Afternoon summary
The American XL bully dog breed will be banned by the end of the year after a series of attacks, Rishi Sunak has said. But the Dog Control Coalition, which represents leading animal welfare and veterinary organisations, has criticised the proposal, saying that a ban will not stop attacks and that the government has not provided evidence to justify its decision. (See 4.37pm.) Jessica Murray has an explainer on the topic here.
Britain would take asylum seekers from the EU as part of any returns deal under a Labour government, Yvette Cooper has said, but would not formally join the European quota scheme.
Train drivers have announced two more days of strikes and an overtime ban across England, timed to bring services to a halt at the start and end of the Conservative party conference.
Eighty prison officers did not to turn up for their shifts at Wandsworth prison on the day Daniel Khalife escaped, leaving just 60% of posts filled, the Home Office has revealed.
Susan Hall, the Conservative candidate for London mayor, has liked tweets praising Enoch Powell, as well as some containing Islamophobic abuse towards Sadiq Khan, her Labour opponent, research by a campaign group has shown.
Updated
With the weekend coming up, it is always good to have something decent to read. Obviously, your best option is to splash out on a copy of the Guardian tomorrow, and the Observer on Sunday. But when you have finished all that lot, here are two long articles on Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer that are well worth devoting time to.
George Parker and Lucy Fisher have written an insightful feature for the FT’s magazine on what makes Sunak tick, and why he thinks he can win the election. Here is an insight.
With an election due within the next 15 months, allies admit things will have to speed up. “He has been told he can’t just exist as a problem-solver. He’s got to go out there and have a fight,” says one person close to Sunak. “He’s going to have to do things with which he won’t be comfortable.”
Liam Booth-Smith, his longstanding chief of staff, and James Forsyth, his political secretary and an old friend from Winchester College days, have urged him to become more political. “They have persuaded Rishi he has to move outside his comfort zone if he’s going to hold on to power,” says an ally of Sunak. “That has been a long and difficult process.”
One former cabinet minister close to Sunak says that unlike Johnson — who was inclined to say whatever came into his head if it was politically expedient — the current occupant of Number 10 is reluctant to engage in the grubby side of politics. After his ill-fated 2022 leadership bid, one backer lamented that Sunak had shown no “moral flexibility”.
And here is what is the funniest paragraph in the article.
The price for this cavalcade of mismanagement can be seen in public opinion surveys, which typically show the Tories trailing Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour party by between 15 and 20 points, easily enough to overturn the 80-seat majority won by Boris Johnson in 2019. Anthony Wells, director of political polling at YouGov, says he had not seen a government so “exhausted” since John Major’s Conservative administration in the 1990s. Asked for his views for a 4,000-word piece on whether Sunak could win the next election, he replied: “What are you going to say in the other 3,999?”
And, in the New Statesman, Andrew Marr has written an excellent essay on Keir Starmer. Here is an extract, on Starmer’s relationship with class.
We will learn more about Starmer the man next year when the first biography – written with his close cooperation by Tom Baldwin, a journalist and former senior adviser to Ed Miliband – comes out. But a working hypothesis might be that, in a political culture reliant on handy, crude class identities, Starmer simply does not fit in. Sir Keir, with his southern accent and sober suits, doesn’t look or sound working class to most people. He is not posh. So, what is he? Not being sure can make people less likely to form an emotional connection.
As one of his allies puts it, Starmer has a very complicated relationship with class. Coming, famously, from the working-class parentage of toolmaker and nurse, he broke through by hard work to become a lawyer and then director of public prosecutions. (At the despatch box, he doesn’t paint visions in the air: he prosecutes.) Thus far, it’s a straightforward British story of graft and aspiration.
But class matters deeply to Starmer, as his recent speech on state education and breaking the “class ceiling” demonstrated. His shadow cabinet is as working class as any I can remember. Could that be because not all members of his family emerged into the smooth, well-spoken professional world as he did? His three siblings are a carer, a mechanic and a dinner lady. And anyway, if you are working class in a Surrey village, are you really “working class”, as traditionally understood, at all? You don’t have the kind of community or collective that a working-class child would have in the West Midlands or Glasgow. You talk southern, which to much of the country sounds like posh.
Marr’s article also includes, if not quite a scoop, certainly a signpost towards one. When is a tax rise not a tax rise? When it involves closing loopholes, he suggests.
Labour’s Treasury team has, I gather, also been looking at a long list of loopholes that they believe would generate billions of extra pounds, without raising tax rates. They don’t want to give away details because of the danger of the Conservatives swiping more of their policies. But a radical cleaning up of loopholes and allowances would be an obvious source of revenue.
Updated
Keir Starmer will be in Canada later this evening where over the weekend he will be meeting other centre-left leaders at the Global Progress Action Summit, hosted by the Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau. For an account of what he is likely to say, it is well worth reading Patrick Maguire’s column in the Times. Here’s an extract.
[Starmer] will diagnose four existential threats to global security: climate change, people smuggling, terrorism and weakening democracy.
His diagnosis is not only that each of those threats in turn exacerbates the next, but that governments of the left are often too squeamish to speak of hard national borders as the obvious prescription. People tend to forget that Starmer was blooded in the Commons as a shadow immigration minister within weeks of arriving in 2015. This stuff has played on his mind as long as he has been in Westminster. “Border security is a progressive cause,” says an aide preparing Starmer for his turn on the international stage. “Soft borders benefit no one except the smuggling gangs and those who want to whip up distrust and hatred.”
Anybody who has ever met a member of Denmark’s nativist Social Democrats or David Blunkett may question that criticism of centre-left sensibilities on immigration. But Starmer, seldom pictured without a Union flag behind him, will nonetheless sell himself as the man to lead progressive governments in the fight against these destabilising forces — which he will christen “the axis of instability”, with people-smugglers at its heart.
That aide again: “We can show we are the ones with the solutions, and we can build a patriotism for the 2030s and beyond.” For the Labour leadership to be thinking in these terms is another revealing measure of the self-assurance with which they now carry themselves.
Updated
Major animal welfare groups criticise American XL bullies ban, saying they're 'deeply concerned' about lack of evidence
Leading animal welfare and vet groups have criticised the government’s decision to ban American XL bully dogs.
The Dog Control Coalition – which is made up of the RSPCA, Blue Cross, Battersea, Dogs Trust, Hope Rescue, Scottish SPCA, the Kennel Club and British Veterinary Association – said in a statement:
The recent incidents are deeply distressing and our thoughts are with all those involved and affected.
The biggest priority for everyone involved is to protect the public - but banning the breed will sadly not stop these types of incidents recurring.
For 32 years, the Dangerous Dogs Act has focused on banning types of dog and yet has coincided with an increase in dog bites, and the recent deaths show that this approach isn’t working. The UK government must tackle the root issue by dealing with the unscrupulous breeders, who are putting profit before welfare, and the irresponsible owners whose dogs are dangerously out of control.
The coalition urges the prime minister to work with them to fully understand the wide-reaching consequences of his decision to ban American bully XLs, which will have significant impacts on owners, the animal welfare sector, vets, law enforcement and the public.
It is also critical that any policy designed to protect public safety is based on robust evidence, and we are deeply concerned about the lack of data behind this decision and its potential to prevent dog bites.
The statement is not surprising because the Dog Control Coalition was specifically set up to oppose what it calls breed specific legislation (BSL) and in particular the Dangerous Dogs Act, which is the law Rishi Sunak wants to use to ban XL bullies.
Updated
Irish PM accuses UK government of double standards over what comments acceptable about Ireland's constitutional future
Leo Varadkar, the taoiseach (Irish PM), has accused British ministers of applying double standards over what comments about the constitutional future of Ireland are deemed acceptable.
Last week Varadkar said he thought Ireland would unite within his lifetime. He has said this often before, but Chris Heaton-Harris, the Northern Ireland secretary, complained the remark was “unhelpful”.
Speaking at a Fine Gael event in Limerick, Varadkar argued that, if the Irish government does not object to UK ministers expressing support for unionism, London should not complain about Irish ministers speaking in favour of reunification. He explained:
I’d ask this question, which is: Rishi Sunak, the prime minister, describes himself as a proud unionist, he has been appointed by himself as minister for the union. Liz Truss did something similar. So did Boris Johnson. The secretary of state often talks about how committed he is to the union. Not only do we accept that, we respect it. Why is there a double standard applied to Irish politicians when we say what’s in our constitution, that we’d like to see a united Ireland and work towards it?
Varadkar also said it was unfair for the British to describe the Irish government as unhelpful. He said:
I heard the secretary of state talking about the word helpful and helpfulness. I think we as a government have been extremely helpful to the British government since the Brexit journey began.
Under my leadership as taoiseach, we’ve negotiated three agreements with the British government – the backstop, the protocol and, when they couldn’t honour that agreement, we were the adults in the room and we negotiated the Windsor framework.
Updated
Members of Labour’s national policy forum have been sent a final copy of the policy document drawn up at the weekend meeting they held in Nottingham in July. The key decisions were reported at the time, but all the changes have now been incorporated into one, 112-page text. It will be available at the Labour party conference.
Tom Belger, at LabourList, has a good summary of some of the key measures in the document, which will form the backbone of the election manifesto. He says:
Labour is no longer committed to raising sick pay rates or extending it to the self-employed, according to new documents that reveal a series of tweaks to party policy on its flagship workers’ rights reforms.
But the party is now committed to doubling the time for employees to bring tribunal claims, which it said could particularly help those filing pregnancy discrimination claims, as well as acting to “promote a positive work-life balance for all workers”.
Party figures involved in the National Policy Forum have been sent a final copy of the party’s current full policy programme, consolidated in one place for the first time. Representatives will vote on it at party conference in Liverpool in October, and it will help shape the next general election manifesto …
A party source said: “After extensive engagement, the NPF document adds detail to strengthen and clarify the agenda and to provide businesses and workers the certainty they need in many areas.”
Updated
Labour says Rishi Sunak should have acted earlier to ban American XL bully dogs. Steve Reed, the shadow environment secretary, said:
This attack is absolutely horrific. These dogs leave a trail of destruction in communities up and down the country.
Labour MPs have long called for these dogs to be banned. Families will be furious that it has taken this long for Rishi Sunak to finally act.
But if Rishi Sunak continues to dither, the next Labour government will do the right thing and ban these dogs causing terror.
Lord Baker, who was Conservative home secretary when the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was passed, told LBC that he strongly supported Rishi Sunak’s decision to ban American XL bully dogs. Four breeds of dog were banned under the act, and Sunak wants to use the legislation to enact his XL bully ban.
Baker said:
It should be done almost immediately because this is a very dangerous breed and it has actually killed children and attacked other people, and I do not accept the views of the Kennel Club and the RSPCA that breeds should not be banned.
This dog is, in fact, bred in order to fight and to be aggressive. It has already done enough damage and the prime minister is absolutely right to add it.
Baker said that when the ban came into force, existing XL bullies should be “neutered or destroyed”, and that any allowed to live should be “muzzled for the entire time”. He went on:
They should be removed from the dog-loving public as soon as possible. They have no role in that range of domestic dogs. There are some breeds that should not be part of the dog-loving public.
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is often cited as an example of poor legislation. Like the XL bully ban, it was announced in response to a series of dog attacks that received prominent media coverage and it was rushed through parliament.
Under the original legislation, banned dogs had to be destroyed, and courts did not have any discretion in cases where owners were arguing that their dogs had no history of violent behaviour. That led to a spate of newspaper stories about affectionate family pets supposedly being put down without justification.
Subsequently the act was amended to give the courts some discretion, and the legislation is now viewed more favourably.
Updated
Ira Moss, general manager of the charity All Dogs Matter, told the World at One that, in the light of the number of attacks involving American XL bully dogs, she was not surprised that the government has decided to ban them. She said:
A lot of the XL bullies might be fine. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of really irresponsible people out there that own them. They’re not walking them; they’re in flats, they’re left on their own for often 24 hours at a time and they’re very powerful dogs. So we’re not really that surprised [by the ban].
Neil Hudson, a Conservative MP who sits on the Commons environment committee and who is also a vet, told the World at One that he supported the government’s decision to ban American XL bully dogs. He said:
These are big animals and in the wrong hands, these 50/60-kilo animals are incredibly dangerous. So I think it’s something we need to look at urgently … I think this is the the right way forward at this point.
Sadly, there have been a number of attacks in recent days, but also in recent weeks and months. We need to be clear now and try and define the type of dog.
Some people says the breed-specific legislation does not work and we should look at the deed rather than the breed. But I have to say that, once the deed is committed, it’s too late. And I think we have to have a more nuanced look at this, and it should be the deed and/or the breed.
If you are bitten or attacked by a small dog, like a Jack Russell terrier, the implications of that are vastly different from being attacked by an American XL bully.
Asked what the government should do about people who already own an XL bully, Hudson said it should first find out how many of these dogs there are in Britain. After that options could include licensing them, or ordering them to be muzzled in public. But some people have been attacked by these dogs at home, he said.
Hudson also said the environment committee would be holding an urgent session on this topic within the next few weeks.
Updated
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, has said she wants the police to protect people from American XL bully dogs before the ban planned by the government comes into force.
Today’s tragedy underlines the need to ban the American XL Bully. They are a threat to life and cause misery in our communities.
We are taking action to ban them and, in the meantime, I expect police to use all available powers to protect the public from these beasts.
Today’s tragedy underlines the need to ban the American XL Bully. They are a threat to life and cause misery in our communities.
— Suella Braverman MP (@SuellaBraverman) September 15, 2023
We are taking action to ban them and, in the meantime, I expect police to use all available powers to protect the public from these beasts. https://t.co/m5PikEu5Xk
Updated
Three campaign groups have welcomed the government’s announcement it will ban American XL bully dogs by the end of the year, PA Media reports.
In a joint statement, Bully Watch, the Campaign for Evidence Based Regulation of Dangerous Dogs (CEBRDD) and Protect Our Pets claimed the breed was a “a clear and present threat to public health”.
Lawrence Newport, of CEBRDD, said:
Retrievers retrieve, pointers point. Fighting dogs fight. We have found this to our great cost.
The importing of the American bully, a highly inbred pitbull-type, led to skyrocketing deaths and attacks. This ban will finally allow the government and police to act, before another child or pet is ripped apart.
Updated
Rishi Sunak has said that he is banning the American XL bully dog because “urgent action” is needed.
Speaking to broadcasters, he said his “thoughts are with the victim and their families” after a man was pronounced dead following a dog attack yesterday.
He said the XL bully was being banned because it was “clearly a danger to communities”.
Asked whether there was a risk of other dogs, such as the staffordshire bull terrier, being caught up in the ban, Sunak said animal experts and police would work to “accurately define the breed of concern”.
He added: “It is right we take urgent action to stop these attacks and protect the public.”
Updated
No 10 has rejected suggestions that it has dragged its feet over announcing a ban affecting American XL bully dogs.
The Daily Mirror has been calling for tighter legislation to deal with dangerous dogs for more than a year. Its campaign has not just focused on American XL bully dogs, although they have featured prominently in Mirror stories about dangerous animals. More recently, other papers have highlighted the dangers of these dogs as attacks involving them have repeatedly made the headlines.
At the Downing Street lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson denied there had been any delay to the ban, which will be implemented jointly by the Home Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He said:
We’ve obviously been doing some policy work on this, and you heard from the home secretary recently about how to take this forward.
Clearly, this breed of dog isn’t defined in law so it’s right to take the time to consider the best way to put an end to these horrendous attacks that we’re seeing. That work has been done and that’s why we’ve confirmed the position today.
Asked if the ban was a response to the death of a man who was attacked by two dogs in Staffordshire yesterday, the spokesperson said:
The work was already under way before yesterday, certainly, but clearly we have seen a spate of horrendous incidents and whilst we recognise there are a range of views on this issue, the prime minister is of the view that it is right to act, firstly to define this breed and then to ban it.
It is understood that, while details are yet to be worked out, the ban will not necessarily mean all such dogs will need to be destroyed. There could be a possible amnesty period during which they could be kept under certain conditions.
Updated
Forty per cent of staff were absent from Wandsworth prison on day Daniel Khalife escaped, Home Office says
More than 80 prison officers did not to turn up for their shifts at Wandsworth prison on the day of the prison escape of Daniel Khalife, leaving just 60% of posts filled, it has emerged.
The government insisted staffing was not a factor in Khalife’s breakout from HMP Wandsworth on 6 September, with Damian Hinds, a justice minister, saying it was above safe levels that day.
However, Hinds said 80 prison officers “did not attend their expected shift at the prison that day” while 125 were on duty, equating to 61% attendance.
In a response to a Commons written question, Hinds said:
On 6 September 2023, 1,594 prisoners were held at HMP Wandsworth. 125 Band 3 Prison Officers at the prison attended their shift on that day. This equates to 61 per cent of all staff due to attend. 80 officers did not attend their expected shift at the prison on that day.
Overall staffing levels were above the minimum staffing level required by the prison’s Regime Management Plan to deliver a safe and decent regime.
All staff in both the kitchen and the gatehouse were on duty on 06 September. An initial investigation into Daniel Khalife’s escape did not find the staffing level to be a contributing factor.
The question was tabled by Rosena Allin-Khan, the Labour MP for Tooting, in south London, which includes HMP Wandsworth. She said:
I’ve had concerns for many months about staffing levels at Wandsworth prison. Today, it’s revealed that on the day Daniel Khalife escaped - they were 80 prison officers short. This sits with the government. Their under-resourcing of the prison service has caused this.
Updated
Sunak says law banning American XL bully dogs will be in force by end of year
Here is the full text of what Rishi Sunak said in his video statement about banning American XL bully dogs. (See 11.50am.)
The American XL bully dog is a danger to our communities, particularly our children.
I share the nation’s horror at the recent videos we’ve all seen. Yesterday we saw another suspected XL bully dog attack, which has tragically led to a fatality.
It is clear this is not about a handful of badly trained dogs, it’s a pattern of behaviour and it cannot go on.
While owners already have a responsibility to keep their dogs under control, I want to reassure people that we are urgently working on ways to stop these attacks and protect the public.
Today I have tasked ministers to bring together police and experts to firstly define the breed of dog behind these attacks, with the view to then outlawing it.
It is not currently a breed defined in law, so this vital first step must happen fast.
We will then ban the breed under the Dangerous Dogs Act and new laws will be in place by the end of the year.
These dogs are dangerous. I want to reassure the public that we will take all necessary steps to keep people safe.
Updated
Sunak says government will ban American XL bully dogs following spate of attacks
Rishi Sunak has said the American XL bully dog will be banned.
It’s clear the American XL Bully dog is a danger to our communities.
I’ve ordered urgent work to define and ban this breed so we can end these violent attacks and keep people safe.
It’s clear the American XL Bully dog is a danger to our communities.
— Rishi Sunak (@RishiSunak) September 15, 2023
I’ve ordered urgent work to define and ban this breed so we can end these violent attacks and keep people safe. pic.twitter.com/Qlxwme2UPQ
Updated
Train drivers announce strikes timed to disrupt Tory party conference
Train drivers are to stage fresh strikes, coinciding with the Conservative party’s annual conference, in their long-running dispute over pay, PA Media reports. PA says:
Aslef announced its members at 16 train operators will walk out on Saturday 30 September – the day before the conference – and on Wednesday 4 October, the final day of the event.
The union said the strikes will force train operators to cancel all services, causing travel chaos for passengers, including those travelling to and from the Conservative conference in Manchester, which is being held from 1 to 4 October.
Aslef members will also ban overtime from 29 September to 6 October, which the union said will “seriously disrupt” the rail network.
In a statement Mick Whelan, the Aslef general secretary, said:
While we regret having to take this action – we don’t want to lose a day’s pay, or disrupt passengers, as they try to travel by train – the government, and the employers, have forced us into this position. Our members have not, now, had a pay rise for four years – since 2019 – and that’s not right when prices have soared in that time. Train drivers, perfectly reasonably, want to be able to buy now what they could buy four years ago.
Whelan also criticised Mark Harper, the transport secretary, for not engaging with the unions in talks to end the dispute. He said:
Do you remember Where’s Wally? Well, what we want to know is Where’s Harper? We last saw the secretary of state for transport in December. We last saw Huw Merriman, the rail minister, in January. And we last saw the train companies in April. Since then, nothing. Nada. Zilch. Not a letter, not an email, not a text message, not a phone call, not a WhatsApp. Not a word!
So where is Mark Harper? He holds the purse strings. The train companies have told us. They say they cannot act without his say-so. He’s the puppet master controlling the companies. But he’s hiding. What’s the man afraid of? We think it’s time Harper stepped up to the mark.
Updated
In her Sky News interview Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, was also asked if Labour would repeal the Illegal Migration Act. She did not answer. But she said the Tories were wrong to claim that Labour would make illegal migration legal. She said it has been unlawful to enter the UK irregularly on a small boat, or in other ways, since the 1970s, and that Labour would not change that.
Cooper suggests Labour returns agreement with EU might involve more children with relatives in UK being admitted
In her interviews this morning Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, tried to counter Conservative party claims that a returns agreement with the EU could lead to the UK having to take in up to 100,000 migrants a year. Here are the arguments that she made on this.
Cooper said the Tory claims were “total garbage” because they were assuming that Labour would take the UK into the EU’s asylum dispersal scheme. She said:
What we’re clearly not talking about, which the Conservatives have been talking about, is joining the EU asylum dispersal scheme for member states that involves quotas and things like that. Nobody’s proposing that. We are not a member state and we’re not going to be a member state. So that has just been totally made up by the Conservatives.
She suggested that a Labour returns agreement with the EU might involve the UK making it easier for asylum-seeking children with family in Britain to enter the country. Asked what Labour might offer the EU, Cooper told Sky News:
What we’ve proposed is, for example, for children who have family in the UK, we used to have an agreement where there were some returns, there were also controlled, safe routes for children with family in the UK, for other people who had a particular family in the UK, who currently simply end up getting exploited by people smugglers. So we think there is a sensible route that you can take, there is a sensible process that you can get into in a negotiation. But it has to be something that works for the UK.
But Cooper was not asked in the interview whether it was realistic to think the EU would negotiate a returns agreement with the UK that only involved children and family members being accepted by Britain. In an interview with the Times published yesterday, Keir Starmer implied he was open to a wider agreement. Asked if he would be willing to accept the “quid pro quo” of migrant quotas in exchange for a deal, Starmer told the paper: “That would be part of any discussions and negotiations with Europe.”
Updated
Alex Chalk, the justice secretary, has announced that he has appointed Keith Bristow, a former director general of the National Crime Agency, to lead the independent investigation into how the terrorism suspect Daniel Khalife escaped from Wandsworth prison.
Today I’ve appointed Keith Bristow, former head of the National Crime Agency, to carry out the independent investigation into last week’s escape from HMP Wandsworth. The Terms of Reference have been agreed, and I have asked for the findings promptly.
Today I’ve appointed Keith Bristow, former head of the National Crime Agency, to carry out the independent investigation into last week’s escape from HMP Wandsworth. The Terms of Reference have been agreed, and I have asked for the findings promptly. https://t.co/IROeMy7Lap
— Alex Chalk KC MP (@AlexChalkChelt) September 15, 2023
Updated
Labour criticises 'zombie government' for delay to renters (reform) bill
Labour has criticised the government for holding up the passage of the renters (reform) bill through parliament.
Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, published the bill in May, but it still has not had a second reading in the Commons. Housing campaigners are strongly in favour of the legislation because it will ban no-fault evictions (also known as section 21 evictions, under the Housing Act).
Angela Rayner, Gove’s Labour shadow, told the Financial Times:
Renters are currently facing a desperate situation, and urgently need greater security and better rights, yet this zombie government has failed to lift a finger to progress that legislation.
Rayner was commenting on a report in the paper saying some government whips are holding up the bill. Gove reportedly wants the bill to have a second reading before the end of this parliamentary session (the new session will start with the king’s speech on 7 November) and for the bill to be carried over into the next session of parliament, but there is some doubt as to whether this will happen.
In their story, George Parker, Anna Gross and Jim Pickard report:
Some supporters of the bill claim that its crucial second reading in the House of Commons is being held up by vested interests in the government whips office, where five of 16 whips own rental property.
“There are a number of landlords in the whips office who are amplifying the level of concern among Tory MPs and holding things up,” said one Whitehall official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
But the FT also quotes a sources in the government whips’ office denying this, and sources claiming Gove has not yet done enough to assure colleagues that the bill will pass without a big Tory rebellion.
Updated
Tata Steel poised for £500m subsidy to secure future of Port Talbot site
The government is poised to announce a £500m support package for Tata Steel to secure the future of the Port Talbot steelworks, in an agreement that could lead to as many as 3,000 job losses, Mark Sweney reports.
Drakeford says Wales' default 20mph speed limit in residential areas will save lives
Yesterday Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the Commons, said the decision by the Labour government in Wales to impose a default 20mph speed limit on residential roads (coming into force from this Sunday) was “absolutely insane”.
This morning Mark Drakeford, the Welsh first minister, defended the plan, saying it would save lives. Referring to an estimate that it would make car journeys a tiny bit longer, he told the Today programme:
Even if you add a minute to every journey, I say to people – and when I’m speaking to people, I think people understand this – it’s going to take you a minute longer to make your journey, and we will save 10 people’s lives in Wales every year as a result of that one minute contribution that you are making. It doesn’t seem a bad or unfair bargain.
Drakeford said a similar cut to the speed limit in Spain had reduced road deaths in urban areas by a fifth, with cyclist fatalities down by 34%. He went on:
Driving more slowly in built-up urban areas saves people’s lives.
I think the evidence is incontrovertible. It’s why we had this in the Labour party manifesto at our election in 2021 and this weekend we will deliver that promise.
Updated
Minister says Sunak will meet pledge to stop the boats ‘in fullness of time’ as Labour says it would end migrant hotel use
Good morning. Conservative commentators believe that Keir Starmer took quite a risk yesterday when he announced a new, or newish, approach to small boats, suggesting Labour would have a returns agreement with the EU that might involve the UK accepting a quota of asylum seekers. Our overnight story, by Rajeev Syal, Peter Walker and Diane Taylor, is here.
Whatever the reaction, Labour is not giving up. This morning Labour has set out more details of what it is proposing, claiming that by speeding up the processing of asylum applications it could end the use of hotels for migrants. In a news release, Labour says it would:
- Hire over 1,000 new caseworkers on an expedited process (a 50% increase on current asylum casework levels) to bust the backlog and get through cases efficiently.
- Implement targets and standards to ensure decisions are made well and productivity increases. New staff will be recruited at a higher grade than recent Home Office casework recruitment to improve productivity after the Tory downgrade of staffing in 2013 led to productivity falling.
- Create a returns unit to triage and fast-track removals of those such as failed asylum seekers with no right to be in the UK, with 1000 staff to ensure enforcement.
- Invest in temporary Nightingale-style courts to ensure appeals can be quickly heard, and removals processed
Under Labour’s plans, once the backlog created by the Tories is cleared, it should no longer be necessary to accommodate asylum seekers in hotels, barges or former military sites, like RAF Scampton, which are currently costing the taxpayer over £2bn a year.
Instead, a Labour government will rely on long-standing, cost-effective asylum accommodation, which has space for 58,000 asylum applicants at any one time. This has been sufficient in the past, but the Tory government’s failure to tackle the record backlog has made them reliant on costly hotels once this asylum accommodation reached capacity.
This chart, from a Home Office report, shows how the number of people waiting for a decision on their asylum application has soared over the past decade.
Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, has been giving interviews this morning promoting Labour’s policy. The government has had Chris Philp, the policing minister, making its case, and he has been restating the Tory claim (which Labour denies) that its policy would lead to 100,000 migrants being admitted a year. He defended the government’s approach, but did not sound confident about the government being able to “stop the boats” before the general election, as Rishi Sunak implied he would when he made this pledge. Philp said this might happen “in the fullness of time” – which in some contexts can mean over years, decades, or never. He told Sky News:
Let’s start with the small boats. So, the number this year compared to last year, the same time last year, is around about 20% down. Now, we’d like to go a lot further, obviously, but it’s a good start.
Asked if Sunak would meet his pledge, Philp replied:
I’m confident in the fullness of time, yes, we will stop those boats. We must stop those boats. They’re illegal crossings of the Channel, they’re dangerous. They’re also unnecessary because France is a safe country, it’s not a war zone.
I will post more on this row shortly.
The Commons is not sitting today, and there is not much in the diary, but we’ll manage for politics news.
If you want to contact me, do try the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a laptop or a desktop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often 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 in the comments below the line, privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate), or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.
Updated
