UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2019

  • James Brokenshire – 2019 Statement on Grenfell Tower

    Below is the text of the statement made by James Brokenshire, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons on 17 July 2019.

    Two years on from the Grenfell Tower tragedy, my priority is to ensure that everyone affected is receiving the support they need and deserve. The independent Grenfell recovery taskforce continues to provide challenge and advice to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) in its response to the Grenfell Tower tragedy. I recently received its fourth report, which I am today depositing in the Library of the House and publishing in full at gov.uk, alongside my response.

    The taskforce has outlined the progress that the council has made since their last report of November 2018. RBKC have published its Grenfell recovery strategy and committed £50 million over the next five years to develop services to support the recovery. The recovery strategy is also prioritised in the new council plan. The taskforce reports that the dedicated service for the bereaved and survivors is the successful result of the council co-designing the service with its users. I welcome these significant steps forward.

    On rehousing, the taskforce has again offered reassurance to Ministers that the council’s approach is appropriate and sensitive to the long-term needs of survivors. I am pleased that there has been further progress since I received the taskforce’s report with two more families moving into permanent accommodation. However, as I said in my oral statement on 10 June I remain concerned that households are still in emergency accommodation, including one in a hotel.

    The taskforce has also welcomed the council’s demonstrable appetite to modernise its governance procedures. It cites its implementation of recommendations by the Centre for Public Scrutiny, including establishing a programme of listening forums. The taskforce has also identified the beginning of a culture change initiated by the chief executive and leader of the council.

    The taskforce has highlighted developments in the council’s approach to community relationships and communications. RBKC has increased the number and means by which it engages with its residents including new meetings between the political leadership and some of those most affected by the tragedy. The taskforce also reports that it is seeing pockets of good practice pertaining to fostering good relationships with service users and the community.

    Whilst the taskforce has noted good progress in many areas it is also clear that the council still faces significant challenges. The taskforce has identified that the pace by which the recovery is being implemented is still too slow and that this needs to be addressed. The taskforce has highlighted that strands of the recovery strategy remain in development, as well as the community programme and economy strategy. The taskforce therefore remain concerned about the capacity and corporate capability of the council to drive sustainable change. Although the rehousing programme is nearing completion the taskforce states that the council still faces substantial wider housing challenges. Whilst there is a programme to support and ​develop all councillors, the taskforce has noticed occasions where member behaviour has caused it concern. There is a high degree of social capital that the council has yet to fully tap into and the taskforce calls for an innovative approach to harness this enthusiasm. The taskforce has also highlighted that the culture change has still not permeated all levels of the council and silo working remains an issue.

    The taskforce has set the bar high for RBKC’s recovery. It is important there is ambition and pace in the council’s recovery efforts over the next three to four months in responding to the taskforce’s recommendations, including:

    Urgently implementing its recovery strategy;

    Fostering a council-wide culture change so that everyone is working together;

    Clearly communicating its recovery plan and develop stronger communications skills;

    Ensuring that the senior team has the appropriate skills and resilience;

    Making a clear commitment to creating a better relationship with its community.

    I am assured the council has already set in train action to meet these recommendations. This includes a paper outlining its plans to implement organisational change at the council by 2020.

    I will review the process in September, by which point I hope the council will have made sufficient further progress. I look forward to continuing to work with the taskforce.

  • Sir John Major – 2019 Statement on the Conservative Leadership

    Below is the text of the statement made by Sir John Major, the former Prime Minister from 1990 until 1997, on 22 July 2019.

    I read Gordon Brown’s speech this morning with interest and agreement.

    It is a timely moment to note that whoever becomes our Prime Minister this week, he will be far more than Leader of the Conservative Party.

    As for every Prime Minister, he must act for our nation as a whole – not just one part of it. He must also remember that no-one born this century voted for Brexit – let alone a “no deal” Brexit.

    Words and actions have consequences, and never more so than when they are those of the Prime Minister. As the evidence mounts of the probable economic and social damage of a “no deal” Brexit – and of the rising opposition to it – the new Prime Minister must choose whether to be the spokesman for an ultra-Brexit faction, or the servant of the nation he leads. He cannot be both, and the choice he makes will define his Premiership from the moment of its birth.

    As the most powerful politician in the four nations of our United Kingdom, any Prime Minister has the right to expect support but – if he acts as the spokesman for one hard-line faction only – he cannot complain if he faces uncompromising opposition from those who believe they have had their views ignored.

    I hope our new leader understands this, and is fully prepared for the enormity of the task before him.

  • Sajid Javid – 2019 Speech at Coin Street Community Centre

    Below is the text of the speech made by Sajid Javid, the Home Secretary, made at the Coin Street Community Centre in London on 19 July 2019.

    Growing up in the seventies, looking like this, extremism was part of my life.

    I changed my route to school to avoid members of the National Front.

    I watched my mum time and time again scrub the word ‘Paki’ from the front of our shop.

    And – rightly or wrongly – as a child, I punched a bully who used the same racist slur to my face.

    Although perhaps it’s not a great idea to bring up my past indiscretions just before I get a new boss We’ve undoubtedly come a long way since my school days.

    I’m proud to say we’re now a more multi-racial, more welcoming, and a more tolerant society.

    But just last week I met schoolboy Jamal Hijazi, whose heart-breaking story took me right back to my childhood.

    A Syrian refugee who wasn’t just insulted by a classmate, he was attacked.

    Not in the 1970s, but just a few months ago.

    No one can hear his moving story and deny we still have a problem in this country.

    And it’s not just racism, with the blind hate of extremism showing its face in many ugly forms.

    In 2015 we published our ground-breaking Counter Extremism Strategy.

    Back then, the Prime Minister led the charge as Home Secretary, and I commend her pioneering work.

    But four years on, it’s time to take stock and to talk openly about the threat, and to admit it’s got worse.

    Yes, progress has been made.

    But when I hear what happened to that schoolboy, I know we have to do more.

    So we set up the Commission for Countering Extremism to help us do just that.

    I thank them for their work so far, and while I do welcome their first findings, they lay bare the ugly truth.

    Just over half of the respondents to their consultation had witnessed extremism in some way.

    One in five had seen it in their own area.

    Almost a quarter online.

    The targets are many and varied.

    And the top group identified by the Commission as most at risk of extremism? Everyone.

    When over half of us have witnessed extremism, it’s gone from being a minority issue to one that affects us all and the way we all live our lives is under unprecedented attack.

    People are getting angrier about more things – and extremists are quick to try and exploit that.

    In 2015, our focus was on extreme Islamists, particularly the lure of Daesh.

    While their physical stronghold has now been wiped out, that threat certainly remains.

    But now the fault lines dividing our society have splintered and spread.

    Reports of far-right extremism, antisemitism and anti-Muslim hate are on the rise.

    Women are being robbed of opportunities by religious extremists.

    The internet has further emboldened those that are inclined to hate.

    Angry words whip up a climate of fear and incite hate, violence, public disorder, oppression and segregation.

    Women beaten on a bus because they are gay, sledge hammer attacks on mosques, children being forced into marriage.

    Christians, Muslims and Jews being slaughtered in Sri Lanka, Christchurch and Pittsburgh.

    Public discourse is hardening and becoming less constructive.

    Around the world populism, prejudice – and even open racism – have catapulted extremists into power.

    Now I’m proud to say this has not happened in mainstream politics here.

    We’re naturally liberally minded people.

    We remain the most successful multi-racial democracy in the world.

    Thankfully, our politics has not gone down the same road as much of Europe and the US.

    But we must act now, to avoid sliding into the barely masked racism of nationalism.

    Because there’s one thing I know for sure about this country: we’re better than that.

    We won’t just accept rising anger.

    We won’t just slap ourselves on the back and talk about the success of the Counter Extremism Strategy.

    We won’t deny the threat is now worse than ever.

    That’s why I’m here to set out my three part approach to counter that threat.

    Because if we are to stop extremism in its tracks we must have the courage to confront it, the strength to take decisive action, and the foresight to tackle the root causes.

    Firstly, we all need the courage to confront this issue.

    Why? Because tackling extremism isn’t easy.

    People are scared to talk about it.

    This is a sensitive issue and sometimes it can easily cause offence.

    But I’m here regardless, because we desperately need a national conversation about extremism.

    I will not stay silent and create a vacuum where extremist views can fester and grow.

    So I want to be frank about some of the challenges we face.

    For a start, what exactly is extremism?

    Why have we struggled to come up with a definition?

    The threat is not black and white.

    There are countless shades of grey between a loaded comment, an online threat, and a terror attack.

    Extremism can be the thin end of a wedge.

    The unpleasant words that skate on the right side of the law, but stir up hate and drive violence in others.

    Of course, you shouldn’t arrest everyone with a suspect view.

    Of course not. I won’t be the thought police – people are entitled to hold and express their own views.

    But the challenge is being able to identify where an opinion crosses the line into extremism.

    When it goes from free speech to the corrosive spread of dangerous propaganda.

    When it incites harm and becomes criminal.

    At its heart, extremism is a rejection of the shared values that make this country great: freedom, equality, democracy, free speech, respect for minorities, and the rule of law.

    It attacks our society and tears communities apart.

    It turns us against each other and can lead to violence, discrimination and mistrust.

    But there’s a delicate balance between personal and religious freedom and protecting our shared values.

    In this country, everyone has the right to observe their cultural and religious practices without any fear of abuse.

    We celebrate differences and in part that’s what makes us great.

    Our shared values are not about forcing everyone to drink tea, eat fish and chips, and watch the cricket – although I hope they watched it the weekend.

    But cultural sensitivities must not stop us calling out extremism.

    To back away from a problem because of someone’s ethnicity is not liberal, it is weak.

    Of course, we need to be measured.

    But we must not be afraid to confront any problem in any community.

    Whether group-based child sexual abuse, or the oppression of women through FGM, forced marriage, so-called honour-based violence, I refuse to stand silently by.

    The protests at Parkfield and Anderton Park schools in Birmingham bring this balancing act, I think, into sharp focus.

    Earlier this week Panorama focused on the row over lessons on equality that include teaching about families with same sex parents.

    Sara hit out at the extremists who have hijacked the protests, distorting genuinely-held religious views of parents. It is entirely right that parents with legitimate concerns talk to their schools about what it being taught in a calm, constructive way.

    The right to protest and oppose government policy is one we hold dear, but where that spills over into intimidation of pupils and teachers, it is unacceptable.

    And I agree with Sara that it is entirely wrong if any situation is exploited by extremists.

    Of course, words alone are not enough.

    So the second part of my approach is showing strength with decisive action against extremism.

    As the threat comes in many forms, so must our response.

    So we need to combine the more gentle approach of working with communities and promoting shared values with an unashamedly tough approach to those who spread extremist poison.

    So our work embraces those we need to help fend off extremists:

    strengthening communities through our Building A Stronger Britain Together programme and the Integrated Communities Strategy

    protecting religious institutions from hate crime with our Places of Worship Protective Security Programme

    and boosting integration by committing to new British Values Tests and strengthened English Language provision

    But we’ve also been unafraid to be robust in our approach to the people and organisations that pose the highest threat:

    refusing to let the worst extremists into the country to spread their vile views –

    I’ve personally excluded 8 since I have become Home Secretary – from a far-right white supremacist, to a US black nationalist, and extremist hate preachers from a number of faiths

    removing British citizenship from dual nationals to keep dangerous individuals with the most extreme views out of the UK

    and launching our Online Harms White Paper, to ensure companies take more responsibility for harmful content on their platforms

    But we know that more needs to be done, and we know that we must keep pace with the changing threat.

    So, I can announce today that in anticipation of the Commission’s full report, I’ve asked my officials to start work on a comprehensive new Counter Extremism Strategy.

    And while we wait, I will continue, in that time, to call out extremism wherever I see it.

    We all have a role to play in stopping any normalisation or legitimisation of these views.

    Extreme views can be found on all sides of the spectrum, from Islamist organisations like Hizb u-Tahrir and IHRC, to far right groups like Britain First and Generation Identity.

    And those that spread intolerance and division from all corners are often given a platform by media and political figures.

    Supposedly mainstream groups can be guilty of that too – groups like MEND. They aren’t always as intolerant of intolerance as they may claim to be.

    One of the most prominent organisations that rejects our shared values is called CAGE.

    When challenged they claim the Government is anti-Muslim.

    Something they will no doubt say about me later today.

    I will act against those who seek to divide us wherever I can.

    So I have amended the guidance for sponsoring migrant workers.

    This will allow us to refuse or revoke a sponsor licence where an organisation behaves in a way that is inconsistent with British values, or that’s detrimental to the public good.

    I can tell you now that I plan to revoke CAGE’s licence on this basis, subject to representations.

    I will do all I can to ensure groups like CAGE are not trusted with the privilege of sponsorship and I will see it removed.

    Now the third part of my approach is having the foresight to tackle the root causes of extremism before it takes hold.

    I know what it’s like to be an outsider.

    I want everyone to have the opportunities that I had, to feel they belong to our brilliantly diverse Britain.

    But, sadly not everyone does, and that cultural separation can sow the seeds of extremism.

    The extremists set out to fracture our society, therefore we must unite to defeat them.

    We need fewer labels that divide, and more overlapping layers that draw us together.

    First, community – when people truly come together we build unbreakable local networks that extremists cannot breach.

    Second, language – I saw how hard it was for my own Mum when she came to this country speaking very little English.

    We estimate that 1 million people living here today that cannot speak English well or at all.

    And if we can’t communicate with each other, how can we build bridges?

    So, I’m making it my mission to ask for more money in the Spending Review to properly fund lessons and break down language barriers.

    Third, integration – A couple of years ago I visited a primary school in my home town of Rochdale where around 95% of the pupils were Asian. 95%.

    And only a mile or so down the road was another primary where around 90% of the pupils were white.

    If we want to see more social cohesion we must rally against segregation and have a more positive approach to integration.

    And finally, national identity – we must celebrate the qualities that define us as a nation.

    My parents were proud to choose to be part of this country and I want to inspire that same passion in others, to encourage citizenship and a sense of belonging.

    Of course, I understand that there are some concerns about immigration.

    Loose language is used at all levels.

    I’m from an immigrant family, I know what it’s like to be told to go back to where you come from – and I don’t think they mean Rochdale!

    Some worry that new arrivals will take over their communities – that our national identity will be diluted. I firmly reject that.

    I’ve seen how immigration can enrich our country and I welcome it.

    I know how much immigrants have contributed to our culture, our society, our economy and our public services. Just this week I was thrilled to meet three cricketers who helped win the World Cup for this country.

    One was born in Barbados, one was born in New Zealand, one was born in Ireland – all three of them English heroes.

    I recognize the huge benefits of immigration, but if people from different backgrounds are living separate lives in modern ghettos then it’s no good for anyone.

    To be truly pro-immigration we must be pro-integration too.

    And to do this, we must confront the myths about immigration that extremists use to drive divisions.

    We know the scale is exaggerated to stoke up fear and that they use immigration as a proxy for race. Sweeping plans to cut immigration as if it’s automatically bad can add to the stigma.

    In 2015 a survey of school children found the average estimate was that nearly half of people in the UK were foreign born. That’s what the children thought.

    The truth according to the 2011 census? 13%.

    A staggering 60% of the same group believed it was true that “asylum seekers and immigrants are stealing our jobs”.

    I won’t ignore that some people feel this way, but we must not be afraid to confront these issues with an honest and open public debate.

    Only by talking about this can we show how much integration enriches our communities.

    We all benefit, because an integrated society is a strong one, where different cultures form the layers of a watertight national identity: interlocking to form a united front. A united front so smooth there will be no footholds left for extremists.

    This multi-layered approach will help us tackle extremism.

    This is not just a job for the Government alone.

    But we will lead from the front.

    It takes the whole of society to challenge these vile views.

    Everyone has a part to play: *broadcasters who must not give platforms to extremists… *police who must swoop on the worst offenders… *and public figures who must moderate their language.

    And anyone can challenge the myths that are peddled by extremists that deepen divisions.

    So tell your friends and shout it loud and proud: people from minority backgrounds do not steal their jobs, they’re not terrorists, and that there is no global ‘Zionist conspiracy’.

    Extremism is a problem that isn’t going to go away so I’m here to redouble our commitment to tackle it head on.

    I will not flinch from confronting extremism.

    I will do everything in my power to stop those who seek to undermine our country.

    And I will tackle the root causes.

    To unite communities, to protect our fundamental values, to protect those most at risk.

    I’ve made this my mission and I’m asking you to do the same.

    Together let’s call out hate and unite our society and create a stronger, better, bolder Britain.

    Thank you very much.

  • David Lidington – 2019 Speech at CSSF Annual Report

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Lidington, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on 18 July 2019.

    Good afternoon, and thank you for having me here today to speak about the invaluable work the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund finances around the world.

    Over the last ten years, the very nature of conflict and instability has changed dramatically. The world is facing a rise in intrastate violence, complicated by insurgencies, terrorism, serious and organised crime.

    In addition to this, conflicts are lasting longer. And because they are increasingly international, these conflicts risk having an impact on the security of the UK as well.

    Complex conflict requires creative solutions. So four years ago, the government decided it needed a more agile, cross-departmental approach, to complement the long term work spearheaded by DfID, the FCO and the Ministry of Defence.

    Since its creation in 2015, the CSSF has enabled the government to work across departments, delivering support to fragile states at risk of instability, as well as states in the throes of complex conflicts.

    Four years later, this approach is seeing strong results, as we see in the Annual Report released today.

    It has contributed to halving the number of UN Peacekeeper casualties in Mali, Democratic Republic of Congo and the Central African Republic – the three most deadly UN Peacekeeping Missions.

    The CSSF has encouraged 3.1 million more women to register to vote in Pakistan.

    It has financed the retraining of more than 150 reformed Boko Haram soldiers giving them the vocational skills they need to establish a peaceful life.

    It has contributed to saving the lives of more than 3,000 vulnerable migrants in the Aegean and the Mediterranean seas.

    But these are just a few of the success stories you find turning the pages of the annual report, further demonstrating this country’s well-earned reputation as a global leader in managing conflict.

    Today, the UK retains its long-held role as a trusted voice on the global stage and the only permanent member of the UN Security Council to spend both 2% of GDP on defence and 0.7% of GNI on development. So it is unsurprising that no other country has a fund as large in scope or as ambitious as the CSSF.

    Its unique ability to spend both Official Development Assistance and non-ODA money means that the CSSF can be agile and responsive. It gives it the flexibility to trial new approaches, share UK expertise and leverage funding from other donors or government departments, to achieve long term change. And it builds on UK expertise in areas like policing, counter terrorism, defence and intelligence to save lives and improve security, both at home and abroad.

    With a budget of £1.26bn, the CSSF brings together 13 government departments and agencies to deliver 90 programmes in no fewer than 70 different countries. Guided by the National Security Council, this allows the fund to be responsive to new and emerging threats. These are the kinds of threats which directly affect the UK’s domestic security, like the rise of hostile state actors, the increasing challenge to the Rules Based International System, growing concerns over climate change, and the rise of Serious and Organised Crime.

    Serious and Organised Crime affects British citizens, more often, than any other national security threat, whether it’s online sexual exploitation or firearms offenses. And this crime comes at a cost – for the UK, at least £37 billion every year. So last year, under a new strategy, the CSSF launched a new £1.3m allocation to pay for a global network of advisers on serious and organised crime.

    This is an important area for both UK and global stability and security. For example, when presented with the name, the “Conflict, Stability and Security Fund,” one might not think of cracking down on illegal cigarettes. But cigarette smuggling in the Western Balkans has a direct impact upon the UK.

    It costs the UK economy £2.5 billion every year in lost tax revenues. But it also helps to perpetuate the abhorrent practice of people trafficking and illegal drug smuggling across Europe, providing income for serious and organised crime networks.

    And today, the UK’s National Crime Agency is working with the Kenyan authorities to crack down on international trafficking in the region and the sexual abuse of children. Since 2017/18, the Unit has rescued more than 90 survivors of these crimes.

    CSSF programmes are also supporting our broader global policy objectives. With ongoing Russian aggression at its borders, Ukraine remains vulnerable to attack. A strong and stable Ukraine has long been a top UK priority, and through the CSSF we are able to coordinate our diplomatic, humanitarian and defence and security efforts for a more holistic approach.

    For example, by educating school children and communities and clearing 1 million square metres of land, we have helped halve landmine casualties from 2017-2018.

    This comprehensive approach can be beneficial for the UK, too. We have provided military support and training to over 13,000 members of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in infantry skills, medical, operational planning and logistics – which in turn provides the UK with in-depth, on-the-ground insight into the challenges of defending against Russian aggression.

    And we are even using CSSF to act on this government’s commitment to combat climate change. In Columbia, the CSSF has helped maintain and implement the peace process since 2016.

    But peace – however longed-for – can sometimes have unintended results. An unfortunate effect in Colombia has been an increase in the rate of deforestation, as communities recover from conflict and former fighters return home to find limited economic opportunities. So we are working with the Government of Colombia to bring former fighters together with local communities to design jobs like eco-tourism and farming that offer alternatives, not only to violence, but to activities that damage the environment to protect Columbia’s natural resources.

    Its clear CSSF programmes are making a real difference in the lives and communities of those affected most by violence and instability. But it’s also demonstrated an ability to adapt as the nature of conflict continues to evolve.

    Now there are areas for improvement and change. By seriously considering external recommendations, like those from the Independent Commission of Aid Impact, the CSSF has significantly improved its programme management, transparency and monitoring and evaluation practices. And I was pleased to see in the ICAI follow up report published today an acknowledgment of these improvements.

    This progress should be applauded. As government comes to the end of this Spending Review period, the CSSF will need to ensure that it can continue to learn and adapt. And we will need to be clear about how a fund of this size and structure can be used most effectively.

    So as we celebrate the successes of this ambitious fund, with many of those who made them possible, I look forward to seeing what comes next.

    Because in a world of competing conflicts and challenges, the UK’s investment in global security, and its willingness to trial new approaches and respond to emerging threats, speaks volumes.

    It emphasizes that our leadership in this area is a responsibility we do not take lightly, whether that is financially or politically.

    And it sets the standard for countries everywhere as we work together to create a more peaceful and a more prosperous world.

    Thank you.

  • Jeremy Hunt – 2019 Statement on Iran

    Below is the text of the statement made by Jeremy Hunt, the Foreign Secretary, on 20 July 2019.

    I had a fairly long conversation with the Iranian Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif, this afternoon. And it’s clear from talking to him and also statements made by Iran that they see this as a tit-for-tat situation, following Grace1 being detained in Gibraltar. Nothing could be further from the truth. Grace1 was detained legally in Gibraltarian waters because it was carrying oil against EU sanctions, to Syria, and that’s why Gibraltarian authorities acted totally with respect to due process and totally within the law.

    The Stena Impero was seized in Omani waters in clear contravention of international law. It was then forced to sail into Iran. This is totally and utterly unacceptable.

    It raises very serious questions about the security of British shipping and indeed international shipping in the Straits of Hormuz. And so, we spent a long time this afternoon in COBR discussing how we can guarantee the security of British and international shipping. A statement will be made to Parliament on Monday to update the House of Commons and the country on the measures that we are going to take, the further measures. But already this weekend we have raised the threat level to level three – that was a decision made by the Transport Secretary. But we will take further measures and announce those measures going forward on Monday.

    Our priority continues to be to find a way to de-escalate the situation. That’s why I reached out to the Iranian Foreign Minister, that’s why due process in Gibraltar continues. But, we need to see due process happening in Iran as well. We need to see the illegal seizing of a British-flagged vessel reversed, we need that ship released, and we continue to be very concerned about the safety and welfare of the 23 crew members.

  • Caroline Dinenage – 2019 Speech on Batten Disease

    Below is the text of the speech made by Caroline Dinenage, the Minister for Care, in the House of Commons on 16 July 2019.

    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) on securing this important debate on what is a heartbreaking issue, as I am sure you will agree, Mr Speaker. He and other Members have spoken up movingly and with great passion about and on behalf of their constituents, and I am grateful to them for doing so. I understand how vital it is for patients and their families to be able to access new medicines as quickly as possible. This is one of the hardest types of debates that one has to respond to as a Minister, when we can put ourselves in the position of the families up and down the country who are facing such a desperate situation.

    I will endeavour to respond as fully as I can to the issues that my hon. Friend and other Members raised, but I should begin by saying, sadly, that I am unfortunately unable to comment on matters relating to the availability of Brineura, a drug used to treat Batten disease, as this is currently subject to an active judicial review procedure.

    As we have heard from hon. Members, Batten disease is a terrible condition that progresses rapidly, leading to loss of speech, mobility and vision, progressive dementia and early death. It is a rare genetic disease, and it is estimated that around three to six children in the UK are diagnosed each year, with around 30 to 50 children living with the condition. Current treatment options are limited to symptomatic relief and supportive care. I fully understand how vital any new treatment option could be to the families of children with this rare and devastating condition.

    The Government want patients, including patients with rare diseases such as Batten disease, to be able to benefit from effective new treatments. It is in the interests of all NHS patients that we have a system in place for making evidence-based decisions on whether new medicines should be made routinely available to patients. That is why we have NICE, which makes independent, evidence-based recommendations for the NHS.

    NICE now operates two separate programmes for the assessment of new medicines: first, a technology appraisal programme through which NICE assesses the vast majority of new medicines; and secondly, a highly specialised technologies programme that is reserved for the evaluation of very high cost drugs for the treatment of very small numbers of patients suffering from very rare diseases in England who are treated in a handful of centres in the NHS.

    Where NICE recommends a treatment for use on the NHS, NHS commissioners are legally required to make funding available so that it can be prescribed to patients. This is reflected in the NHS constitution as a right to NICE-approved treatments. The intention of NICE is to have a system that means that the public can have confidence that the price paid by the NHS is consistent with the improvement in health outcomes that the medicine brings, ensuring fairness and the best possible use of funding for patients and the NHS.​

    As I said to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), NICE has recommended around 80% of products it has assessed. Through its important work, many thousands of patients, including patients with rare diseases, have benefited from access to effective new treatments.

    It is right that NICE’s processes continue to evolve with developments in science, healthcare and the life sciences sector. That is why it keeps its methods and process updated through periodic review that includes extensive engagement with stakeholders, including patient representatives, drug manufacturers and clinicians. In this spirit of continuous development, through the 2019 voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing and access, which was published in December, the Government announced that NICE would be undertaking a review of its methods and processes in 2019-20 for both its technology appraisal and the highly specialised technologies programme.

  • Jacob Rees-Mogg – 2019 Speech on Batten Disease

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Conservative MP for North East Somerset, in the House of Commons on 16 July 2019.

    Mr Speaker, may I begin by thanking you for allowing me this Adjournment debate and for your personal encouragement to me to bring it forward? My gratitude goes beyond that; I also thank you for the way you so encourage this House to hold the Government—the Executive: those who rule us—to account.

    I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and the terrific campaign she has been running in relation to Batten disease; she has done more than almost anybody else to highlight it. I note that two of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, my hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (David Rutley) and for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), have a great interest and a constituency concern in this issue, although they are not allowed to intervene on me for obvious reasons. I want to put their concern on the record. I know that others too might wish to intervene on this very important subject.

    This evening’s debate is about my constituent, Max. Max is a little boy; he is eight years old. He is a lively boy, and those of us who have children know what eight-year-olds are like—what a joy they are and how wonderful their spirit is. But Max has this horrible disease. Batten disease is perhaps the cruellest disease that one can imagine as a parent. We all see our children grow; we see them learn to walk and then to talk, and to run and to do all the things that children do. Batten disease means that they then go backwards. It tends to hit at about two—on a child who has shown no signs until then. The talking stops and the walking becomes more difficult. The average life expectancy of a child with Batten disease is between six and 12.

    The blow to parents, and to grandparents and families, that this is and must be, is so hard to bear and so difficult; it is so sad for them to see a child who they would hope would be going on into adulthood instead declining, and declining steadily. It is a neurodegenerative disease. To put it in layman’s terms, it is essentially dementia of the young: all that we see of Alzheimer’s in people in their 70s, 80s and 90s is instead happening to a child.

    But there is a drug that delays this. It is not a cure and it does not reverse the disease, but it seems to stop its progression—nobody knows for how long. It is called Brineura and it has been shown to be effective on a number of children who have taken it. So far in this country there are only two children for whom it would be suitable who are not receiving it, one of whom is Max. The others are receiving it as part of a trial that has been successful and is still being funded by the drug company—but that might not continue for ever, so there is an argument for them as well. I mentioned earlier the enormous contribution that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North has made, and I am very glad to see her in her place; without her, I do not think this really important matter would have achieved the publicity that it has received.

    This drug Brineura has been given a quality-adjusted life years rating by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence of 30, which is the highest rating that it ​gives. That means that the drug is thought to provide 30 extra years of life of good quality. That is a stunning achievement for any drug, and it has been given the highest rating and the highest amount of funding, but unfortunately that amount of funding is not enough. The pricing cannot be agreed between NHS England, NICE and BioMarin, the manufacturer.

    BioMarin is a drug company that needs to make a return on the amount of money it has spent. To be fair to the company, it spent $696 million last year on research and development and made a pre-tax loss of $142 million, so it is not an enormously profitable, rapacious company that is being difficult. One might think, however, that having lost $142 million, it might quite welcome a little bit of income from the national health service. If I were one of its shareholders, I might suggest that it would be a good idea to do something with the national health service so that the company could get some income back on its $696 million of research and development expenditure in 2018. Without an agreement between the buyers and sellers, Max will not receive the drug and his standard of life will decline month by month.

    Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)

    My hon. Friend will know about my constituent, Michal Luc, who is in exactly the same situation. We talk to parents who see their children degenerating and dying before their eyes. Does he agree that they cannot understand how we can argue over money when their children’s lives are disappearing before their very eyes?

    Mr Rees-Mogg

    I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

    Generally, I recognise the need for public expenditure constraint. Money always has to come from somewhere; it has to be either taxed or borrowed. However, in a country that spends over £800 billion a year, and £120 billion or whatever it is a year on the national health service, can we not find just over £6 million a year for this small number of children who have a terrible disease that can be held at bay?

    Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)

    I very much commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this hugely important and timely debate. Does he share my concern that we seem to be witnessing a bit of a blame game between NHS England, NICE and BioMarin? Does he agree that they just need to get round the table and resolve this issue one way or another, even if it requires the Minister to bring them together and knock some heads together to get them to come to a resolution? The rapid-acting nature of Batten disease means that my constituents Nicole and Jessica Rich and the other children who are affected just do not have the time for this wrangling to carry on.

    Mr Rees-Mogg

    The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The terrible thing is that in the month that has passed since I first raised this matter in the House, Max’s condition will have slightly deteriorated, and in every month that goes on while we are debating this, not just Max but all the children with this condition will go downhill. That is what happens with this disease.​

    There are questions to be asked about the structure of policy on rare diseases, and about the Government’s response and what powers they have. As I said at the beginning, accountability through this House is of fundamental importance. By law, the Secretary of State still maintains overall responsibility for the provision of healthcare in this country. It is the Secretary of State who is accountable. We cannot make NICE accountable; it has not been structured to be accountable. It does not appear in the Chamber to tell us what it is doing—that is done by second degree, through Ministers. We really need to know what, if any, reserve powers Ministers may have to be able to do something about the situation.

    Can something be done? Can a budget exception be provided, so that funds may be made available for these rare diseases? Can something be done, as has been done for cancer treatments, to provide money where exceptionality can be seen? Of course these drugs are expensive: they affect so few people, and the drugs companies will not develop them if they cannot at least make their money back. Can something be done as in other areas, particularly cancer, to ensure that the drugs can be provided? Can the rule changes in 2017 that made it harder to fund rare disease drugs be reviewed and possibly reversed? Since 2017, the financial aspect has become much more significant than it was before.

    Although I accept, of course, that there is a need to look at costs, when we are talking about eight-year-old children, we are not talking about a cost for people who only have weeks or months to live, but about a child who could have years of a high quality of life ahead of him. That must be where most of us as taxpayers think it is right to spend money and where we think that the moral case for spending money is extraordinarily strong.

    Catherine McKinnell

    Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the impact of rare conditions such as Batten disease is not just felt in the child’s physical health, but in their mental health and the mental health of their wider family? The system for judging what is value for money and how our NHS should spend its money needs to take a much broader approach when calculating the value of these medicines in those circumstances. It needs to get it right.

    Mr Rees-Mogg

    The hon. Lady puts it so well—and it is not just the family, but the community. On Saturday, the village of East Harptree, a small village in North East Somerset, came together for its annual village fête. All the funds raised were to try and help Max. He is at the local primary school, East Harptree Primary School. The week before, they had the school races. All the children had gone back a few yards so that Max could win, for the first and only time in his life, the race at his school. That is such a wonderful example of community. If communities can do that, surely the Government can help too, because it is not just Max and not just his wonderful family who are trying so hard to do the right thing for him. A whole community would be pleased, and would feel it was being taken notice of, if Max were helped—all his schoolfriends and schoolteachers and the whole community in East Harptree.

    Catherine McKinnell

    The hon. Gentleman gives a really powerful example. The whole of the community in Newcastle knows about Nicole and Jessica Rich and ​is doing everything it can to support them in this journey. This not only affects those two beautiful children; it also affects their family in a huge way, and the whole community.

    For that reason, I beg the Minister today to recognise that this is not only about reaching the right decision, but about doing it with urgency. Every day, there is an impact on their deteriorating health, and there is also the impact on the parents of supporting those children with a debilitating condition and living with the agony of not knowing what future lies ahead—whether the medicine that will save their children’s lives will be funded or not.

    Mr Rees-Mogg

    I so agree with the hon. Lady. I am of course primarily talking about Max, my constituent, but to take the drug away from children who are already getting it would be unconscionable. I simply do not believe that any reasonable person—any politician or any administrator—would think that the right thing to do. It is bad enough not to give the drug to a child who could benefit; to withdraw it would be so utterly wrong that I cannot believe that that could happen.

    When something can be done, it is hard for it not to be done and for us to allow it not to be done. It is frustrating that it is so hard to change and that there seems to be nobody who can decide it. Everyone one talks to says it is not up to them. NICE is bound by its guidelines, NHS England is bound by NICE, and the Secretary of State is bound by the legal interpretation of what the Health and Social Care Act 2012 provides, but none of that is good enough. We need action. Ultimately, it is Ministers, through Parliament, who are able to act.

    Let me finish with what Max’s father, Simon Sewart, who has been doing so much to look after his son, wrote:

    “I have always understood that life is no fairy tale with a happy ending, but when you learn that your beautiful child has a disease, as horrific as Batten Disease, your world changes forever and your heart is broken.

    NICE announced, just 24 hours after Max’s diagnosis, that the first ever treatment for CLN2 Batten Disease will not be funded.

    At a time when you should be taking care of your child, your other children, and enjoying precious time together as a family, you instead find yourself spending all of your time writing emails and letters, speaking to journalists and TV news programmes, communicating with your MP and with doctors in other countries where the ERT is available.

    Expending all of your energy in fighting the extraordinary decision by NICE and NHSE. And all the time, you see your child decline, day by day. And all the time, you just want to expend your energy on them, on holding them, on playing with them, on laughing and smiling with them, on running with them, on walking with them, on talking with them, on looking around at the world with them; on all these things. With them.

    This double-whammy is almost too much to bear. Reverse your decision NICE and let my family be.”

    Is that not what we all want for Max and his family? He has this terrible disease. It is not a disease that he can ever be cured of, but if he gets this treatment, he could have a higher-quality life and his family would be peacefully with him, enjoying his company for the years that remain to him. Please can the Minister do something about this?​

  • Emma Hardy – 2019 Speech on Relationship Education in Schools

    Below is the text of the speech made by Emma Hardy, the Labour MP for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, in the House of Commons on 16 July 2019.

    I am sure that Members from across the whole House will join me in affirming the importance of accepting that people have different family relationships and that it is not the shape or set-up of your family that matters, but only that you are loved and cared for.

    Passing the Equality Act 2010 was rightly a proud moment for our country, but these rights remain only for as long as we fight to keep them. Respect and equality are the true British values. There is no reason to treat sexuality any differently from the way that we discuss any other part of the Equality Act, or families that may have a difference in age or even a disability. The misinformation is vast and in danger of spreading. With respect to the Minister, whatever efforts the Department has been making to counter that misinformation have clearly not worked.​

    It is clear from last night’s “Panorama” programme that protests against relationship education are growing across the country. Over 70 schools are now experiencing pressure and intimidation because school leaders are fulfilling their legal duty under the Equality Act. It would also appear, from last night’s “Panorama” programme, that pressure was applied from the Department to Parkfield School to suspend its equality programme to get the school out of the national news. This has led to copycat protests elsewhere, as protesters believe that if they make enough noise, and turn up with loudhailers and hurl abuse at headteachers, other schools will back down, too. There is a desperate need for clear, firm leadership from the Department.

    Will the Minister assure the House that Department officials did not pressure the Parkfield leadership team into suspending its equality programme? Will he confirm that he will launch an investigation into such claims? Does the Minister agree with the Government’s lead commissioner for countering extremism, Sara Khan, that the Department has been slow to respond to the growing protests? What lessons have the Department learnt from that? Will the Minister update guidance to schools from “if” to “when”, to ensure that schools have a clear message about the need to teach LGBT-inclusive sex and relationship education? Will the Minister send a clear message to school protesters that LGBT-inclusive sex and relationship education is mandated by the Government, that compliance will be checked by Ofsted and that attempts to intimidate individual headteachers will not change that?

  • Nick Gibb – 2019 Statement on Relationship Education in Schools

    Below is the text of the statement made by Nick Gibb, the Minister for School Standards, in the House of Commons on 16 July 2019.

    This spring, Parliament passed the relationships, sex and health education regulations with overwhelming support. We know that many parents agree that these subjects should be taught by schools. We also know that for some parents, this raises concerns. Parents have a right to understand what we are requiring schools to teach and how their child’s school is intending to go about it. That is why we will be requiring schools to consult parents on their relationship education or RSE policy. Open and constructive dialogue can only work, however, if the facts of the situation are known to all.

    We are aware that misinformation is circulating about what schools currently teach about relationships and what they will teach when the new subjects are introduced. The Department for Education has undertaken a number of activities in response. In April this year, we published frequently asked questions designed to bust myths on the subjects. They have been translated into three languages. In June, we published the final version of the relationships, sex and health education guidance, as well as guides for parents on the subjects. Alongside that, we produced infographics that can be easily shared on social media—including WhatsApp, where we know much of the misinformation is shared—setting out the facts. We also sent an email to almost 40,000 teachers, providing them with factual information and links to various documents.

    The Department has also been working on the ground with Birmingham City Council, Parkfield School, parents and other interested parties to convey the facts of the policy and dispel myths, to support a resolution to the protests in that school and nearby Anderton Park School. Nationally, we have worked with the National Association of Head Teachers to understand where there might be parent concerns in other parts of the country and to offer support. We will continue those efforts to support the introduction of the new subjects, which we strongly believe are hugely important for children growing up in modern Britain.

  • Jonathan Edwards – 2019 Speech on No Deal Agricultural Tariffs

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jonathan Edwards, the Plaid Cymru MP for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, in Westminster Hall on 16 July 2019.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered a proposed tariff schedule for agricultural products in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal.

    Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again.

    On 13 March this year, the British Government published their temporary tariff regime for a no-deal Brexit. At the time, the announcement gained little political attention as it was the policy of the period to avoid no deal at all costs. One of the greatest failures of the current Prime Minister is her use of the phrase,

    “No deal is better than a bad deal”.

    She fell into a bear trap set by the extremists in her own party. When the British Government switched strategy in summer 2018 to warn explicitly about the dangers of no deal as a means of gaining parliamentary support for her deal, it was too late. The infamous phrase had legitimised the totally reckless policy of a no-deal Brexit.

    With the Prime Minister’s demise, the leadership election for the Conservative party has been dominated by the question of who can puff out their chest the most on Brexit. The debate has occurred in a parallel universe, far divorced from political realities. However, one conclusion we can safely assume is that it seems inevitable that no deal will become a viable option for the next Prime Minister, so all aspects of British Government policy in relation to a kamikaze Brexit deserve greater scrutiny.

    A key aspect of a no-deal situation is that, on 1 November, if the likely next Prime Minister sticks to his Halloween promise, the British Government will have to introduce an independent tariff schedule for goods entering the newly formed UK customs area. A major consequence of leaving the EU with no deal is that the territories of the British state will no longer inhabit the safe harbour of the EU customs union.

    I could have concentrated on a whole range of goods that will be impacted, but I want specifically to debate agricultural products for two reasons. First, Carmarthenshire is a proud agricultural county, and therefore leaving the EU customs union will have a disproportionate impact on the communities I serve. Secondly, tariffs on agricultural products are traditionally far higher than on other goods. That is especially true of the European Union, the destination for the vast majority of Welsh produce.

    As part of the EU customs union, Welsh farmers are protected by those high tariffs, which has enabled our food producers to develop high quality goods with unhindered access to the most lucrative and largest market in the world. The agricultural industry faces not only the loss of unfettered free access to its main export market in Europe; the new tariff schedule and its accompanying quotas offer precious little protection for the domestic market from being flooded by lower standard food products from around the world. That ​double hit would be too much for many farmers in my constituency and beyond. I cannot emphasise the dangers to the industry enough.

    Both farming unions in Wales agree. John Mercer, Director of NFU Cymru said:

    “It is absolutely clear that a no deal scenario will be catastrophic for Welsh and indeed British agriculture. A scenario where Welsh farmers have to operate under the ‘no deal’ default of WTO tariffs will have devastating effects and will severely threaten the livelihoods and business of Welsh farmers.”

    I am delighted to report that Mr Dafydd Jarrett from NFU Cymru is watching our proceedings.

    Glyn Roberts of the Farmers’ Union of Wales said:

    “It says it all that the prospect of a hard Brexit means a rich and highly developed state is stockpiling food and hoping to use an exemption to WTO rules on the Irish border which would more normally be applied in cases of war or famine. Yet this situation is not compulsory; this is a crisis which in fact we can easily avoid by acting in the best interests of our four nations; by withdrawing Article 50 and telling people honestly why Brexit must take place over a safe and realistic timetable.”

    In July 2018, the British Government lodged proposed schedules with the World Trade Organisation setting out the most favoured nation tariffs that would apply to imports to the UK after Brexit. Subsequently, in March 2019, the British Government set out proposed temporary tariffs to apply in the event of a no-deal scenario, which would see zero tariffs applied to 87% of imports measured by value for up to a year in a temporary regime, while consultation and review on a permanent tariff regime takes place.

    I am pleased that the British Government have exercised at least a degree of sensitivity in their treatment of the sheep sector, recognising the need to maintain tariff protection for lamb in the event of no deal by maintaining the full WTO tariff of 48% on lamb imports. However, what they give with one hand, they take away with the other. Tariff rate quotas will allow lower or zero tariffs to be applied up to a certain level of imports on some products. We know, for example, that New Zealand will continue to enjoy significant tariff-free access to the UK market for 110,000 tonnes of lamb annually. One of our principal competitors in the lamb sector will therefore enjoy more generous tariff-free access to our market.

    George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)

    I was involved in some of that work and the development of that schedule as a Minister. The existing New Zealand tariff rate quota would be split in half, giving it less access to the UK market than previously. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in any event, in recent years New Zealand has used only about 70% to 75% of its current rate quota because it cannot compete with lamb produced in the north-west and south-west of this country even before it reaches that ceiling?

    Jonathan Edwards

    I recognise the former Minister’s expertise in the matter. We will have to wait and see what farmers have to say about that. I invite him to attend the Royal Welsh show next week and make that point. I am sure he would receive a welcome response to his comments.

    The new Brexit date of 31 October will coincide with very high numbers of finished lambs coming on to the UK market.​

    Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)

    Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to invite Ministers not just to the Royal Welsh show next week but to Balla Mart, which will be held on 31 October, when perhaps 800,000 small-body lambs will come to market at a time of considerable pressure on prices?

    Jonathan Edwards

    I welcome my right hon. Friend’s intervention, because it takes me to my next point. If we are locked out of European markets, there is no way in which domestic consumption could pick up the slack. Additionally, the final quarter of the year sees the sale of light lambs from Wales, which are traditionally destined for export. There is no way in which they could be redirected into domestic consumption. Economists previously assumed that the loss of the EU market would depress UK farm-gate prices by 30%.

    Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so generous. The added threat of tariffs, as he suggests, is that British supermarkets will think they have farmers over a barrel because of the loss, in effect, of our export markets. Does he agree that Ministers ought to take action now and increase the powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator to ensure that supermarkets cannot exploit the situation?

    Jonathan Edwards

    I am grateful for that valid intervention. Those are the remedial measures that the British Government should be looking at urgently to protect our domestic farm producers. We are all aware of the imbalance there has been in the supply chain over many years, with, as he said, producers under the barrel of the supermarkets. The situation may well be exacerbated by what comes in the following months.

    To return to my point, economists believe that farm-gate prices will fall by 30%. With an additional 800,000 lambs on the domestic market at the end of October, farm-gate prices will come under additional pressure. I therefore call on the British Government to commit, on top of the measure mentioned by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), to additional funds for Wales to be able to implement contingency plans should the worst happen and we find there is unsellable surplus on the domestic market. There would be a disproportionate impact on Welsh agriculture.

    In other sectors, the British Government have elected partially or completely to dismantle tariff walls on most products. Tariff rates of 45% for beef, 0% for eggs and 22% for poultry meat will apply for imports into the UK from the EU and the rest of the world, while our exports of those products to the EU will face tariffs of 84%, 19%, and 48% respectively. In the dairy sector, only certain products—such as cheddar with a 7% tariff and butter with a 15% tariff—will be afforded some degree of protection, with the EU applying tariffs of 57% and 48% respectively on those products.

    Liz Saville Roberts

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his time. Does he agree with Dairy UK’s analysis that the toxic combination of WTO tariffs on exports aggravated by zero tariffs on imports will cause a massive shock to raw milk prices? That will affect big dairy sector employers such as farmer-owned South Caernarfon Creameries.​

    Jonathan Edwards

    That was another valid intervention. The hit will not be just to core producers, but along the supply chain to some of the producer and production capacity as well.

    Commodities such as skimmed milk powder, yogurt, whey, cream and liquid milk will not be protected by any tariffs. If farmers in Northern Ireland cannot send their liquid milk into the Irish Republic for processing and export, there will also be the problem of a major oversupply of liquid milk on the domestic market.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    In my constituency we have Lakeland Dairies, which has two factories in Northern Ireland and two factories in the Republic of Ireland. Michael Hanley is the chief executive officer of that firm. He says that whether or not there is a Brexit deal, life will go on. In other words, the movement of milk across the border, either way, in liquid or powder form, will still take place. We need to be aware of what some businesses are saying. That comes straight from a firm in my constituency.

    Jonathan Edwards

    I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s expertise; he is a farmer himself, I believe. However, if there is a no-deal Brexit, the European Union will have to protect its customs and market territory under all circumstances; otherwise, it would undermine the essence of the customs union and the single market.

    Owing to our inability to discriminate between countries under WTO rules, the tariffs that we apply to the EU27 in the case of no deal will be the same as those we apply to countries with which we do not have a trade deal. At the moment, that is basically the rest of the world, apart from the Faroe Islands and a few other territories. That would mean that South American beef, which is currently subject to the EU’s common external tariff of 84%, would, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, be able to enter the UK subject to a 45% tariff and out-compete our domestic producers.

    Many classes of imported product will be produced to standards that are currently illegal in the UK, and that will undermine our high domestic standards. As an unintended consequence, it will also hinder our ability to trade with our biggest market, which prides itself on high standards. The fact that the UK could be on the cusp of leaving behind a trade policy based on almost half a century of EU membership and swapping it for a trade policy based on WTO tariffs and protection for a handful of products is, to say the least, deeply concerning.

    All that, and I have not even begun to countenance the north of Ireland. The UK temporary import tariffs are set to apply to products exported from Ireland to the British mainland but not to goods crossing from Ireland into Northern Ireland. Although protecting the integrity of the Good Friday agreement must be a priority, that fantasy solution has been branded useless by the unions, as it flies in the face of WTO and EU rules.

    On another point often used by the British state to defend its tariff schedules, although I recognise the importance of ensuring that food prices do not rise in the immediate aftermath of no deal, the second-order effects of a no-deal Brexit on the economy could well lead to the cost of living sky-rocketing, rendering that argument null and void. Surely, ruling out no deal in the first place is the best way of achieving food price ​stability and food supply. If the next Prime Minister insists on keeping the myth of no deal alive, I would urge him to prioritise revisiting the proposed tariff schedules, with a view to ensuring that protections are maintained rather than eroded or removed completely.

    From a wider strategic perspective, what proponents of no deal do not admit is that the strategy is essentially a negotiating tactic. I do not think that even the mad caps of the Tory European Research Group want to base the British state’s trading relationship with the EU on the North Korean, Venezuelan, Cuban, Belarusian and Kazakhstani model. They believe that threatening no deal will secure favourable terms from the European Union. That has not been the case to date and is highly unlikely to change in the autumn, owing to the simple fact that the European Union holds all the cards in the negotiations.

    I do not think our inability to secure such terms is down to insufficient effort by previous UK negotiators. The strategy is the international trade equivalent, as one expert put it, of placing a gun to our own head and telling our opponent that we will pull the trigger unless they concede. In that case, they are likely to say, “Go ahead.” The reality is that, far from being intransigent, I am amazed by the patience of our European friends as Westminster goes through a full-scale political nervous breakdown.

    The strategy, however, has developed. Some in the Conservative party now believe that the crisis of a no-deal situation, which will face the British state on 1 November, is the best way to secure favourable terms in future negotiations, as opposed to doing things in a managed, grown-up way. It is a game of risk, in other words. Those advocating no deal are prepared to throw all their chips in the air in the hope that they fall on the right roulette numbers. Personally, when dealing with people’s jobs and living standards, I prefer a more strategic and nuanced approach.

    Before the Minister starts blaming my side of the argument for keeping no deal alive by not voting for the Brexit deal, it is the case that the Brexit model and narrative in front of us today has shifted drastically towards a harder, more extreme Brexit. At the start of the process, directly after the EU referendum, a soft Brexit was perceived as staying within the framework of the EU single market and customs union, while a hard Brexit was widely perceived as Canada-plus. At the time, Plaid Cymru would have been content with the former. Indeed, we have voted for those options when they have been before the House. By now, the discourse of a soft Brexit looks more like Canada-plus, while a hard Brexit is widely accepted as being no deal. There is no way on earth that we could accept either of those options with a clear conscience.

    The reality of the situation is clear: on day one of a no-deal Brexit the British state will have to negotiate a series of mini deals or face dire economic consequences. No deal is therefore a complete oxymoron. The European Union has said clearly that its priority before any meaningful negotiations would be settlement of the £39-billion divorce bill, citizens’ rights and the British border in Ireland. Considering the British Government will have to concede on those three issues no matter what they do, I am at a complete loss as to why anyone who supports Brexit voted against the withdrawal agreement.​

    Over the last year, the British Government have clearly outlined the dangers of a no-deal Brexit. On top of an economic recession equivalent to the great financial crash of 2008, highlights include troops on the street to deal with civil unrest; food shortages and higher prices as import supplies are disturbed, especially for fruit and vegetables; customs checks costing UK businesses £13 billion a year; no legal protections when buying products and services from EU countries, while UK courts no longer offer redress for consumers; flights from UK airports not receiving equal treatment when traveling to and landing at airports of countries who are members of the common aviation area; the Eurostar being disrupted until new arrangements are negotiated with each country along its routes; and fishing boats losing access to EU fishing waters, and being unable to land their catch at EU ports—and that is just what the British Government have chosen to share with us over the last few months.

    Pascal Lamy, who should know a thing or two about such things as director general of the World Trade Organisation between 2005 and 2013, equates leaving the European Union single market and customs union and trading on WTO terms to leaving the first division and facing a double relegation to the third division. Aware of the potential backlash to such a reality, no-deal proponents now argue that the British state could seamlessly enact article XXIV of the general agreement on tariffs and trade to keep the current tariff schedule. That argument was shot down last week by the WTO’s current director general, who said:

    “Article XXIV of the GATT is simply the provision of global trade law under which free trade agreements and customs unions are concluded… If there is no agreement, then Article XXIV would not apply, and the standard WTO terms would.”

    In other words, as we now famously know, paragraph 5(c) of article XXIV of GATT states that it applies only if there is a deal—the direct opposite of what the no-deal apostles are arguing for.

    For that reason, I have little doubt that, were the British Government to adopt no deal as its official policy, they would lose a vote of no confidence in this House. I for one am certainly committed to voting to bring down the British Government in order to defend the economic interests of my constituents. Diolch yn fawr iawn.