Afternoon summary
Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, has indicated that the government will override local objections to the construction of new prisons in England. And in an interview this morning, she also hinted that jury trials could be scrapped for some offenders in England and Wales to reduce court delays. (See 10.56am.)
Bundling the removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords with a wholesale revamp of the unelected chamber has been branded “an excuse for no change” at Westminster, PA Media reports. PA says the warning was issued by Labour former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer of Thoroton in the face of Tory criticism of the plan to boot out bloodline members, which has sparked accusations of broken promises, class war, “guillotines” and “drive-by assassination”. The House of Lords (hereditary peers) bill, which has been through the Commons, will abolish the 92 seats reserved for members of the upper chamber who are there by right of birth. Speaking during an extended second reading debate on the bill, Lord Falconer told peers:
It is said that the removal of the hereditaries should await all the other changes which should occur to this House. History tells us that that is an excuse for no change. The principle is established the hereditaries should go, it is right. It was the only immediate change promised in the manifesto, we should act.
Updated
Two government ministers to sit on assisted dying bill committee
Two government ministers in favour of assisted dying will sit on the 23-member committee set to scrutinise a bill to legalise it, PA Media reports. Care minister Stephen Kinnock and justice minister Sarah Sackman will take a line-by-line look at the proposed legislation alongside voices of opposition including Conservative MP Danny Kruger.
Politco has the full list of MPs on the bill committee in its London Playbook PM briefing.
FOR (with the disclaimer that some are conditional): Bill author and Labour MP Kim Leadbeater …Health Minister Stephen Kinnock …Justice Minister Sarah Sackman … Labour MPs Bambos Charalambous, Marie Tidball, Simon Opher, Jake Richards, Rachel Hopkins and Lewis Atkinson … Tory MPs Kit Malthouse and Neil Shastri-Hurst … Lib Dem MPs Sarah Green and Tom Gordon … and Plaid Cymru’s Westminster Leader Liz Saville-Roberts.
AGAINST: Labour MPs Naz Shah, Juliet Campbell, Daniel Francis, Sojan Joseph, Jack Abbott and Sean Woodcock … Tory MPs Danny Kruger and Rebecca Paul …and Lib Dem MP Sarah Olney.
Starmer pledges extra £13m for Unrwa
Keir Starmer has announced an extra £13m for the UN Palestinian relief agency Unrwa after meeting its commissioner-general Philippe Lazzarini.
A Downing Street spokesperson said Lazzarini thanked the prime minister for “the UK’s resolute support for Unrwa” and that “they both agreed that more must be done to protect aid workers in Gaza”.
Shortly after he entered government Starmer resumed UK funding for Unrwa, which had been suspended by the Conservatives after Israel alleged that Unrwa staff were involved in the 7 October attack by Hamas.
In July ministers committed £21m in funding for Unwra, and today Starmer pledged an additional £13m which will come from this year’s aid budget.
“The two reiterated the urgent need for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the release of all hostages and an increase of humanitarian aid,” Downing Street said. “They agreed to continue to work together with international partners to strive for peace in the Middle East.”
Most respondents to government consultation on banning puberty blockers not in favour, report says
The Department of Health and Social Care has also published today the results of a consultation it carried out on the proposal to have an indefinite ban on puberty blockers for under-18s with gender incongruence and/or gender dysphoria. There were replies from 51 of the 120 organisations and individuals consulted. Amongst those who replied, 59% were opposed to the proposal and 29% were in favour.
Summarising the responses, DHSC says:
Respondents (whether supporting or opposing the proposal) agreed that there was a limited evidence base to work with (with 41.2% of all respondents sharing this sentiment). On safety, respondents tended to take a different perspective depending on their overall view of the ban. Supporters of the ban questioned the safety and efficacy of puberty blockers, noting the lack of evidence of benefit. Opponents felt that there was a lack of evidence of risk, which might demonstrate that puberty blockers could be considered safe.
Respondents on both sides (43% of all respondents) were of the view that the current emergency order has negatively impacted patients’ mental health, demonstrated through anecdotal evidence.
One third of respondents highlighted that, in their opinion, the emergency ban had mitigated unsafe prescribing. Conversely, just under one third of respondents raised concerns that an indefinite ban may result in some patients substituting banned puberty blockers for alternative medicines, or obtaining puberty blockers in an unregulated market, but did not provide evidence, other than anecdotal, to support claims that individuals were already seeking alternative treatments.
And this is what DHSC said about why it was going ahead with the ban.
Ministers recognise that an indefinite order of this nature is an unusual measure to ensure safe and effective healthcare for children and young people. Ministers hope that, in future, care and prescribing can be managed in accordance with treatment for children and young people in other areas of the health and care system, drawing on a robust evidence base and without the need for legislation.
Unfortunately, as seen in responses to the consultation, there is evidence of persistent unsafe prescribing practices regarding these medicines. Ministers have therefore concluded that legislation to prevent prescribing of GnRH agonists for gender incongruence and/or gender dysphoria in respect of UK private or overseas prescribing is justified to ensure the safety of children and young people.
As set out in the Cass Review, and agreed by CHM, there is a clear lack of clinical evidence for the safety and efficacy of using puberty blockers for gender incongruence and/or dysphoria in under 18s. Additionally 41.2% of all respondents also agreed that there was a limited evidence base upon which to base prescribing decisions.
And here are some comments on Wes Streeting’s puberty blockers decision from people in favour.
This is from Policy Exchange, a centre-right thinktank.
💬Senior Research Fellow (Culture and Identity) at Policy Exchange, @lara_e_brown, comments on the puberty blocker ban ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/djwjwllX4e
— Policy Exchange (@Policy_Exchange) December 11, 2024
This is from Kathleen Stock, the academic and prominent gender-critical feminist.
Thousands have played a role in today’s decision, but am thinking of my friend @cwknews and her organisation @Transgendertrd today. Right from start, she wrote about lack of evidence for puberty blockers and affirmative care, went to every government and Tavistock event going to ask awkward questions, kept conversations with specialists open, produced evidence-based literature for schools, and supported terrified families throughout. She has suffered huge reputational smears from activists, including Stonewall, and never wavered. This is partly her win, I have no doubt.
This is from the Guardian journalist Susanna Rustin.
Hard to sum this up in a tweet but i think the NHS for all its colossal challenges, and significant weaknesses, is a profoundly humane institution(s). And I think the ending of puberty blocker prescriptions for gender- distressed children is a humane decision, with concern for people’s longterm health & wellbeing, and the importance of evidence-based care, at its heart. I also think those who are pushing for the continuation of this treatment should reflect on the global influence, and values, of the highly marketised American healthcare system
Young trans people will be 'devastated' by puberty blocker ban, MPs told
Green’s Siân Berry was not the only MP who expressed concern about Wes Streeting’s decision on puberty blockers in the Commons. (See 3.44pm.) While the Commons as a whole was generally supportive, several MPs raised concerns. Here are comments from more of them – all Labour MPs. I’ve taken the quotes from PA Media.
Rachel Taylor raised the case of a school child in her constituency who has developed anorexia in order to stop their period and stop their breasts growing. She said:
I know that one of my constituents will be upset, but will reflect with his mum who has been supporting him. He was referred by his GP when he was in year eight for gender dysphoria, he has still not been seen by a specialist and he’s now in his first year doing his A-levels.
He’s had to endure going through periods, suffering at school with the embarrassment of that. He decided to stop eating and was then diagnosed with anorexia, because that was the only way that he felt he could stop his periods and stop his breasts growing.
These are the kinds of things that trans young people go through day in, day out. Three-and-a-half years later, it’s not good enough that he has still not been seen by a medical professional.
Streeting said waits like this were “unacceptable and unjustifiable”.
Alex Sobel asked if the ban on puberty blockers for would cover all under-18s, or just those with gender dysphoria? He said if if did not cover everyone, it would be used “as an attack on trans young people”.
Streeting replied: “This order relates to the use of puberty blockers for this particular group of patients, for this particular purpose where the evidence base is not sound, and where the Commission on Human Medicines described the current proscribing environment as representing an unacceptable safety risk. Puberty blockers are safe and proven for use amongst children and young people for other conditions, including precocious puberty.”
Kate Osborne, said:
These restrictions on puberty blockers removes the clinical expertise from medical decision making, and significantly impacts young trans people and their families, and I’m hugely disappointed to hear the contents of this statement today.
Nadia Whittome said:
I share the deep disappointment that many young trans people and their families will feel about the health secretary’s decision today, I know that many will be devastated by this news.
Too many young trans people are already in or at high risk of mental health crisis, what consideration has the secretary of state given to the impact of this decision on their mental health?
Streeting replied that he had given “very heavy consideration” to this issue. He also pointed to Louis Appleby’s findings that data does not support the claim that there has been a large number of suicides following restrictions on puberty blockers.
Peter Swallow asked for an assurance that “nobody currently receiving treatment from puberty blockers, however they may have accessed those in the past, will face a discontinuity in their care”.
Streeting replied: “Any young person in Great Britain and Northern Ireland who had a valid prescription for these medicines in the six months prior to 3rd of June and 27th of August respectively, can seek continuation of their prescription from a UK-registered clinician.”
Stormont’s health minister Mike Nesbitt said executive agreement had been reached on the progression of legislation to include Northern Ireland in a UK ban on puberty blockers for children with gender dysphoria, PA Media reports. PA says:
Nesbitt said young people in Northern Ireland will have “equitable access” to NHS trials to determine the safety and effectiveness of puberty blocker drugs.
The UK’s goverment’s health department said the Commission on Human Medicines had published independent expert advice that there is “currently an unacceptable safety risk in the continued prescription of puberty blockers to children”. The department said the commission had recommended indefinite restrictions while work is carried out to ensure the safety of children and young people.
While health is a devolved matter, the ban applies across the UK.
In a statement to MLAs, Nesbitt confirmed the step had been taken following agreement with the devolved powersharing executive.
Updated
Greens criticise Streeting's indefinite puberty blocker ban as 'discriminatory' and part of 'culture war'
In the Commons the Green MP Siân Berry also criticised Wes Streeting’s decision, although not as aggresively as the deputy leader Zak Polanski (who called it a culture war move – see 3.14pm.) She told Streeting:
I’m extremely worried and fearful about this decision to continue this blanket ban. I want to ask the minister about his reliance for the terms of reference and reasons for this on the purpose for which these drugs are being prescribed – ie being trans. [They can be] safely used by young people for other conditions, as he acknowledges, does he understand that this is at heart discriminatory?
In response, Streeting said he did not agree. He went on:
There are a whole range of medicines that are prescribed for a whole range of uses, among a whole range of patient cohorts, but may well be unsafe or inappropriate or ineffective for use for other patients with other conditions.
That is a basic fact of medicine. And if I may say so, her intervention is why we should listen to clinicians, not politicians.
Zack Polanski, deputy leader of the Green party in England and Wales, has criticised Wes Streeting’s decision on puberty blockers. He posted this on Bluesky.
Wes Streetings decision to ban puberty blockers should be called out for what it is.
He’s playing culture wars where trans & non binary youth are collateral damage & Labour dance to Reforms tune.
An attack on trans people is an attack on our LGBTQ+ community. We must say no.
And Patrick Harvie, co-leader of the Scottish Greens, has posted a message agreeing.
Absolutely, and for Streeting to impose this on the Scottish NHS adds insult to injury. If the Scottish Government are to have any credibility they must challenge this - both as bad policy and as over-reach by the UK Government.
Yvette Cooper tells MPs government will be monitoring situation in Syria before deciding asylum situation
In her Commons statement on immigration, Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, said the government would be monitoring the situation in Syria before deciding whether or not to lift the pause on asylum applications from Syrians.
She told MPs:
Let’s be clear, most of the claims, many of the claims that have been made, have been made against the Assad regime for asylum, which is clearly not in place.
It would therefore not be appropriate to be granting asylum decisions on those cases in the current circumstances.
We do need to monitor the evolving situation so that we can get new country guidance in place and so that we can take those decisions, but we will do that in a sensible and serious way, which is about getting the asylum and the immigration systems back in control.
And in a later answer she said:
There’s a lot we simply do not know about how events are going to play out in Syria.
Those who have taken over and who are involved in the initial overthrow of the Assad regime have said, initially, that they would pursue an approach which supported minorities, for example, within Syria, but of course we have seen further developments in recent days that raise questions about that and we’ve also just seen the huge instability with different organisations and groups operating across the country.
That is why we need to monitor this closely, I think everybody wants to see greater stability. We’ve also seen the initial signs of people wanting to return from Turkey to Syria, for example, in the first few days. But this is very unstable at the moment and that is why we need to approach this with care and monitoring the detail of what is happening.
Some local Conservative and Reform UK party branches have held talks about unofficial pacts ahead of the local elections next year, Alex Wickham and Lucy White report in a story for Bloomberg. They say:
The discussions have focused on the idea that local Conservative associations could stand down candidates in some districts to give Reform — led by Brexit campaigner and Donald Trump supporter Nigel Farage — a better chance of defeating Labour, people familiar with the matter said. Reform would reciprocate in seats where the Tories stood a better chance, they said.
The talks have taken place in several areas across the country, the people said on condition of anonymity, to discuss a plan that is not endorsed by party managers. Both the Conservative party and Reform UK have officially said they are opposed to any formal electoral pact.
More than 6,200 children and young people in England on waiting lists for gender services, Streeting says
Back in the Commons, Wes Streeting, the health secretary, said there are more than 6,200 children and young people on waiting lists in England for gender services. He told MPs:
To give people a sense of the challenge, at the latest figures show 6,237 children and young people on waiting lists for gender services. As in common with all NHS waiting lists, I want to see those fall.
And in reference to a plan for up to eight new regional centres for children and young people, Streeting said: “We want all of these regional centres to be up and running by 2026 and we’re working with NHS England to achieve that outcome.”
Streeting was responding to a question from Helen Morgan, the Liberal Democrats’ health spokesperson. Morgan said:
For too long, children and young people who are struggling with their gender identity have been badly let down by a low standard of care, exceptionally long waiting lists and an increasingly toxic public debate.
This is from Adam Bienkov from Byline Times, who was at the Tory post-PMQs briefing. He posted on Bluesky.
Kemi Badenoch’s spokesman condemns Keir Starmer for not introducing “a strict numerical cap” on immigration, only to then repeatedly refuse to say what she believes that strict numerical cap should actually be
In the Commons Edward Argar, the shadow health secretary, backed Wes Streeting’s decision to impose a permanent ban on puberty blockers for under-18s. He said:
When the secretary of state is wrong, we will challenge him robustly and hold him to account but when he is right, we will support him. That is responsible opposition.
In what he sets out today, he is right and he has my support in what he is doing. Protecting children is one of the most important priorities that a health secretary can have.
Streeting thanked Argar for his “constructive” approach.
Here is Andrew Gregory’s story about Wes Streeting’s announcement.
Streeting tells young trans people that, being gay, he also knows about being bullied over identity, and he's determined to help
Wes Streeting, the health secretary, ended his statement in the Commons saying the ban on puberty blockers was being made permanent with a message aimed directly at young trans people. He said that, while he could not pretend to know what their experience was like, as a gay man he did know what it was like to live with a secret, and to face bullying. He said he really cared about this issue, and was determined to improve healthcare for young people.
In the past few months, I have met with young trans people who have either have been, may be or will be affected by the decisions I and my predecessor have taken. I have listened to their concerns, their fears and their anxieties, and I want to talk to them directly now.
I know it’s not easy being a trans kid in our country today, the trans community is at the wrong end of all of the statistics for mental ill health, self-harm and suicide.
I can’t pretend to know what that’s like, but I do know what it’s like to feel you have to bury a secret about yourself, to be afraid of who you are, to be bullied for it, and then to experience the liberating experience of coming out.
I know it won’t feel like it based on the decisions I’m taking today, but I really do care about this and so does this government. I am determined to improve the quality of care and access to healthcare for all trans people.
I am convinced that the full implementation of the Cass review will deliver material improvements in the wellbeing, safety and dignity of trans people of all ages and this government will work with them to help them live freely, equally, and with the dignity everyone in our country deserves.
Streeting says ban on sale and supply of puberty blockers to be made indefinite
Wes Streeting, the health secretary, has just told MPs that existing emergency measures banning the sale and supply of puberty blockers will be made indefinite.
In a news release, Streeting said:
Children’s healthcare must always be evidence-led. The independent expert Commission on Human Medicines found that the current prescribing and care pathway for gender dysphoria and incongruence presents an unacceptable safety risk for children and young people.
Dr Cass’ review also raised safety concerns around the lack of evidence for these medical treatments . We need to act with caution and care when it comes to this vulnerable group of young people, and follow the expert advice.
We are working with NHS England to open new gender identity services, so people can access holistic health and wellbeing support they need. We are setting up a clinical trial into the use of puberty blockers next year, to establish a clear evidence base for the use of this medicine.
Streeting told MPs that the government was acting after the Commission on Human Medicines published independent expert advice saying there is “currently an unacceptable safety risk in the continued prescription of puberty blockers to children”.
Dr Hilary Cass, who wrote the Cass Review into children’s gender care and published her final report in April, described puberty blockers as “powerful drugs with unproven benefits and significant risks”. She said in her report they should only be prescribed following a multi-disciplinary assessment and within a research protocol.
Responding to Streeting’s announcement, she said:
I support the government’s decision to continue restrictions on the dispensing of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria outside the NHS where these essential safeguards are not being provided.
UPDATE: Starmer told MPs:
I asked the Commission on Human Medicines to look at the current environment for prescribing puberty blockers, and we launched a targeted consultation.
The Commission is an independent body made up of leading clinicians and epidemiologists which advises on medicine safety. They took evidence directly from clinical experts, consultant paediatric endocrinologists and patient representatives, including representatives of trans people, young people and their families.
After thoroughly examining all the available evidence, they have concluded that prescribing puberty blockers to children for the purposes of gender dysphoria in the current prescribing environment represents, and I quote, ‘an unacceptable safety risk’. Of particular concern to the Commission was whether these children and their families were provided with enough time and information to give their full and informed consent.
On the basis of their findings, I am acting on the Commission’s advice to put an indefinite order in place to restrict the sale or supply of puberty blockers through a prescription issued by either a private UK prescriber or a prescriber registered outside the UK for under-18s.
Updated
Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, is trolling Kemi Badenoch over PMQs. He posted this on social media.
I am watching the Tory backbenchers as Kemi Badenoch gives another average performance at #PMQs.
There is almost no enthusiasm for her at all.
They are in much deeper trouble than they know.
Here is the story PA Media has filed from PMQs.
Kemi Badenoch has urged Keir Starmer to remove UK citizenship from any “jihadi terrorists and supporters of Assad” who want to return from Syria.
The Conservative party leader said the fall of Bashar Assad’s regime could increase small boat arrivals to the UK, as she also attacked Starmer’s record on immigration.
Badenoch used PMQs to claim Starmer had “consistently backed criminals”, call on him to support a migration cap and ask him to apologise for signing a letter in February 2020 which called for a deportation flight to be halted.
She added “one of those criminals” who was not deported went on to murder someone, adding to Starmer in the Commons: “He was able to stay here and murder because people like this man campaigned against deporting criminals.”
Starmer defended his recorded and pointed to his five years of service as director of public prosecutions, while also accusing Badenoch of being a “champion” of the Tories’ “one nation experiment in open borders”.
On Monday, the UK announced it had paused decisions on asylum applications from Syrians following the collapse of the Assad regime.
Millions of Syrians fled the country after the outbreak of civil war and the Assad regime’s brutal crackdown on opponents.
In her concluding remarks at PMQs, Badenoch said: “The prime minister has consistently backed criminals over law-abiding British people. He defended terrorists, like Hizb ut-Tahrir in the European court. He argued all immigration law had a racist undercurrent. He voted against life sentences for people smugglers. He voted against more than 100 measures to control migration. He even said it was wrong when the Conservatives took away Shamima Begum’s citizenship.”
Begum, who has been living in a Syrian refugee camp, was stripped of her citizenship after travelling to so-called Islamic State-controlled territory in the country as a 15-year-old in 2015.
Badenoch added: “Events in Syria mean we may see more small boat arrivals. For once will he take the side of the British people and strip citizenship from jihadi terrorists and supporters of Assad who want to come back and destroy this country?”
Starmer replied: “I was director of public prosecutions for five years. Unlike anyone on their benches, I was prosecuting for five years, hundreds of thousands of criminals, that includes huge terrorist gangs. I was working for three of those five years with the then-home secretary Theresa May, who commended the work that I did at the end of those five years. So for her to stand there and say, ‘I haven’t done anything in law enforcement’, I dedicated five years of my life to law enforcement, locking up criminals, which is more than she can say.
Labour has previously said Starmer was asked to give advice to Hizb ut-Tahri in a legal dispute between the group and the German government, adding he did not formally represent them
PMQs - snap verdict
Kemi Badenoch called her campaign Renewal 2030 when she was standing for the Tory leadership. She said she was doing that deliberately, because the next election would probably be near the end of the decade. She also said there was no point setting out firm policy, because the Tories are not fighting an election now. These were all sound judgments for an opposition leader in her position.
And yet, at today’s PMQs, Badenoch was not looking ahead to 2030. She was not even setting out a pitch for an election now. Instead, much of what she said just sounded like a rerun of the last election campaign. The claims about Starmer as a lawyer giving legal advice to Hizb ut-Tahrir, joining other MPs protesting against the deportation of foreign offenders on human rights grounds, voting against measures to curb immigration, and even his historic comment about the racist undercurrent in post-war immigration legislation (which was true, by the way – see here) – all of this was in a massive file of “dirt’” on the Labour leader deployed by the Tories, and the rightwing papers, endlessly in the weeks and months before a general election. And none of it made much difference. Voters clearly took the view not being able to get a GP appointment, or having to wait 12 hours to be seen at A&E, mattered far, far more.
Today it felt as if Badenoch had just wandered over to the opposition research desk at CCHQ, dug out the old election folder on Starmer from the filing cabinet and decided to try using the material all over again. Not surprisingly, it did not work any better than it did for Rishi Sunak. What she did achieve, though, was to make Starmer sound genuinely angry and indignant, which worked for him quite well.
At one point Badenoch said that her party had “acknowledged where things went wrong”, as if that somehow insulated her from the Starmer argument that nothing the Tories say on policy has any real merit because of the abysmal inheritance they left. It is true that, with an apology, a party can wipe the slate clean. But it has to be colossal apology, one that people notice and remember. Can you remember when Badenoch apologised for the things that “went wrong” under the Tories? Do you think people who don’t read politics live blogs can remember one? Badenoch routine includes a line in speeches saying that of course “mistakes were made” under the last government, but she has not come close disowning those errors very obviously. There has been nothing the public has noticed.
Badenoch also made the mistake of sounding extreme. Tony Blair, the best prime minister at PMQs in recent years, argued that it was important to be the person sounding the most reasonable in these exchanges. “They get angry; you get mild. They go over the top; you become a soothing voice of reason,” he wrote in his memoirs about PMQs. Starmer did not quite manage to be “soothing” when Badenoch launched her final attack on him. (See 12.17am.) But reasonable, sensible, mainstream people don’t think Starmer consistently backs criminals over law-abiding people. They might be open to the argument that Labour is soft, or naive, in some of its criminal justice views. But this hyperbole seems to be taking Badenoch down an electoral cul-de-sac.
So why is Badenoch doing it? The obvious answer is, because it is what she thinks. She is very rightwing. But maybe she is getting a bit spooked by Reform UK too. A recent ConservativeHome survey suggests 70% of Conservative members think Nigel Farage’s party poses the biggest challenge to them at the general election. Today she sounded like she was auditioning for his job, not Starmer’s.
Updated
Ellie Chowns (Green) asks about a constituent who could not get an ambulance because they were all stuck trying to unload patients. What will be done to resolve the care crisis, that means hospital beds are not available.
Starmer says the last government should “hang their heads in shame” over the state of the NHS. He says the government is addressing this.
Lizzi Collinge (Lab) asks about a fire that killed a man in Kirkby Lonsdale. What can be done to help the towns recover?
Starmer says he will arranged for Collinge to have a meeting with a minister.
Kirith Entwistle (Lab) asks about shoplifting. What more will the government do to tckle this and support shopworkers?
Starmer says shoplifting got “out of control” under the Tories. He says it is not low-level. It has a bit impact on staff. He says the government is funding training for the police, and supporting specialist analyst teams to crack down on the gangs responsible.
Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader, asks about Ryan Cornelius, a Briton detained in Dubai for 16 years. Did Starmer demand his release when he went to the UAE.
Starmer says this is an important case. It has been raised by the government a number of time, including by the foreign secretary during the trip Starmer was on.
Chris Law (SNP) says support for Starmer is plummeting in the polls, but there is now majority support for independence. (He is referring to this poll, putting support for independence at 54%.) Who is best to decide what is best for Scots?
The party that won the general election, says Starmer.
Jerome Mayhew (Con) says Starmer told farmers before the election that he accepted that losing a farm was not like losing any other business. Does Starmer now understand why farmers see his government as “duplicitous”.
Starmer says the government has put more money into farming. And he says, in practice, ordinary farms will only be affected by the tax if they are worth more than £3m.
Peter Lamb (Lab) asks about palliative care, and a local hospice that has had to make redundancies.
Starmer says he recognises the vital role that hospices play. Most hospices provide funding by offering NHS services. Funding will be set out in the usual way, he says.
Starmer repeats claim 'vast majority' of farmers won't be affected by inhertance tax changes
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, asks Starmer if he agrees that President-elect Trump’s comment saying the US should have nothing to do with Syria is worrying.
Starmer says he hopes Syria has a peaceful future, and rejects violence. He does not address the point about Trump.
Davey asks if Starmer agrees that Britain has the best farmers in the world, because of the tradition of family farming. But the inhertance tax changes will be the final blow to them, he says.
Starmer claims the “vast majority of farmers will be unaffected” by the inheritance tax changes, “despite the fear mongering of the party opposite”.
(He seems to be referring to the Tories, not the Liberal Democrats.)
Starmer hits back at Badenoch after she claims he backs criminals over 'law-abiding British people'
Badenoch delivers a broad attack on Starmer’s record.
Starmer has consistently backed criminals over law-abiding British people. He defended terrorists like Hizb ut-Tahrir in the European Court. He argued all immigration law had a racist undercurrent, but he voted against life sentences for people smugglers, he voted against more than 100 measures to control migration. He even said it was wrong. He even said it was wrong when the Conservatives took away Shamima Begum’s citizenship. He has appointed her defense lawyer as his attorney general.
Events in Syria mean we may see more small boat arrivals. For once, will he take the side of the British people and strip citizenship from jihadi terrorists and supporters of Assad who want to come back and destroy this country?
And Starmer hits back forcefully.
I was director of public prosecution for five years. Unlike anyone on their benches, I was prosecuting for five years, hundreds of thousands of criminals … I was working for three of those five years with the then home secretary, Theresa May, who commended the work that I did at the end of those five years.
So for her to stand there and say, I haven’t done anything in law enforcement, I dedicated five years of my life to law enforcement locking up criminals, which is more than she can say ..,
It’s like the arsonist complaining about the people trying to put the fire out … Just wait till they get their hands on the people that created the mess that we are clearing up.
Badenoch says the only thing Starmer has smashed is his own reputation. Labour said it would end asylum hotels. But in some towns, like Peterborough, use of hotels is being expanded. She quotes someone she saw on Sky News saying Labour made things easier for asylum seekers.
Starmer says Badenoch should have welcomed the Iraq deal on people smuggling, and the German deal. He says Badenoch should spend time researching that instead of researching her “terrible jokes”.
Badenoch says Starmer did not answer a single question. She says the Tories have “acknowledged where things went wrong”. Since the Rwanda deterrent has been scrapped, small boat arrivals have gone up by 20%. How much more will the government spent on hotel accommodation for migrants?
Starmer says he would invite Badenoch to say what went wrong under the last government, but it would take all afternoon. He says the government has committed to smashing the people smuggling gangs. He says Labour has got deportation flights off.
Badenoch claims Starmer wanted all deportations halted. She says the letter she has quoted is just the tip of the ice berg. She says he ruled out setting a target-based approach to immigration.
Starmer says Badenoch asks about his record. For five years, he was chief proscecutor, prosecuting people. The Tories set a cap for all of those 14 years. It was never met, he says.
Badenoch says Starmer wanted free movement when he campaigned for Labour leader. She says she wanted skilled people to get visas. He says Starmer was one of the Labour MPs who opposed the removal of foreign offenders. She asks about one case where removal was halted, and the offender went on to kill someone. Will Starmer apologise for signing these letters.
Starmer says this is an example of the last government not acting to keep people safe.
Kemi Badenoch asks why cutting immigration was not on the PM’s list of government priorities.
Starmer says the last government presided over unprecedented immigration. And Badenoch was the championg for this experiment in open borders, he claims.
Andy McDonald (Lab) says Middlesbrough council has been taken out of intervention since coming under Labour control. Does the PM agree that the spending review should unwind austerity?
Starmer says local government funding is going up. And the carbon capture cluster on Teesside will create jobs, he says.
Updated
Keir Starmer starts PMQs by welcoming the fall of President Assad. The people of Syria suffered “far too long under his brutal regime”. But what comes next is not certain, he says.
Tom Bradshaw, president of the National Farmers’ Union, was reduced to tears giving evidence to the environment committee this morning about the impact of the inheritance tax changes, according to Chris Brayford from the Farmers Guardian.
NFU president Tom Bradshaw reduced to tears in describing the human impact of family farm tax proposals during an Efra committee session today. "People (farmers) in ill health or who don't believe they will live for seven years may well decide they shouldn't be here on April 26. pic.twitter.com/veQJuPhb2k
— Chris Brayford (@FGChrisBrayford) December 11, 2024
Here are more pictures from the farmers’ protest in Whitehall.
Environment secretary Steve Reed says government's commitment to farmers 'steadfast', in response to protests
Steve Reed, the environment secretary, has issued a statement in response to today’s protest expressing the government’s support for farmers. As Sky News reports, he says:
Our commitment to farmers is steadfast.
That is why this government is working hard to get money into farmers bank accounts as well as announcing today how farmers can benefit from the new Countryside Stewardship Higher Tier scheme, with more flexible actions, improved payments to help cashflow and a rolling application window.
It’s part of our £5bn farming budget over two years - the largest ever directed at sustainable food production in our country’s history.
As we set out our Plan for Change, we are focused on supporting our farmers, supporting rural economics growth and boosting Britain’s food security.
PMQs is starting soon. Here is the order paper with the names of MPs down to ask a question.
Stuart Maggs, head of tax and partner at Howes Percival law firm, told the environment committee that older farmers in particular were being penalised by the inheritance tax changes. As PA Media reports, he said for years best advice to farmers has been to retain the farm until death, which means a lot of 70 to 90-year-olds are still working on the farms.
Even if you’ve got the next generation involved, to bring the average down, the person who owns the farm has naturally been at the elder end of the spectrum.
So this change coming in now has really hit home to farmers, because they’re in a situation where there’s nothing they can do about it. They can’t give away and survive seven years.
He added that rules called gifts with reservation means that if one generation gives the land to the younger generation but still enjoys the benefit from it – i.e. they live on the land or it’s paying for them in their older age – they will get taxed.
With agriculture estates getting a rate of return of about half a per cent to 1%, it simply means this going to be unaffordable. And so farms are going to have to sell land or sell up. And it’s going to happen a lot.
Government advice to farmers about dealing with inheritance tax changes 'not realistic', MPs told
Jeremy Moody, secretary and adviser at the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers (CAAV), a body representing rural valuers, told the environment committee inquiry into the future of farming this morning that the advice given by the government to farmers on what they could do to deal with the inheritance tax changes were “not realistic”.
Referring to suggestions that farmers could avoid inheritance tax by giving their farms to their children at least seven years before death, he said:
You need to have an adequate, sufficient number of willing, competent, capable, interested members of the family if you’re going to try and pursue some of the lines that ministers have taken.
And they have to be people who are going to be able to get on with each other and so some of the strategies that are being outlined are, for many people, simply not realistic, because they don’t have more than one or two children who are involved in the business.
Moody said CAAV modelling showed the cost from paying the tax over 10 years could amount to around three quarters of an extra employee on the business.
It is a very significant shock on what the business can actually pay out of earnings, leaving only not much, if anything, left for breakfast or for reinvestment.
The Commons environment committee has been taking evidence on the future of farming this morning, and one of the witnesses was Dr Arun Advani, an economics professor at Warwick University and head of the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation (CenTax), a thinktank.
Advani told MPs that, even with the extension of inheritance tax to some farms announced in the budget, farms were still “much more attractive than other sorts of assets” for people wanting to reduce their inheritance tax liability. That is because agricultural property relief is just being cut from 100% to 50% on assets worth more than £1m, not cut altogether. He said:
One reason for doing that is because there are farmers who you might be concerned about, who are earning, who have wealth a bit above the current tax-free threshold, who you want to give a low rate to because of the well documented concerns about incomes of farmers.
But the downside is it still means that if you have, say, £100m or £1bn that you want to put into farmland, 20% rate is still much more attractive than other sorts of assets.
And so what you will still have in this world is people who want to buy up agricultural land, competing with genuine farmers, who are trying to expand their farm, who really are actually wanting to work on the land. They’re still going to have to compete with much better off people.
There will be two government statements in the Commons after PMQs.
At 12.30pm Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, will make one on international collaboration on border security (following the deal with Germany announced yesterday). And after that Wes Streeting, the health secretary, will deliver a statement headlined “Puberty Suppressing Hormones: Next Steps”. When Streeting took office, he he extended a temporary ban on puberty blockers originally introduced by the Tories following the Cass report.
Unions condemn government plan for public sector workers to get 2.8% pay rise next year
Unions representing teachers, doctors and nurses have condemned proposals among Whitehall departments to increase workers’ pay by 2.8% next year, arguing that the rise, which is 0.2% above projected inflation, is too low, PA Media reports. PA says:
The Department of Health and Social Care, the Cabinet Office and the Department for Education have all recommended 2.8% pay rises for staff in 2025-26.
The proposals yesterday came after chancellor Rachel Reeves called for every government department to cut costs by 5%, as she started work on a sweeping multi-year spending review to be published in 2025.
Unions reacted angrily to the recommendations, with some hinting they could launch further industrial action unless negotiations take place.
The Royal College of Nursing’s general secretary and chief executive, Nicola Ranger, called for “open, direct talks now” to avoid “further escalation to disputes and ballots”.
The British Medical Association said the Government showed a “poor grasp” of unresolved issues from two years of industrial action, while the National Education Union’s chief, Daniel Kebede, said teachers were “putting the Government on notice” that the proposed increase “won’t do”.
Inflation is predicted to average 2.5% this year and 2.6% next year, according to forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility.
Unison said the proposed 2.8% rise was “barely above the cost of living”, while Unite said the NHS recruitment and retention crisis “will not be solved without taking the issue of restorative pay seriously”.
Independent pay review bodies will consider the government’s proposals along with other evidence before making recommendations to departments on the level of pay.
Here are some more pictures from the farmers’ protest in Westminster.
Mahmood suggests jury trials will be abandoned for some cases, saying court backlog means 'justice denied'
Shabana Mahmood hinted in an interview this morning that jury trials could be scrapped for some offenders in England and Wales to reduce court delays.
There have been reports saying the government is considering introducing a new “intermediary” court, comprising a judge sitting with two magistrates, to replace the traditional jury in trials for crime where the maximum sentence is no more than two years in jail.
This idea was first proposed in a review by Sir Robin Auld commissioned by the Tony Blair government more than 20 years ago. Civil liberty campaigners objected strongly, and the proposal was never taken up.
But, in an interview with LBC, Mahmood implied that the idea, or some version of it, may be adopted.
Asked if jury trials would be scrapped for some offences, Mahmood said she could not answer because there would be an announcement “imminently” in the House of Commons.
Asked what the possible advantages might be, she replied:
We do have a crown court backlog that is very high and likely to rise, because the sheer number of cases that are coming into the system is so big, that even if we were sitting at maximum capacity across the whole of the crown court, we still wouldn’t be able to touch the sides of that backlog.
That does say that we need to think about doing things differently, and the announcements that we will be making will set out the government’s proposals in this space.
We are going to have to think about different levers, because the problem we have at the moment is victims are waiting far too long to have their case heard in court. So many of them drop out because it’s years that you have to wait till you get to trial.
And we do have to ask ourselves, you know, what does justice look like when you have a crown court backlog that’s that high?
I do believe that justice delayed is justice denied. So, we are going to have to think about a different way of managing our crown courts so that we can crack down on that backlog properly.
Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, strongly defended the protest by farmers in interviews this morning. Speaking on Sky News, he said he was “absolutely” on their side. He said:
Good for them. They are facing this utterly iniquitous, frankly cruel family farm tax.
You’ve got farmers - these are not wealthy people. These are people who have a couple of hundred acres, had always expected to hand their farm on to their children and their grandchildren.
And now, as a result of what Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have done in the budget, they are fearful. They don’t know what the future holds for them and their farm.
Farmers arrive in Westminster to protest about inheritance tax changes
Tractors have arrived in Westminster for today’s protest by farmers opposed to the budget plan to extend inheritance tax to cover some farms, PA Media reports. PA says:
The first tractors have arrived in Westminster with much fanfare, honking and drawing cheers from some passersby near Parliament Square in central London.
The tractors are driving around Parliament Square, many of them flying the Union flag.
They are also decorated with signs that read: “No farmers, no food”, “Not hungry, thank a farmer”, and “Save British Farming”.
Another sign read “Starmer Farmer Harmer”, and a second one “Reeves and Starmer, grave robbers”.
There is a police presence in the area to cover the protest which is set to draw thousands of demonstrators today.
The “RIP British Farming” protest is organised by Kent Fairness for Farmers and Save British Farming in response to the “toxic” budget, which included changes to inheritance tax for agricultural businesses and a faster phaseout of EU-era subsidies in favour of environmental payments.
Mahmood defends changing planning rules to reduce chances of new jails being blocked by local opposition
Prisons, pay and planning are the three main political stories around this morning. Before the general election Keir Starmer was very explicit about who he was up for a fight with nimby local comunities over his plans to get more homes and infrastructure built. That battle is now commencing.
The Daily Telegraph has splashed this morning on a story about how today’s prisons announcement includes a reference to planning rules being changed to ensure jails are treated as nationally important projects, reducing the chances they may be blocked or delayed because of local opposition.
TELEGRAPH: Rayner to force through plans for new jails #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/zt6tDsO3GE
— Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) December 10, 2024
And the Times has got a front page story about changes to planning rules being announced tomorrow. In their report Chris Smyth and Geraldine Scott say:
Angela Rayner will press ahead with plans to prioritise for housebuilding an area of the green belt bigger than Surrey, insisting there is no alternative to large-scale development in the countryside around big cities.
The deputy prime minister is expected to set out an expanded definition of “low quality” green belt on Thursday that experts say will result in about 100,000 homes a year being built on previously protected land.
Conservation campaigners warned of “the worst sprawl since the 1950s” as they criticised ministers for moving far beyond their original plan to build on disused petrol stations and other “ugly” parts of the green belt.
THE TIMES: Israel blitzes arms silo and sinks Navy in Syria #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/jncdFJWV5Y
— Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) December 10, 2024
In her interview on BBC Breakfast this morning Shabana Mahmood confirmed the Telegraph story. “Our manifesto commitment was that we consider prisons to be of national importance,” she said.
Asked about people opposed to having a new jail built near where they lived, Mahmood suggested national need should come first.
What I would say to your viewers is of more concern is when the nation runs out of prison places. You have to pull emergency levers, as I had to when I first came into office, to make sure that there’s enough space in our prisons …. We have to be honest about the fact that prison building is required.
The Gauke review of sentencing policy is expected to produce recommendations that might lead to some reduction in the number of people being sent to jail, and Keir Starmer indicated that he favoured a different approach when he appointed James Timpson, a businessman with progressive views on penal policy, as prisons minister.
But there are limits to how far the government will go. In her interview on the Today programme Shabana Mahmood was asked if she agreed with a comment Timpson made before he became a minister. In an interview in February Timpson said:
We’re addicted to sentencing, we’re addicted to punishment. So many of the people in prison in my view shouldn’t be there. A lot should but a lot shouldn’t, and they’re there for far too long.
Asked if that was the government’s view, Mahmood replied:
No. The view of the government is that prison has to do two things. We have to punish people who break our laws, and we have to show that there are consequences for not living by the rules that most of our citizens live by.
There have to be consequences to bad behavior, to the breaking of our laws, and that means prison will always have a place.
The Law Society of England and Wales has said that building more prisons will not be enough to solve the problems with the criminal justice system. Its president, Richard Atkinson, put out this statement about the Ministry of Justice’s announcement.
The lord chancellor’s investment in the criminal justice system is welcome. However, as an essential service protecting the public, the criminal justice system can only be dealt with holistically, so it will be essential that building more prisons is matched by investment in legal aid, the Crown Prosecution Service and courts. It is vital that the government also invests in rehabilitation for prisoners to reduce reoffending rates and tackle the courts backlogs to help bring down the remand population.
The Howard League for Penal Reform is more critical, saying the money spent on new prisons could be better spent. Its chief executive, Andrea Coomber, put out this statement.
We cannot build our way out of this crisis. The billions of pounds earmarked for opening new jails would be better invested in securing an effective and responsive probation service, working to cut crime in the community.
Problems in prisons spill out into the towns and cities around them, and new jails put added strain on local public services. When violence and self-harm are rife behind bars, it is hardly surprising that proposals to build more prisons meet significant opposition from residents living nearby. This is why the forthcoming review of sentencing is so important. Unless we see concerted action to make sentences proportionate and reduce demand on the system, this crisis will deepen and leave an even bigger mess for future generations to tackle.
Four new prisons to be built but space could still run out, justice secretary Shabana Mahmood warns
Good morning. Labour inherited many problems with public services when it took office, but few were worse than the prison overcrowding crisis. This was so dire that it prompted Rishi Sunak into holding an early election. With the Ministry of Justice just days away from ordering a fresh early release system (which would have been unpopular with voters), this was one of the main reasons for Sunak holding the election in July, not last autumn.
Today, as part of the government’s response, Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, is announcing plans to create 14,000 prison places by 2031. PA Media sums up the plans here.
The government has said it will build four new prisons within the next seven years in a bid to grip the overcrowding crisis.
The Ministry of Justice promised to find a total of 14,000 cell spaces in jails by 2031.
Some 6,400 of these will be at newly built prisons, with £2.3bn towards the cost over the next two years.
The remaining places will be found by measures including building new wings at existing jails, or by refurbishing cells currently out of action, and an extra £500m will go towards “vital building maintenance”, the department said.
The move is part of a 10-year plan to “make sure we can always lock up dangerous criminals”.
Prisons will be deemed sites of “national importance” amid efforts to prevent lengthy planning delays, and new land will be bought for future prisons, the MoJ added.
But Mahmood is also saying that extra spaces alone will not be enough to stop the prison estate filling up. In an interview with the Today programme, she said:
Demand is still rising faster than any supply could possibly catch up with. We’re very honest and transparent in the strategy itself that building alone is not enough because the demand is rising more quickly.
The demand for prison places is actually 4,500 extra every single year. Even with the emergency measures that I’ve been forced to take, that’s 3,000 every year, we can’t get there just by building alone. That’s why I set up the sentencing review just a few weeks ago, because we need a longer term solution.
Asked to confirm that she was saying that, even with the new the four new prisons, the government would still run out of places, Mahmood said:
We will run out, because even all of that new supply, with the increase in prison population that we will see as a result of that new supply, doesn’t help you with the rise in demand, because demand is still rising faster than any supply could possibly catch up with.
The sentencing review Mahmood mentioned is being led by David Gauke, one of her Conservative predecessors. In an interview with Rajeev Syal, he gives some indication of his thinking.
The government wants to talk about prisons, but much of the debate today will be taken up with pay, and the union backlash against government proposals for some public sector workers to get a 2.8% pay rise in 2025-26.
In a separate interview, Mahmood stressed that the government proposals was just the start of the process. She told BBC Breakfast:
I would say to, trade unions and everybody else, that this is the start of that process, and of course I would hope that they recognise that the government’s fiscal inheritance has been extremely difficult, and we do have to make sure that the books overall balance as well, and that pay is on a sustainable footing.
This is the start of that process, and I wouldn’t want to get ahead of where we think the pay review bodies might ultimately make their recommendations.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.30am: Lord Timpson, the prisons minister, gives evidence to the Welsh affairs committee on deaths at HMP Parc.
10.30am: John Swinney, Scotland’s first minister, speaks at the launch of the National Collaborative Charter of Rights in Glasgow for people affected by substance use.
11am: Tom Bradshaw, president of the National Farmers’ Union, gives evidence to the Commons environment committee about the future of farming.
11am: Peers begin the second reading debate for the House of Lords (hereditary peers) bill.
Noon: Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs.
Noon: Farmers hold a rally at Westminster protesting about the budget plan to extend inheritance tax to cover farms.
Afternoon: Kim Leadbeater is expected to announce the names of MPs chosen to sit on the bill committee for the assisted dying bill.
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line or message me on social media. 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 social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X but individual Guardian journalists are there, I have still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
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.
Updated
