Afternoon summary
Dame Alison Rose, the chief executive of NatWest Group, has stood down after a row over the closure of Nigel Farage’s bank accounts with the private bank Coutts, which NatWest owns. She quit after No 10 and the Treasury let it known they had concerns about her staying. Keir Starmer said this morning she was right to quit, but in an interview recorded yesterday but broadcast this evening Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, defended Rose and said she was a victim of bullying. (See 3.35pm.)
Factor 8, a group campaigning for victims of the infected blood scandal, has criticised Rishi Sunak for refusing to commit to bringing forward plans to unveil a compensation scheme in his evidence to the inquiry this afternoon. Sunak stuck to the government’s position, which is that it will announce a decision about compensation after the inquiry produces its final report. In a statement Factor 8 said:
It is with profound disappointment, dismay, and a sense of deepening sorrow that we, the Factor 8 campaign group, respond to prime minister Rishi Sunak’s appearance at the infected blood inquiry.
Regrettably, the prime minister offered neither new information nor commitments to the victims and bereaved families of the infected blood scandal.
Despite our impassioned plea in the letter delivered to him on Monday, urging swift action in line with the inquiry’s recommendations, he did not take this golden opportunity to advance the cause of justice for victims and their families. Our hearts are heavy.
Updated
Infected blood inquiry chair urges Sunak to reassure victims, with 'actions preferably', they will get compensation
Back at the infected blood inquiry, Rishi Sunak has finished giving evidence.
Sir Brian Langstaff, the chair, ends with his own address to Sunak.
He urges Sunak to reassure the victims, by actions or words – “actions preferably” – that compensation will be paid.
If it troubles his conscience, it should trouble the conscience of a caring government, “and that has what you said you want to be”.
People at the hearing (many of whom are victims, or their relatives), applaud.
Updated
Rachel Reeves’ office has been in touch to point out that the interview with Channel 4 News in which Reeves defended Alison Rose (see 3.35pm) was recorded before Rose admitted yesterday that she was the source for the BBC’s story about Nigel Farage’s bank account and apologised for a “serious error of judgment”.
(There had been suspicions that Rose was the source for days, ever since it was reported last week that she sat next to Simon Jack, the BBC’s business editor, at a dinner the night before he broke the story.)
Updated
Farage mocks Reeves' claim that Alison Rose did good job as NatWest chief executive
Nigel Farage hit back at Reeves’ criticism (see 3.35pm), which he contrasted with Keir Starmer’s more supportive comments earlier in the day and said that it would backfire on Labour. He said:
I don’t know whether Rachel Reeves has ever heard of something called the stock market. Maybe not. But have a look at the share price and ask yourself how good a job Alison has done.
Of Reeves’ claims that the the Tories were picking fights on his behalf, he added: “Typical of some people to politicise a non-partisan issue. What a disappointment.”
“I think Starmer’s position was more intelligent,” he said, after the Labour leader told BBC Radio 5 Live that NatWest had “got this one wrong” and Rose had to go. Starmer said Farage should not have had his personal banking details revealed. (See 10.05am.)
Updated
Turning back to the Labour policy document criticising first past the post for a moment (see 12.12pm). One person who might welcome that is Ian Dunt. Earlier this year he published How Westminster Works … and Why It Doesn’t and if you are still looking for a summer political read, I’d recommend it highly. There is a mountain of books out there about the failings of Westminster politics, but very few of them are as good as this.
It is not a book about the electoral system, but first past the post does feature very high on Dunt’s list of reasons for the UK’s political dysfunctionality. Here are two extracts.
Hardly any other advanced democracy uses [first past the post] except for the US and Canada. Over the course of the 20th century, most gave up on it, from Australia in 1913 to New Zealand in 1993. No major democracy has ever adopted it after using a different system. Since 1945, only three newly democratic independent countries have made the conscious decision to adopt the system – Albania, Macedonia and Ukraine – and every single one of them has subsequently dropped it …
[FPTP] is at the heart of many of our problems. It is the origin of the machofication of our political culture and all the inadequacies that flow from that. It fails in two distinct ways. First, it fails on the most basic possible level imaginable by ignoring the majority of voters. Second, it fails by creating a form of government with no need to compromise.
One of the other good politics books out this summer, Why Politics Fails by Ben Ansell, also addresses this issue. It is more theoretical and more international than Dunt’s book, and Ansell is marginally less evangelical about PR, but he does suggest it might be a distinct improvement on FPTP. He says:
Consider proportional representation (PR). As an electoral system it may help us escape the democracy trap both because it better represents the diversity of differences among us but also because it encourages cooperation among parties. But PR doesn’t only have electoral effects. Countries with PR, such as Sweden and Norway, also seem better able to escape the other traps.
Compare, for example, inequality levels in countries with PR, such as those in Scandinavia or the Netherlands, to those in countries with majoritarian electoral systems, such as Australia, the UK and the USA. Not only is earnings inequality somewhat lower in the PR countries – likely a legacy of high levels of unionisation – but inequality in disposable incomes is often dramatically lower because countries with PR have much higher levels of redistribution – in part because they have more leftwing parties in government. Higher taxation and powerful trade unions may not be a price all of us are willing to pay to escape the equality trap, but PR certainly seems to promote them.
Updated
Jenni Richards KC, counsel for the inquiry, has finished her questions to Rishi Sunak now. But he is not finished yet. The hearing has been adjourned again, and it will resume at 4.35pm for Sunak to take questions from counsel for core participants.
Q: Do you agree that, if accepting the moral case for compensation is not followed by paying compensation, you are not putting things right?
Sunak says of course action will be taken.
Q: Can you say you are committed to paying compensation?
Of course, says Sunak.
Updated
Richards asks Sunak if he can give any reassurance about timescales.
Q: We have had assurances about “working at pace”. But that does not say what the pace is. And we have heard about the government responding “as soon as possible”. But those words don’t have much content. Can you say what they mean?
Sunak says he agreed with Sir Brian Langstaff, the committee chair, who said he would move “as quickly as thoroughness allowed”.
Langstaff intervenes to say that what he said was that he would proceed as quickly as “reasonable thoroughness” allowed. It is possible to be too thorough, he says.
Here is my colleague John Crace’s take on the takeaway from Rishi Sunak’s evidence to the infected blood inquiry.
Looks like the govt will do anything not to pay compensation to infected blood victims this side of an election
— John Crace (@JohnJCrace) July 26, 2023
Back at the infected blood inquiry, Jenni Richards KC, counsel for the inquiry is asking Rishi Sunak about a Telegraph report saying payments in relation to the scandal could reach £20bn.
She says this information had not been discussed in parliament. It could be a leak without government approval, a leak with government approval, or the journalist “making it up”.
Q: Has there been a leak inquiry?
Sunak says he is not aware of one. He says he cannot control leaks from government. Sometimes they hold leak inquiries, but it is hard to find who is responsible for leaks.
Q: Should there be a leak inquiry? Because, if this is deliberately being leaked, this could be part of a strategy to win over the public, and pre-empt the inquiry findings.
Sunak says he would not speculate on a leak inquiry. The last thing you would do is tell people an inquiry will take place.
(In fact, No 10 does sometimes announce leak inquiries.)
How Rachel Reeves defended NatWest chief as victim of Treasury 'bullying' day before Starmer said she was right to quit
Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, has come to the defence of Dame Alison Rose. In an interview with Channel 4 News Reeves said that Rose, who was forced to resign as NatWest chief executive after admitting that she had discussed Nigel Farage’s bank account with a BBC journalist, had been a victim of “bullying”, and she implied that Tory Treasury ministers were partly responsible.
She also said that, instead of attacking the banks on behalf of Nigel Farage, the chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, and his colleagues should be tackling the cost of living crisis.
Reeves said:
I don’t like, some of the frankly, what I see as bullying attitudes towards her. She’s the first female chief executive of NatWest. She took over at a time when that bank had real big problems. It seems to me that Alison Rose, has done a good job turning that bank around.
Let me say this. If I was in the Treasury at the moment, rather than Jeremy Hunt and his Conservative ministers, I’d be spending my time this summer trying to ensure that families in Scarborough, like the ones I’ve spoken to today, are properly protected during this cost of living crisis rather than picking a fight with banks on behalf of Nigel Farage.
Channel 4 News says this interview was recorded yesterday, before Rose resigned. And Reeves’s office has said that the interview was recorded before Rose admitted late yesterday afternoon that she was the source for the BBC’s story about Farage’s bank account and apologised for her “serious error of judgment”.
This morning, after Rose resigned in the early hours of this morning, Keir Starmer said she was right to go. (See 10.05am.)
Updated
Photograph: Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty Images
Sir Brian Langstaff calls a 15-minute break.
He reminds Sunak that, while they are having their break, he should not discuss his evidence with anyone.
Sunak resists invitation to say he will think again about when government will decide compensation plan
Q: Will you consider again whether it is right to delay arranging the compensation scheme until the report is out?
Sunak says it is right for the government to go through this properly. He says the inquiry itself has taken several years, “rightly and necessarily”. The government needs to consider its response thoroughly too.
Q: Is the answer no? Or is the answer that you won’t say?
Sunak says it would not be right to change government policy now.
But he wants the government to move “with urgency”.
Q: I was not asking you to change the government’s position. I was asking if you would look at this again.
Sunak says it would not be right speculate on changing the government’s consideration.
Sir Brian Langstaff asks what would happen if the inquiry report were delayed. Suppose he had an accident that meant he could not finish the report for another three months. Would victims have to wait another three months? He says that is something for Sunak to think about.
Sunak says it is for the inquiry to decide when it reports to government. He cannot control that.
But he can ensure that work to address points raised in the interim reports is going on. That is happening, he says.
Updated
Q: Do you accept that, when the report comes out, the election, and election purdah, could delay a response?
Sunak says the chair of the inquiry said he would proceed “as quickly as thoroughness allows”. That should be the government’s approach too, he says.
And he says it is the approach he has followed as PM.
Q: Some people think the government is delaying setting up a compensation scheme now, either because it only started work on this later, or because it does not want to respond until the inquiry is over, and no longer has legal powers.
Sunak says it is normal for a government to wait until an inquiry is over before responding.
There are lots of means by which the government can be held to account. There are “very strong scrutiny mechanisms” in place, he says.
Sunak says he does not want to add to 'litany of broken promises' made to victims of infected blood scandal
Sunak says rational decision-making requires the government to wait for the final report before deciding what to do. That is what legal precedent says.
Q: What are you waiting to find out?
Sunak says he cannot comment on policy options that are actively being considered.
He says he does not want to contribute to the “litany of broken promises” that have been made in the past to victims.
Updated
Q: Why does the government need to wait for the final report before making arrangements for compensation? What do you need to know?
Sunak says, before taking final decisions, it is important to understand “the full context”.
Ordinarily the government would want to see the full report before making policy, he says. He says there is good legal precedent for that.
But that does not mean the government cannot act in the meantime. It has. It has paid interim compensation.
Updated
Sunak laughed at during infected blood inquiry hearing when he claims work on compensation proceeding 'at pace'
Richards says Penny Mordaunt wanted the government to be doing more work now, so payments could go out as soon as the inquiry concluded.
Sunak says the government has already made interim compensation payments.
Q: Does the government have options ready to implement on the conclusion of the inquiry?
Sunak says the government is doing a lot of work on this, so that it will be able to act as quickly as possible when the inquiry ends.
He says the work continues “at pace”.
That phrase triggers some laughter from people in the room.
Richards says she will come back to that phrase. It has come up a lot at the inquiry, she says.
Updated
Sunak defends government's plan to wait for inquiry's final recommendation before taking final compensation decisions
Richards says victims of the scandal still do not have any idea of the shape, the form or the timescale of any compensation scheme.
Sunak replies:
Of course, people have been waiting for too long to get the recognition that they deserve for what’s happened.
He says he has only been PM for eight months.
Days after he became PM, interim compensation payments were made, he says.
Then, in December, the government accepted for the first time there was a moral case for compensation, he says.
Q: Given what you now know, is it acceptable that people are still waiting for a compensation framework. Is that good enough?
Some members of the public in the room seem to shout: “No”.
Sunak says it is reasonable to allow the inquiry to finish its work.
He says he can entirely sympathise with people wanting a government response as soon as possible.
But he says, having set up the inquiry, it would be wrong for the government to pre-empt its findings by setting its own policy on compensation.
The process “is not an unreasonable one”, he says.
He says that of course this has been going on for too long.
But he thinks it is right for the government to wait until the inquiry makes recommendation, and to respond then.
Sir Brian Langstaff asks Sunak if is he saying he wished this had all been sorted out more quickly.
Of course, says Sunak.
Updated
Richards says Mordaunt, as paymaster general at the time, was the minister most involved in this issue. She thought dealing with the compensation issue was long overdue, Richards says.
Richards is now showing Sunak extracts from Penny Mordaunt’s follow-up letter.
Mordaunt said in it that she “firmly” believed the government should start preparing to pay compensation before the inquiry reported. And she said:
I cannot stress enough the urgency of taking long-overdue action on financial support and compensation.
Sunak says the letter was dealt with by officials. He says the subsequent spending review allocated £175m to resolve disparities between compensation payments to victims in different parts of the country.
Updated
Q: Penny Mordaunt told us she was making a point in that letter about what was morally right.
Sunak says it is best for Mordaunt to say what she had in mind.
But he says the points raised by Mordaunt in her letter was addressed.
He says more than £500m has already been paid in compensation.
Sunak says government will respond to infected blood inquiry report 'as swiftly as possible'
Q: Do you remember someone raising with you, at the time of the letter, the ongoing deaths?
Sunak says he does not remember that being raised with him.
Q: Do you understand the point about justice delayed being justice denied?
Sunak says this scandal has gone on for decades. He says that is not right.
That is why is is pleased the inquiry was set up. He hopes it finishes soon, and he says he is committed to acting in response “as swiftly as possible”.
Sunak tells infected blood inquiry what happened to victims was 'appalling scandal'
Jenni Richards KC, counsel for the inquiry, starts by asking Rishi Sunak to confirm when he was chief secretary to the Treasury and chancellor.
She shows two letters sent in 2020, when Sunak was chancellor. On 30 July Penny Mordaunt wrote to him about funding the inquiry.
Mordaunt said funding the inquiry was “urgent for many victims” and “justice delayed is justice denied”.
Mordaunt knew that victims were continuing to die when she wrote that, Richards says.
Q: Were you aware at the time people were dying?
Sunak starts with an opening statement.
I believe what has happened has been an appalling scandal.
I think thousands of people, obviously many in the room today and others that the chair referred to who are watching, have suffered for decades.
It hasn’t just affected those people that have been directly impacted and affected, it’s affected their families and friends and carers as well. So it goes far beyond those who are directly impacted.
And as you just said, this is not just about historic wrongs. People are suffering and being impacted today.
With regard to the letter, he says it was dealt with by officials.
Updated
Sir Brian Langstaff, the chair of the infected blood inquiry, is opening this afternoon’s hearing.
He thanks Rishi Sunak, as someone who is one of the busiest, “if not the busiest”, people in the country, for giving evidence.
He says the number of people listening will probably be “in four figures”, including online.
(That does not seem much. The “audience” for the Guardian’s Politics Live blog is much bigger than that.)
Sunak is now swearing on oath to tell the truth.
Rishi Sunak to give evidence to infected blood inquiry
Rishi Sunak is giving evidence to the infected blood inquiry at 2pm.
The inquiry covers a scandal that happened between 1970 and 1991 (when Sunak was 11), and so he is not likely to face questions about what went wrong.
But Sir Brian Langstaff, the inquiry chair, has complained about the government’s approach to compensating victims. In a report published in April, he said that the interim compensation scheme should be extended and that the government should start work on the final compensation arrangements, instead of waiting for the inquiry’s final report.
Sunak will face questions about his approach to these issues, both as PM and previously when he was chancellor.
Burnham says extension of consultation on closure of rail ticket offices won't stop legal challenge by Labour mayors
The deadline of a public consultation on plans to close nearly all railway station ticket offices in England has been extended until September, the Rail Delivery Group has confirmed. PA Media reports:
Train operators unveiled proposals earlier this month for mass closures of station ticket offices after the transport secretary, Mark Harper, urged them to cut costs.
A three-week consultation on the plans was announced on 5 July by the Rail Delivery Group, which said staff would move out of ticket offices, adopting new “customer help” roles already in place on many parts of the rail network.
In a statement issued today, Jacqueline Starr, chief executive of the Rail Delivery Group, said: “Train companies have listened to feedback and are extending the time available to respond to the consultation on changes to how tickets are sold at stations to 1 September.
“Operators are keen to give more people a chance to give their views on the proposals, so they can bring the railway up to date with dramatic shifts in customer buying habits while supporting all its customers as the railway evolves and adapts.”
But Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor, who with other Labour metro mayors has threatened to challenge the ticket office closure plans in court, said the extension of the consultation was not enough. In a message on Twitter he said:
This shows we were right to challenge this flawed process.
But it’s not good enough.
The law requires a 12-week consultation.
We will continue to pursue our legal action.
This shows we were right to challenge this flawed process.
— Andy Burnham (@AndyBurnhamGM) July 26, 2023
But it’s not good enough.
The law requires a 12-week consultation.
We will continue to pursue our legal action.#SaveTicketOffices https://t.co/RJ0mobfZ0D
And Tracy Brabin, the Labour West Yorkshire mayor, said:
We said from the start that the chaotic and rushed consultation to shut down most of our ticket offices was completely inadequate and unlawful.
Despite this time extension, we still have significant concerns about the way the consultation has been set up and the impact these proposals would have on the most vulnerable.
Station staff are essential if we want our railways to be accessible, safe and inclusive for everyone.
Updated
Cap on what political parties can spend in general elections to be increased for first time in more than decade
And while we’re on the topic of electoral rules, Josiah Mortimer has a good story at Byline Times. He says Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, quietly announced last week that the government would implement what could, in effect, amount to a 50% increase in the amount political parties can spend at a general election.
Gove announced the move in a written ministerial statement that was listed on the order paper as a “Cabinet Office departmental update”. The first item on the update was about Croydon council, but anyone who kept reading beyond that would have eventually found an item on “election finance regulation” saying spending limits are going to be updated in line with inflation.
Mortimer reports:
Michael Gove said the government would be increasing party spending limits at elections in line with inflation since 2009. Since 2009, prices have risen by 52% – suggesting a multi-million pound hike in what parties are able to spend during elections.
The government is also set to provide a similar increase in the amounts that people can donate to parties without having to identify themselves on the Electoral Commission website – with the minimum threshold for being published set to rise from £7,500 to over £11,000 …
However, the government is refusing to increase the amount that so-called “third parties” can spend during elections in line with inflation – instead keeping the current limit frozen.
This effectively penalises groups like trade unions and charities who sometimes campaign on policy issues during elections. It could amount to a 34% real-terms cut since 2009.
The Electoral Commission said this morning it has not been told yet exactly what the new spending limits will be. It has repeatedly called for some of the rules about political donations to be tightened, and it sounds sceptical about the need for a 50% increase in the amount parties can spend. One source said they were particularly interested in seeing what evidence the government can produce to show “that increasing spending limits for parties is necessary for voters and parties”.
However, the commission has welcomed the announcement from Gove – also in the written statement – that the rules will be clarified so they explicitly declare money spent on candidate security does not count as an election expense.
Under the current rules, parties can spend £30,000 for every seat they are contesting in Great Britain. That would mean a party fighting every seat would be able to spend just under £19m.
At the last general election the Conservatives spent £16.5m and, for the first time, Labour (spending £12m) was outspent by the Liberal Democrats (who spent £14.4m). There are further details in this report.
And this chart shows spending by the political parties since limits on how much can be spent were introduced by the last Labour government.
Updated
Pro-PR campaigners welcome Labour policy forum report saying FPTP flawed and 'contributing to distrust in politics'
The Labour’s party’s national policy forum report agreed at the weekend was not just significant for what it said about trans policy. (See 10.40am.) The document contained wording on electoral reform that campaigners who favour proportional representation is significant.
This issue is problematic for Labour. At the party conference last year there was an overwhelming vote in favour of PR. But Keir Starmer is not keen, and PR has not been adopted as policy.
However, the NPF document does criticise first past the post. It says:
The flaws in the current voting system are contributing to the distrust and alienation we see in politics, but there is no consensus for a new system. Any proposed change to our voting system must be carefully thought-through – it cannot be dictated by political leaders or forced upon the country from the top down.
In a news release, Compass, the leftwing group campaigning for more pluralism in politics, says that this is the first formal recognition in a Labour party document that first past the post is flawed. “While Labour’s statement doesn’t explicitly endorse any alternative voting system, this move does represent a step on the road towards PR,” Compass says.
Frances Foley, Compass’s deputy director, said:
Our outdated political system is incapable of delivering solutions to the huge problems we face, whether on climate, inequality or our crumbling public services …
With this recognition, the Labour party shows that it understands the problem; we now hope it can reach for the solution that its membership and the UK public already want.
Updated
Greg Hands, the Conservative party chair, has posted a message on Twitter describing Keir Starmer’s comments about Labour’s new trans policy as the latest “daily flip flop” from the Labour leader. Labelling Starmer as inconsistent has become one of the Conservative party’s key attack messages.
https://t.co/TX56z8OlF8 pic.twitter.com/VvFKPnkNzs
— Greg Hands (@GregHands) July 26, 2023
But Hands is wrong, in at least one respect. This U-turn was first disclosed by Labour in an article by Anneliese Dodds, the party chair, published by the Guardian on Monday.
Junior doctors in England to stage four-day strike in August
Ministers are under fresh pressure to resolve the NHS pay row after junior doctors announced they will stage a four-day walkout next month that is likely to lead to thousands more cancelled operations, Andrew Gregory reports.
Government says Rose losing her place on three advisory bodies following her resignation from NatWest over Farage affair
Dame Alison Rose has not just lost her job as chief executive of NatWest. This morning Downing Street has announced that, following her resignation, she is no longer a member of the PM’s business council. And Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has put out a statement saying that Grant Shapps, the energy secretary, has asked her to step down from her roles as co-chair of the energy efficiency taskforce and as a member of the net zero council.
Given that these jobs were linked to her being NatWest chair, these moves are not surprising.
But it is unusual for the government to proactively brief that someone is being “un-quangoed” in this way. Normally the news would only come out a few days later, when an FT journalist or someone finally remembered that she had these roles in the first place, and put in a call to see if she was still there.
The decision to boot Rose off these advisory bodies this quickly, and this publicly, is another sign that ministers are determined to line with the Nigel Farage camp on this issue. (See 9.40am.)
Starmer refuses to deny he is planning reshuffle soon
Nicky Campbell ended by asking if there was going to be a shadow cabinet reshuffle.
Keir Starmer sounded evasive, and said he would not be announcing anything about reshuffles live on air.
And that was the end of the Q&A.
Q: Did you really tell the shadow cabinet you don’t like tree huggers?
Starmer said he was talking to the shadow cabinet about a visit to Scunthorpe steel works. He was making the point about the workers there not being tree huggers, but being very committed to the shift to green energy.
Updated
Starmer says government 'all over the place' on green policies
Q: Do you think it is acceptable to roll back on your environment policies to win the election?
Starmer said he was not in favour of rolling back on any green policies. He had not done that, he said. He said he was committed to having green energy by 2030.
He said the government was “all over the place” on these issues.
He said he was committed to green policies because they would mean lower bills. And he said so many future jobs depended on these policies.
Campbell quotes from this tweet from Jeremy Corbyn yesterday.
Without bold action, the fires in southern Europe will become the new norm.
— Jeremy Corbyn (@jeremycorbyn) July 25, 2023
So will the fires, floods, droughts, smog and crop failures in the Global South that our media largely ignores.
Those who sneer at radical change are letting our planet die.
It's time to fight back.
Without bold action, the fires in southern Europe will become the new norm.
So will the fires, floods, droughts, smog and crop failures in the Global South that our media largely ignores.
Those who sneer at radical change are letting our planet die.
It’s time to fight back
Q: Is Corbyn right?
Starmer said he was not there to debate with Jeremy Corbyn. But he insisted his policies were radical.
Starmer suggests Labour changed its trans policy in light of what happened to Scotland's gender recognition bill
Campbell reads out some questions on trans issues. What is a woman? What is your policy on trans rights? Why do we ask what is a woman, but not what is a man?
Q: Why did you announce the new policy in an article in the Guardian?
Starmer says a woman is an adult female?
He says there was a byelection last week. Then there was a national policy forum meeting. They agreed a range of policy. On trans, they had a chance to reflect on what happened in Scotland.
(Labour announced a new policy; it no longer favours self-recognition for trans people wanting to transition.)
Q: Scottish Labour does not agree with the new policy. It still supports self-ID.
Starmer says he does not agree with that. He wants to modernise the process of applying for a gender recognition certificate. But he wants to keep it a medical process.
And he believes in the importance of safe spaces for women.
Q: Are you saying trans women are a threat?
Starmer says it is more about having a space where biological women can feel safe.
Q: Why wouldn’t they be safe with trans women there?
Starmer says the Scottish prisoner case, Isla Bryson, illustrates why.
Q: Are you saying there are a lot of cases like that?
No, says Starmer, but he is saying safe spaces are important.
UPDATE: Starmer said:
Firstly, a woman is an adult female, so let’s clear that one up …
We don’t think that self-identification is the right way forward. We’ve reflected on what happened in Scotland …
We’ve set out that we want to modernise the process, get rid of some of the indignities in the process, keep it a medical process.
We’ve always said, I’ve continued to say, and Sunday, when we completed our policy forum, allowed us to be clear that there should be safe places, safe spaces, for women, particularly in relation to violence against women and girls.
Updated
Q: What is your view on the government’s decision to put a barge for asylum seekers in Portland? It could deter tourists from visiting the town. Will you stop this, as they did in London?
Starmer says he understands the concerns raised by the caller.
But this is “sticking-plaster politics”, he says.
He says the barge won’t fix the problem. The government has only processed 1% of the asylum applications. Wherever you house them, that is not going to make a difference.
He says the government needs to “smash the criminal gangs running this”.
The caller said she was concerned about having 500 unaccompanied men in the town. Nicky Campbell asks why. She says they do not know who these people are.
Updated
Q: Is Labour’s support for the two-child benefit cap a nail in the coffin for the union?
Starmer says he cannot get rid of the cap because he “cannot make uncosted spending commitments”.
But he is not indiffierent to the problem, he says.
And in government he will have a child poverty strategy.
He says Liz Truss made unfunded commitments, and she “crashed the economy”. People are still paying the price for that, he says.
That is the sort of “tough decision” he has to make.
Starmer says he has urged Sadiq Khan to 'reflect' on how Ulez extension implemented
A caller from Hillingdon asks about the extension of the ultra-low emissions zone (Ulez) in London.
Q: Do you understand the impact of this on residents?
Yes, says Starmer. He says this was a big issue in the Uxbridge byelection.
Q: What do you want Sadiq Khan to do?
Starmer says he wants Khan to reflect on the roll-out.
He says the law requires Khan to take measures to reduce air pollution. The government put that law in place. The first Ulez scheme was introduced by a Tory mayor, he says.
He says he spoke to Khan after the byelection. He has got a lot of respect for him. But he wants him to consider if there is more that could be done.
The scrappage scheme could be more generous, he says. He says the government has not funded this in London, but it has funded schemes in other places. That would be one idea, he says.
Q: Do you think the expansion should go ahead? In interviews before the byelection, you dodged the question.
Starmer says this is not a simple yes/no matter. If the law says you must do something, you cannot ignore it. But is there more you can do? He says he is not going to give answers on air as to what the alternative options might be.
UPDATE: Here is the full exchange where Nicky Campbell asked Keir Starmer if he wanted the Ulez extension to go ahead. Campbell asked:
This is a problem. Before that byelection, the esteemed Chris Mason [the BBC’s political editor] asked you about Ulez and you dodged the question about six times. People don’t want dodge, and they don’t want dither. They want decisiveness. They want answers. Do you want the scheme to go ahead?
And Starmer replied:
I realised why you’re putting this to me in this way. But we can’t pretend that this is a simple political decision [where] you can just say yes/no without regard to the legal context.
If the law requires a measure to taken, it is not in the gift of the mayor to say I’m simply not going to do it. So he’s got to do something.
What I’m working with him on, and asking him to reflect on, is, in this scheme is there more that we can do to help people like [the caller]? And that’s an ongoing discussion.
Obviously, I’m not going to put suggestions on air as to where that should be resolved.
Updated
The first caller asks about help for “mortgage prisoners”.
Starmer says Labour would make it mandatory for lenders to offer people alternative repayment options.
Q: Are you going to offer financial help to people with mortgages?
Starmer says Labour’s approach is not the same as the government. Labour would make it mandatory for lenders to offer alternatives. Under the government’s code, this is optional.
He says he knows the impact of rising mortages on people.
Starmer says Alison Rose was right to resign as chief executive of NatWest
Keir Starmer says NatWest “got this one wrong”. He says Alison Rose got this wrong.
People should not have their personal details revealed, he says. He says that is a general rule.
He says he does not think people should be refused banking services because of their political views.
But he does not know how widespread this is – or indeed if it is happening, he says.
UPDATE: Starmer said:
NatWest got this one wrong. And that’s why Alison Rose had to resign.
Asked if he felt sorry for Nigel Farage, Starmer said:
Yeah, he shouldn’t have had his personal details revealed like that. It doesn’t matter who you are, that’s a general rule.
He went on:
I certainly don’t think anybody should be refused banking services because of their political views, whoever they are.
Asked if banks had too much power when it comes to individuals, he said:
I’m surprised to hear these stories of banks taking into account political views, if indeed they are.
I don’t know that we’ve got to the bottom of this. But that shouldn’t happen and certainly shouldn’t be a reason for refusing someone banking services.
Updated
Many MPs falling foul of bank rules on ‘politically exposed persons’, says minister
Many MPs or their families have been turned down by banks because of “politically exposed persons” (PEP) rules, the policing minister, Chris Philp, has said. Geneva Abdul has the story.
Updated
Keir Starmer is about to start his phone-in with Nicky Campbell on Radio 5 Live. It did not start well; Campbell introduced him as Nigel Farage.
In a thread on Twitter last night Darren Jones, the Labour MP who chairs the Commons business committee, said that No 10 is now forcing a CEO to resign because of bad corporate behaviour, there are other firms it should be looking at, as well as NatWest.
No 10 is pressuring a CEO to resign on behalf of Nigel Farage.
But not the CEO of P&O who illegally sacked 800 workers
Or the CEO of Avro Energy, who pocketed millions of customers money after going bust
Or other CEOs I’ve questioned for bad behaviour
Spot the difference?
No 10 is pressuring a CEO to resign on behalf of Nigel Farage.
— Darren Jones MP (@darrenpjones) July 25, 2023
But not the CEO of P&O who illegally sacked 800 workers
Or the CEO of Avro Energy, who pocketed millions of customers money after going bust
Or other CEOs I’ve questioned for bad behaviour
Spot the difference?
And in a tweet this morning Jones added another example to this list.
I don’t question that Alison Rose did something wrong.
I question why the PM got involved. Because we own 39% of NatWest?
We own 100% of the Post Office.
Has the PM told the CEO to pay back bonuses based on false accounts?
Or asked him to resign?
No.
Spot the difference?
I don’t question that Alison Rose did something wrong.
— Darren Jones MP (@darrenpjones) July 26, 2023
I question why the PM got involved.
Because we own 39% of NatWest?
We own 100% of the Post Office.
Has the PM told the CEO to pay back bonuses based on false accounts?
Or asked him to resign?
No.
Spot the difference? https://t.co/ulCT3qLcmU
Nick Thomas-Symonds, the shadow international trade secretary, made the same claim about No 10 caring more about ethical standards at NatWest than about ethical standards in government in an interview with Sky News. He said:
When it comes to dealing decisively with colleagues in government, the prime minister has invariably been slow to act but when it came to this situation last night with a business leader they moved straight in.
If only the government would hold itself to the same standards of speed I’m sure we’d been in a much better position generally …
It was a matter between Dame Alison Rose and the NatWest board. The chancellor and the prime minister never showed such a desire to intervene when they had their own problems.
Labour accuses No 10 of double standards on propriety over Farage banking controversy
Good morning. Nigel Farage stood down as leader of the Brexit party more than two years ago, and since then he has not had a position in frontline politics, but he has still got an extraordinary capacity to stir things up. As well as being one of only three or four people who can credibly claim to have been essential in making Brexit happen, he can now add to his list of contributions to British life the resignation of the NatWest boss, Alison Rose.
This is largely a story about banking, and Jasper Jolly is covering it in detail on our business live blog. But it is also about politics, and Farage was successful in forcing Rose to quit because he had the tacit support of the government.
Why? Partly because ministers believe (not unreasonably) that banks should not close people’s accounts for political reasons and leak details of their accounts to the media. Partly because a surprising number of politicians have found their own access to banking affected by the politically exposed person (PEP) rules – although mostly this is about banks not wanting politicians as customers because they don’t like the bureaucratic hassle that comes with a PEP account, not because they are making a political judgment.
But there is another factor too. In any contest with Brexity populism (and the rightwing press) on one side, and an establishment institution on the other, the Conservative party is terrified of ending up on the wrong side. Kevin Schofield from HuffPost made that point in an interview this morning.
It was inevitable - and right - that Alison Rose resign.
— Kevin Schofield (@KevinASchofield) July 26, 2023
But the government's response to this story - all the way up to Rishi Sunak - shows how much the Tories fear Nigel Farage and his ability to rally conservative opinion.https://t.co/Iz9BJtje7P
Keir Starmer is doing a phone-in on Radio 5 Live this morning, and so we will hear from him later. But we got a flavour of what he is likely to say when Nick Thomas-Symonds, the shadow international trade secretary, was on the Today programme. He said the Farage/Rose affair showed the government was guilty of double standards. He said:
Isn’t it quite remarkable that we had a situation where last night the prime minister and the chancellor quickly weighed in on this matter to comment on Dame Alison Rose’s future. Yet, when it’s come to putting their own house in order, when it’s come to Gavin Williamson, when it came to Nadeem Zahawi, when it came to Dominic Raab, they dragged their feet. If only they showed that same efficiency, that same speed, dealing with their own internal problems, as they did last night …
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.30am: The Office for National Statistics publishes figures on ill health and economic inactivity.
9.30am: The Home Office publishes police workforce statistics.
10am: Keir Starmer takes part in a Q&A with Nicky Campbell on Radio 5 Live.
2pm: Rishi Sunak gives evidence to the infected blood inquiry.
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 PC or a laptop. 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
