I never called for rainbow lanyard ban, claims Esther McVey – UK politics live | Politics

• 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.)

• 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 in her Q&A.

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.