Esther McVey claims she never proposed ban on rainbow lanyards for civil servants (even though she did) 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. Early evening summary 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 set to vote to make cuckooing specific criminal offence 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. Starmer fails to fully win over Labour MP Rosie Duffield after chat intended to settle long-running grievance 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 claims she never proposed ban on rainbow lanyards for civil servants (even though she did) 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. Labour demands assurances from Czech billionaire bidding for Royal Mail, saying it will take "necessary steps" to keep it British 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. Bar Council says "chronic lack of investment" to blame for court hearings being delayed, not lawyers" strike as MoJ claimed 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. Minister says it"s too soon to say small boat arrivals in 2024 will be higher than in 2023 - even though currently they"re a third up 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. At the joint committee on human rights Helena Kennedy, the Labour peer and KC, asked what would happen if the European court of human rights were to issue an injunction blocking a deportation to Rwanda, on the ground that the person was at risk of irreperable harm. Would a minister ignore the court? Or would they deport the person anyway? Michael Tomlinson, the illegal migration minister, said the ECHR has recently tightened the conditions in which an injunction might be granted. He gave a long, waffly answer, which did not directly answer the question. Q: But what will you do if there is an injunction? Tomlinson said he would look at it on a case by case basis. Joanna Cherry said he was saying he would retain the right to ignore the court. Q: As a lawyer, are you not unhappy about the idea that you might defy a court? Not at all, Tomlinson said. He said, in deciding on the merits of the case, he would be following the procedure laid out in the Safety of Rwanda Act. Michael Tomlinson, the illegal migration minister, is giving evidence to the joint committee on human rights. Joanna Cherry, the SNP chair of the committee, asked him if the government would respect the Belfast high court ruling on Monday saying the Rwanda deportation policy could not apply in Northern Ireland. Tomlinson said the court judgment was only the first stage of the process. The government would appeal, he confirmed. While the judgment stood, the government would respect it, he said. But he said the judgment applied to the Illegal Migration Act, parts of which are not yet in force anyway, he said. And he said the flights to Rwanda would go ahead. He said they were not being authorised under the Illegal Migration Act. They were taking place under the Nationality and Borders Act, and under the Safety of Rwanda Act, both of which were not covered by the Belfast judgment.