In 2015, after the General Election, my then boss @michaelgove persuaded @David_Cameron & @George_Osborne of the importance of building a new, modern prison estate fit for the future
They embraced this agenda and the importance of prison reform (carried forward by successive Conservative Lord Chancellors inc @DLidington, @DavidGauke, @RobertBuckland, to @AlexChalkChelt)
Osborne used his Autumn Statement in November to announce a £1.3bn programme of prison building. He made quite a thing of it
The plan then was to build 9 new prisons while also closing and selling off older Victorian prisons. (Holloway was closed but broadly that part of the plan has still not been able to happen)
It is striking looking back now on the debate at the time of the 2015 Autumn Statement that the then Shadow Chancellor didn’t even seem to mention prisons in his response
It’s understandable that Labour will try to claim that they were ahead of this issue but go back and read the debates
The programme was expanded, rescoped and changed over the following years
There’s a useful explainer on the House of Commons library site for those interested
The Prison building programme is now a much bigger capital programme (also because the original plan was to help pay for the new estate by selling the old inner city locations which hasn’t happened to the extent which we planned)
Not enough of the new prison places have yet come online (an example of the challenges of running major projects in Government) but several thousand new places have
Other prisons are stuck in a planning mess
Which is why the Government’s recent reforms to the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Programme (introduced in the Levelling Up Act) are important
And why the last Government tried to reform nutrient neutrality which has stalled other prison expansion - this was opposed by the then Opposition
2/2
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One of the strange things about the Brexit debate at the moment is the persistence of certain idées fixes about the PM's Brexit deal & its alternatives which are repeated by critics
Here's a Sunday afternoon mythbusting thread
👇
A)
Myth 1 - the deal isn't Brexit
This is often repeated; yet it is simply preposterous
Deal would take us out EU - no commissioner, no MEPs, no compulsory financial contributions (once exit bill settled), no voting rights, basically out EU legal order
It literally is Brexit
B)
Myth 2 - this deal would mean BRINO or staying in Single Market
Again this is total rubbish
The deal takes us definitively out the Single Market.
Even in the backstop, we would be free of practically all Single Market rules & could end free movement & diverge on services
Something quite important has shifted in last few days
Labour are now more explicitly admitting that they are not seeking real changes to the backstop but to the political declaration on our future relationship (rather than our divorce)
This matters A LOT. Here's why 👇
1/
DUP are so far pretty implacably opposed to Backstop in its current form as my colleague @dcshiels has documented in various ways ( eg 👇)
[Although there seems some nuance between comments by Geoffrey Donaldson vs @eastantrimmp or @NigelDoddsDUP]
However if both main parties are now willing broadly to accept the Backstop in its current form, the possibility (perhaps never that likely) of the DUP choosing a Labour Brexit (whatever that is), to kill off the Backstop, over a Tory Brexit, seems less realistic
3/
My @OpenEurope colleague Stephen Booth has taken a look at claims made by former Mi6 head Sir Richard Dearlove & ex-CDS Lord Guthrie
There are reasons to be sceptical about the PM’s Brexit deal, but the ones they raise are both implausible & misplaced
Here's why -
A thread 👇
2/ In the debate on the proposed Brexit deal, the implications for UK security & foreign policy have come a distant second to economic and institutional considerations.
3/ However, this week Richard Dearlove & Charles Guthrie wrote to Conservative Associations warning that the Brexit deal will “threaten the national security of the country in fundamental ways” and bind the UK into “new sets of EU controlled relationships”.