UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

  • Geoffrey Clifton-Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Geoffrey Clifton-Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Geoffrey Clifton-Brown on 2016-02-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of co-ordinating the objectives of Innovate UK and UKTI in order to increase exports.

    Anna Soubry

    Increasing exports, to all overseas markets, is a key factor in the Government’s long-term economic plan. UK Trade & Investment (UKTI) and Innovate UK work together to co-ordinate activity to promote UK innovation and to help drive the UK’s productivity, exports and long-term growth through increasing trade and inward investment in science and innovation. An Innovate UK secondee further augments the activities of both organisations.

    This work supports UK businesses looking to take advantage of overseas opportunities and to create a strong business environment that allows them to flourish both at home and overseas. This includes working together on events and entrepreneur missions to promote the UK’s innovative companies on a global scale, identifying export opportunities and securing new markets. Innovate UK funded projects and companies are referred to UKTI trade advisers to help support international planning and exports. To date 250 companies have been referred.

  • Geoffrey Clifton-Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Geoffrey Clifton-Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Geoffrey Clifton-Brown on 2016-02-04.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, for what reason trade statistics are collected on a different basis by HM Revenue and Customs and the Office for National Statistics; and what plans the Government has to align the collection of such data.

    Mr David Gauke

    HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is required to collect trade in goods statistics by EU legislation. This legislation sets out the detail and frequency of the data to be collected and provided to the EU Commission.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 471/2009 and Commission Regulations (EU) No 92/2010 and No 113/2010 set out the requirement for HMRC to collect trade in goods statistics between the UK and non-EU countries. Council Regulation (EC) No 638/2004 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1982/2004 sets out the requirement to collect the corresponding statistics between the UK and other EU Member States.

    HMRC provides trade in goods data to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). As required by the sixth edition of the International Monetary Fund’s Balance of Payments Manual (BPM6) and the European System of Natural and Regional Accounts (ESA 2010), National Accounts and Balance of Payments also include trade in services. The ONS collects this data.

  • Geoffrey Clifton-Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Geoffrey Clifton-Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Geoffrey Clifton-Brown on 2016-02-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what plans her Department has to commence the provisions of Schedule 23 of the Deregulation Act 2015 on the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973.

    George Eustice

    My Department has no plans to commence paragraphs 35 and 36 of Schedule 23 of the Deregulation Act 2015, relating to the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973. While the option to do so remains, we believe that for the foreseeable future these records do have a role in assisting Local Authorities investigating welfare concerns at dog breeding establishments. This will mean that licensed dog breeders will therefore be required to continue keeping records in a prescribed form.

  • Geoffrey Clifton-Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    Geoffrey Clifton-Brown – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Education

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Geoffrey Clifton-Brown on 2016-02-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Education, if the new national curriculum can be taught in primary schools to mixed-age classes.

    Nick Gibb

    Schools can choose to teach pupils of different year groups together.

    Maintained schools are required to cover the whole of the programme of study for each national curriculum subject by the time pupils reach the end of the key stage period. In planning how best to teach the curriculum, schools should consider all relevant circumstances, including the needs of their pupils, and make decisions accordingly.

    The programmes of study for primary English, mathematics and science are set out on a year-by-year basis to provide a guide as to the pace that the material should be taught in these key subjects.

    The national curriculum focuses on the essential knowledge that must be taught, allowing teachers to take greater control over the wider curriculum in schools and how it is taught. Teachers are free to use their professional judgement and take account of local circumstances in deciding how best to organise their classes, including whether it would be suitable to teach mixed age pupils together. The Department has no involvement in these decisions.

  • Geoffrey Clifton-Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Geoffrey Clifton-Brown – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Geoffrey Clifton-Brown on 2015-10-14.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when he plans next to publish a report on international comparisons of medicines usage; at what frequency he will publish such reports; what assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the most recently published report; and if he will make a statement.

    George Freeman

    International comparisons of medicines usage are included in the annual publication of the life science competitiveness indicators. This report is published annually, it was last published in March 2015, and the next publication will be inMarch 2016. This provides comparisons of the usage of innovative National Institute for Health and Care Excellence approved medicines per head of the population, over time. It does not make adjustments for the prices of medicines and the level of expenditure on medicines in different countries or the financial sustainability of different levels of uptake.

    The Accelerated Access Review (AAR) is looking at ways to revolutionise the speed at which 21st century innovations in medicines, medical technologies and digital products get to National Health Service patients and their families. As part of the AAR, RAND Europe completed a piece of work to explore learning from international comparators on how to accelerate access to innovative drugs and medical technologies. This informed much of our early stakeholder engagement and scoping work. The AAR has commissioned a further piece of research to look at best practice international funding and reimbursement models, including testing how these could be applicable to this country’s health and care system.

    Link to competitiveness indicators March 2015 publication:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/life-science-sector-data

    RAND Europe – Improving Access to Medical Technologies – An International Review:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/improving-access-to-medical-technologies-an-international-review

    “

  • Geoffrey Clifton-Brown – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Geoffrey Clifton-Brown – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Geoffrey Clifton-Brown on 2014-03-24.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will amend the benefits rules on the habitual residency test to exempt family members in the services returning from an overseas posting; and if he will make a statement.

    Esther McVey

    It has always been the case that all migrants, including UK nationals returning from anything more than a short period abroad, must satisfy the Habitual Residence Test. This is a vital tool which enables the Government to continue to protect the integrity of the UK welfare system.

  • Geoffrey Clifton-Brown – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Geoffrey Clifton-Brown – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Geoffrey Clifton-Brown on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what the Environment Agency classifies as a watercourse; if he will ensure that insurance companies can differentiate between major watercourses and watercourses of no consequence; and if he will make a statement.

    Dan Rogerson

    The Environment Agency defines a “Watercourse” according to section 72(1) of the Land Drainage Act 1991. It includes all rivers and streams and all ditches, drains, cuts, culverts, dikes, sluices, sewers (other than public sewers within the meaning of the Water Industry Act 1991) and passages, through which water flows.

    Insurance companies take into account a range of factors in setting policy premiums and excesses, and different insurers take different approaches to assessing flood risk. Certain insurance companies would use proximity to a watercourse to assess the risk of flooding to a property, whilst other companies may use postcodes to assess flood risk or their own flood risk models.

  • Geoffrey Clifton-Brown – 2022 Speech on the National Food Strategy and Food Security

    Geoffrey Clifton-Brown – 2022 Speech on the National Food Strategy and Food Security

    The speech made by Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, the Conservative MP for The Cotswolds, in the House of Commons on 27 October 2022.

    I am grateful to have caught your eye in this important debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I say how delighted I am to see the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) back on the Front Bench? That is great news, because he really does know a great deal about the subject.

    I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) on opening the debate. I look forward to being invited to have some of her excellent chickpea soup, preferably garnished with some excellent Tatton beef. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). Having spent years disagreeing with her in rural debates, I agreed with nearly everything she said. On chickpeas, I hope that she agrees that one of the great challenges for British agriculture is to produce more pulses and a greater variety of them. That is absolutely possible with new varieties.

    The national food strategy is an important milestone, and Henry Dimbleby was an important contributor. This week, as hon. Members have said, the price of staple foods including bread, tea, potatoes and vegetable oil has absolutely soared. Data from the Office for National Statistics collected thousands of prices from items available on supermarket websites, and food price inflation is staggering. When we look at the percentage changes in the prices of the lowest-cost products between September 2021 and 2022 we see that vegetable oil is up by 65%, pasta by 59.9%, tea by 46%, bread by 37%, and milk by 29.4%. These price increases are huge, making the weekly shop for many people simply unaffordable. The differences in price seem to be starkest in the case of food staples as opposed to luxury items: for example, the price of orange juice is actually down by 8.9%, while the price of wine has increased by only 2%. The impact on food staples will be catastrophic for those living on the breadline, who are already having to budget tightly to feed their families each week.

    Food and energy prices are highly regressive, causing more of those on low incomes to pay much more as a percentage of their budgets than those higher up the income scale. Increasing food prices will soon become as big a problem as the increase in energy prices, to which much more attention has been paid in the House and elsewhere. As has already been said, 18% of all households have experienced food insecurity in the last month.

    Supermarkets should be doing more to compete with each other and try to hold prices down, even if it has an impact on their profits. After all, that is what they are dictating to their suppliers—often small suppliers, some of whom will not survive this latest bout of cost and food inflation. The country’s largest supermarket, Tesco, has taken steps to ease the costs for its customers. Despite falls in profits, it is freezing prices on more than 1,000 products, while at the same time increasing the hourly rate of pay in its stores to £10.98 to help its workers.

    While costs in supermarkets are soaring, the increased costs of fertiliser and feed, exacerbated by Russia’s war in Ukraine, will cause a crisis for some farmers who will undoubtedly cease to trade. The cost of potatoes in the supermarkets has recently been hiked by 13.2%, whereas farmers have seen only a 5% rise this year. I know that the hon. Member for Bristol East will disapprove, but British Sugar is to increase its wholesale sugar price by 40% by the end of the month, while sugar beet farmers have seen a substantive increase of only 30% this year, which is the first increase in three years. All this is happening in an environment where the price of fertiliser—the main cost to farmers—has increased by 300% in the last 18 months.

    DEFRA urgently needs to discuss this matter with the supermarkets. They should not be raising their prices for customers by more than the increase for their suppliers, and they certainly ought not to be increasing shareholders’ profits on the back of the poorest in the country. In short, they should be exercising restraint for a short period to get us over this financial crisis. They should also continue the policy that some began during covid, and buy British wherever possible.

    It is important for the Government to continue with their environmental land management scheme re-evaluation to see whether taking land out of food production for environmental schemes such as tree-planting and rewilding balances with the need to maintain the land to grow food sustainably, and to protect our own food security. In the current circumstances, in which the cost of food is so high and the poorest in our society —as has already been said—are having to rely on food banks to feed themselves, it is our duty to ensure that we can produce as much of our own food as possible to meet demand.

    David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)

    My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, because he knows a great deal about this subject—as does my right hon. Friend the Minister. Does he agree that, given the challenges we are facing, it is right to start focusing on tackling food waste? I recently met representatives of a potato business in my constituency, E. Park & Sons, and Sodexo, one of one its major clients. That focus will not just help them and their bottom line, but ensure that food is more available in these difficult times.

    Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    My hon. Friend has raised a point that is important in two respects: it applies not only to the food retailers and processors but to individuals in their homes, where far too much food waste goes on.

    As an island nation, we should not be over-reliant on imports or the global market with the shocks that can come with that, the most recent case being the war in Ukraine. In the 1980s, our self-sufficiency in food was 75%; it has now fallen to only 60%. We need to encourage as much food production in this country as possible, so that more of the food we eat is grown in this country to keep prices at a sustainable level. Since August 2021, imports of food and live animals have increased rapidly, while exports have barely moved.

    I fully recognise that environmental schemes such as tree-planting and soil improvement schemes to prevent our rivers from being polluted will help to slow climate change and improve our natural environment. However, it is also the case that as global temperatures warm, vast swathes of countries near the equator will inevitably produce less food, which means that temperate countries such as ours will have to produce more to feed the world.

    Environmental and animal welfare issues are often forgotten. Either animals are having to be transported for long distances to be slaughtered, or environmental damage is caused by shipping or, worse still, flying food for vast distances across the world. The way to improve the situation is to ensure that animals are slaughtered as humanely as possible close to the farm where they are kept, and to ensure that all food around the world is consumed as close as possible to the point of production whenever that is practicable.

    Let me say this sincerely to my right hon. Friend the Minister: we need to be very careful about taking land out of production. It makes no sense for a 2,000-acre good-quality arable farm in Essex which was formerly growing wheat, barley, rape and field beans to be encouraged to put all its land down to grass under the countryside stewardship scheme. Let me also say to the hon. Member for Bristol East that while I fully accept that we should be taking some of our poorest land out of production for environmental schemes, we should be very careful about taking our best land—particularly grade 1 and 2 land, in the old parlance that was used when I was training —out of production for non-food-producing schemes.

    No one is keener on improving and protecting the natural environment than I am. Those of us who are lucky enough to live in the Cotswolds are eager to protect its natural beauty, and I pay tribute to my Cotswolds farmers for not only producing some of the best lamb in the country but participating fully in environmental schemes to improve biodiversity. On the other hand, everyone in the world is reliant, wherever possible, on a good supply of food at a reasonable price. If we are to reduce the amount of food that we import and have a long-term sustainable food policy, we must do more to grow and process our own food. That will help to bring down the cost of our basic food staples, helping individuals and families to shop for food without fear of what it will cost. I imagine that so many are unable to do that at present. Equally, we in the UK have the most beautiful countryside and rivers in the world, in which we need to be careful to preserve our biodiversity.

  • Geoffrey Clifton-Brown – 2022 Speech on Waste Crime

    Geoffrey Clifton-Brown – 2022 Speech on Waste Crime

    The speech made by Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, the Conservative MP for The Cotswolds, in the House of Commons on 20 October 2022.

    While momentous events are taking place elsewhere, I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to make a statement to the House on the 18th report of this Session of the Public Accounts Committee on “Government actions to combat waste crime”.

    The PAC is an incredibly busy Committee that holds two major sessions a week to examine the value for money of Government projects, programmes and delivery. Our inquiries come from the extremely insightful reports created by the National Audit Office. Following our PAC hearings, the Committee produces a report with recommendations to the Government who constitutionally normally have two months to respond.

    This week, the PAC published its report on “Government actions to combat waste crime”, which highlights our main concern with the Government’s strategy in combating waste crime, provides recommendations, and urges the approach to be reconsidered so that waste crime is not effectively decriminalised. Despite an increase in the number of incidents of waste crime and a significant increase in the cost of dealing with it, the PAC found that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency are making only “slow and piecemeal” progress in implementing the 2018 resources and waste strategy, and that DEFRA does not have an outline delivery plan for achieving its admirable policy of eliminating waste crime by 2043.

    The Government’s 2018 resources and waste strategy set out the admirable goal of eliminating waste crime within 25 years and listed 14 actions to be taken, but only three have been completed: establishing the Joint Unit for Waste Crime, making changes to legislation to give the Environment Agency greater powers, and giving the Environment Agency access to police intelligence systems. DEFRA must increase the speed at which it implements this strategy, and the PAC has requested that it provides the Committee with an outline of its plan to achieve its 2043 goal by the end of this month—quite a tight timetable.

    We all know that the thoughtlessness of waste crime has a hugely negative impact on people, their local area and the economy. Waste crime varies tremendously from area to area, but I am certain that all Members will have been contacted by constituents about it at some point and will have dealt with numerous cases of fly-tipping. It is an antisocial, polluting and costly crime that blights our countryside, cities and properties across England, and costs the economy more than £1 billion a year, although that figure is likely to be an underestimate.

    Waste crime includes not just fly-tipping but illegal waste sites, breaches of waste permit conditions, breaches of exemptions to the requirements for waste permits and, above all, the illegal export of waste by the UK to developing countries that are ill-equipped to deal with the environmental and often infinite consequences of that waste. It is not getting the local or national attention it needs to tackle it effectively.

    Waste crime is greatly under-reported: only about a quarter of incidents are reported. Government and Environment Agency statistics are not accurately capturing its true scale and impact, with local authorities not providing consistent reports on fly-tipping and relying on the public to report the crime. The PAC asks that DEFRA and the Environment Agency explore the full range of digital solutions, such as satellite and drone technology, to solve the issue of data weaknesses.

    The Government’s digital waste tracking system, including new IT systems, has been described as being at the “core” of the Government’s strategy, but it is still in development after four years. DEFRA’s prototype is in the testing stages before it reaches the next stage of development, and is expected to be rolled out in 2024. That will be a big step forward in improving data and the public reporting of incidents, and hopefully in the implementation of a swift and appropriate follow-up.

    The project has ambitious aims and DEFRA is confident that it can deliver, having successfully put in place an IT system when we left the EU. The PAC has investigated similar large-scale digital projects by other Government Departments before, however, and has therefore asked DEFRA to write to the Committee when the IT contract is let to confirm that that has happened and to confirm the plan for its implementation.

    The landfill tax has been successful in reducing the amount of waste sent to landfill and in encouraging recycling, which has become an increasingly normal way of waste disposal for many households in recent years. However, the PAC reports that this tax has increased the incentive to commit waste crime, with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs slow to prosecute offenders. Indeed, its recent attempt to prosecute an alleged offender in Operation Nosedive cost a huge £3.5 million yet ended without going to court.

    His Majesty’s Treasury and HMRC are currently reviewing the landfill tax and they need to take into account how the design of the current tax incentivises waste crime. The tax gap—the difference between the tax due and the tax collected—of the landfill tax is one of the highest of all taxes as a proportion of its size. Jim Harra, the chief executive and first permanent secretary at HMRC, assured the Committee only this morning that that is because its scope has been widened to include illegal waste sites, which are difficult to track down, but he also assured the Committee that HMRC recognised the social and environmental harm it causes.

    The reality is that the current system does little to deter people from committing waste crime. Organised criminals, who are responsible for the majority of incidents, often perceive the fines as a “business expense”. Fines are not high enough to discourage the crime and, in the unlikely case that they end up in court, the penalties are not sufficient. DEFRA, the Environment Agency and HMRC need to work together more closely to develop a plan for making enforcement more effective, speeding up the process and assessing the current sentencing guidelines, which must include not only higher fines but custodial sentences for the most egregious cases.

    DEFRA must work more closely with local authorities. While the Department is developing the guidance, local authorities are responsible for cleaning up the waste on the land they control and investigating suspected perpetrators. Evidence from the National Farmers Union said that better reporting and recording of waste crime on private land “is urgently needed” due to a substantial number of unrecorded incidents, with fly-tipping affecting two thirds of farmers. The national framework needs to be cleared by DEFRA so that local authorities have clear guidance on tackling fly-tipping that provides flexibility for responses but overall good practice.

    As I mentioned, waste crime includes not just fly-tipping, but the terrible practice of illegally exporting waste abroad. The exact figures are unknown, but the Environmental Services Association estimates that about 400,000 tonnes of waste are exported illegally each year, which costs our economy £42 million. Waste is being exported to countries that are unable efficiently to manage the volume and toxicity of waste safely, which causes substantial and sometimes permanent social, economic and environmental harm. The Environment Agency recently secured a record £1.5 million fine in the case of a waste company that was prevented from exporting 16 25-tonne containers to India and Indonesia, but a further 26 containers had already been illegally exported.

    I will go through the PAC’s recommendations. Firstly, DEFRA should increase the impetus with which the resources and waste strategy is taken forward. By the end of October 2022, it should provide the Committee with its outline plan for achieving the elimination of waste crime by 2043, and provide annual updates on progress against this plan. Secondly, DEFRA and the Environment Agency need to explore the full range of potential solutions to data weaknesses, including, for example, satellite technology, and ensure the successful delivery of existing initiatives to improve data.

    Thirdly, DEFRA should work with HMT and HMRC to ensure that the current review of landfill tax takes into account the incentives that the tax as currently designed creates to commit waste crime. Fourthly, DEFRA, the Environment Agency and HMRC should work with the relevant bodies in the criminal justice system to develop a plan for making enforcement more effective across the full spectrum of waste crime.

    Fifthly, DEFRA should work with local authorities to set a clear national framework for tackling fly-tipping, setting overall expectations and promoting good practice. Sixthly, the Environment Agency should write to us within six weeks setting out what actions would be required to enable it to understand the true scale of illegal waste exports and what further action it could take to prevent them. Seventhly and lastly, DEFRA should write to the Committee when the IT contract is let to confirm that it has happened and what the plan is for full implementation.

    Waste crime is a large and costly problem that causes great angst both to those who are directly affected by waste ending up on their land, leaving them to clear it up, and to the public who deserve to be able to enjoy clean and healthy towns and countryside. The PAC has clearly set out its concern about how Government are combating it, and most crucial is the lack of strategy or plan for achieving their hugely ambitious target of eliminating waste crime by 2043. This could be a huge win for the Government and the people of this country, and I urge DEFRA to get on with it.

    Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)

    First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his statement and the Committee for an excellent report. I also thank the National Audit Office for its inquiry into Operation Nosedive, which was instigated by me and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). What is depressing about the report is that these are things both of us have been raising for the last 10 years, and no one has been listening.

    The actions outlined are ones I support, but this is not a victimless crime. Tax has been avoided, criminals have got away with these crimes and communities have been blighted. Can I urge the hon. Gentleman and his Committee to make sure that they keep their finger on the button on this subject? I and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden have been at this for 10 years, and in our experience the evidence is there about what is going wrong, but the Government have just turned a blind eye—indeed, they have basically decriminalised waste crime. Without such pressure from his Committee, this will just carry on.

    Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    I thank the right hon. Member, who is very experienced in this field and has been campaigning on this, quite rightly, for a long time. We have made some fairly stringent recommendations in this report, with some fairly tight timetables for what the Government have to do by when. I can assure him that if we do not see satisfactory progress, we will call DEFRA back to examine why our recommendations have not been properly implemented. As he knows, it is part of the PAC system that we have the ability to call witnesses back and find out why they have not responded to our recommendations. As he also knows, as I said it at the beginning of my statement, it has 42 days in which to respond. If we do not like the responses, we can follow that up in writing or, again, call back witnesses.

  • Geoffrey Clifton-Brown – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    Geoffrey Clifton-Brown – 2022 Speech on Ukraine

    The speech made by Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, the Conservative MP for The Cotswolds, in the House of Commons on 22 September 2022.

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try to adhere to your three-minute rule.

    The message should go out from this debate to Volodymyr Zelensky and the Ukrainian people that we salute their bravery. They have suffered grievously. In just seven months, the world has seen one of the biggest refugee catastrophes since the second world war, with more than 7 million people displaced within Ukraine, 7 million people displaced to the rest of Europe, and more than 14,000 people dead or wounded. Hundreds of people have suffered war crimes of torture and sexual crimes, as the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) made clear, and hundreds of innocent children have been kidnapped, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) said.

    Quite simply, we have to help the Ukrainian people to win this conflict, because if they do not succeed in driving the Russians out of Ukraine, no country in Europe will be safe. I therefore congratulate my Government on the support and help that they are giving to Ukraine, as the Minister for the Armed Forces outlined in his comprehensive statement today. I am delighted that the new Prime Minister has made it very clear that we will stick by Ukraine for as long as it takes. Contrary to what some speakers today have said, I do not think that there will necessarily be a quick end to the conflict. All sorts of twists and turns could happen. As other hon. Members have said, although we hope that Vladimir Putin’s threat of using a tactical nuclear weapon is just that, we cannot be sure.

    We are absolutely right to give help. I understand that the British people are suffering grievously with the cost of living because of the price of energy and food, but as their politicians we must point out to them that if we do not continue to support Ukraine throughout this conflict, they will suffer even more.

    The issue I really want to talk about is grain, which we have not heard anything about in this debate. At long last, with the United Kingdom’s diplomatic help, the United Nations has negotiated for some grain shipments to cross the Black sea and go out through the Dardanelles to some of the most vulnerable and poorest people in Africa. We must make sure that that programme continues: it is vital for some of the poorest people in the world, and we must do all we can to prevent the Russians from stopping it.

    To all my constituents who have so generously hosted the Ukrainian people—I have met some of them—I say, “Please continue. I know it is difficult in some cases, but please continue your generosity.” To the British people, I say, “Please bear with the privations caused by this war. It will be difficult this winter, but our Government will do what they can. I am sure that right will eventually come through and the Russians will be driven out of Ukraine.”