnett, who has just joined the programme as a presenter, pointed out that when Theresa May was home secretary she restricted the use of stop and search. She asked why the government was performing a U-turn. In response, Philp said stop and search rates in London have fallen by 44% in the past two years. When Barnett put it to him that May’s policy had failed, Philp dodged the question.

Talking of Theresa May, there was some speculation last night that Labour might announce another defector in time for PMQs today. May told Bethany Dawson from Politico that it would not be her.

Asked if she would stand again as a Conservative, Theresa May tonight said “I am a Conservative, I would stand again as a Conservative,” largely quashing the excitement of people thinking of the funniest option for defection.

Labour sources are saying that hacks on defector watch should stand down today. But the very fact that it did not seem totally absurd for a reporter to ask a former PM if they would defect to another party does say something about the state of Rishi Sunak’s Conservative party.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Brian Bell, chair of the Migration Advisory Committee, and other migration experts give evidence to the Commons home affairs committee.

10am: Arlene Foster, the former Northern Ireland first minister, gives evidence to the UK Covid inquiry in Belfast.

12pm: Rishi Sunak faces Keir Starmer at PMQs.

After 12.45pm: MPs begin the first day of the debate on the remaining stages of the criminal justice bill.

3pm: Michael Tomlinson, the minister for illegal migration, gives evidence to the joint committee on human rights.

For technical reasons we are not using the ‘send us a message’ feature any more, and if you want to contact me, please post a message below the line (BTL) or message me on X (Twitter). I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word. If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use X; I’ll see something addressed to @AndrewSparrow very quickly. I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos (no error is too small to correct). And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.