UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Liz Truss

  • Liz Truss – 2012 Interview with Nursery World Magazine

    Liz Truss – 2012 Interview with Nursery World Magazine

    Selections from the interview with Liz Truss, the then Education Minister, and Nursery World Magazine, on 12 November 2012.

    On her impressions of the sector

    I obviously met quite a lot of people before I got the job, and it’s an area I’m interested in. I’ve got young children myself.

    I think that quality has improved. We’ve seen a growing professionalism in the childcare sector as a whole. A lot of the discussions that I’ve had with providers have been that there is an issue with sustainability. Feedback that I get from parliamentary colleagues is that some providers are struggling.

    We know there is also an issue with the extent to which parents can afford childcare. My broad feeling is that it is an industry that has changed, but there are a lot of issues. One of the things I’ve been doing is visiting other countries … we’re all facing similar issues. There’s a growing recognition of the real importance of early years both from the point of view of child development and from women’s/parents’ participation in the labour market.

    We know we’re in a more competitive world where the quality of our education is really important to our future prospects as a country and I think that early years is rightly being recognised as a really important part of that.

    What I want to do is learn from the successes and failures of others and also look at what’s best in our system. There are some very strong aspects to our system – for example, the Ofsted inspection regime.

    I think there’s a lot to work with. I think there’s a great deal of interest in new ideas and innovations. It’s a very interesting time to be doing the job.

    On the tensions between the needs of the child and the need to get parents into work

    The reality is that parents want what is best for their children. People don’t want to go out to work not being happy that their child is being well looked after and being prepared for the future, and they want to know that the child has the best possible quality care. I think that (the two things) are completely compatible and I think they have to be because we don’t want parents to go out to work at the expense of their child’s development and education at all.

    What I want to do is make sure that our system focuses on the really important things, which are the safety of the child and the quality of care that the child is receiving so that our regulatory system and our professional qualifications are focused on those two things rather than other things which don’t contribute.

    I want to make things simpler and focus on what is important to parents and what is important to our country as a whole. It’s really important that children receive the best possible early education.

    On working mothers

    The Resolution Foundation has rightly in my view raised the issue of middle income families and second earners who face a particular squeeze in this country, and I am concerned that we have fewer mothers going out to work now than they do in France and Germany, and, if you look at the 1980s and 1990s, we had more mothers as a proportion.

    That’s not to say that I want to force mothers back to work. The Department for Education has done a survey that shows that roughly 50% of mothers have chosen to stay at home and 50% would like to go out to work but the circumstances make it difficult, and one of the main issues is the cost of childcare and the availability.

    On funding streams

    There’s a confusing number of funding streams. The funding isn’t transparent. [That doesn’t] contribute to those two objectives of quality and safety.

    At the moment in our system not enough of the £6bn spent by the government is reaching the frontline. We want as much of that money as possible to be going on high-quality provision. We want providers to have an incentive to make sure that their provision is as high quality as possible.

    We’re leaking out funding. Quality costs, but we’re also spending money on things that don’t contribute to quality and that is simply a question of getting better value for the money we spend. We’ve got a problem in that some providers are struggling to stay afloat and at the same time we’re pumping quite a lot of money into the system. So the question for me is, how do we make that work better?

    On the free entitlement for 2-, 3- and 4-year-olds

    I think simplicity and transparency are really important – to say to providers you are going to be rewarded for hiring high-quality staff, for putting on good staff training and development, for making sure that you are following best possible child development practice. We are going to be judging, or the system is going to be judging, the quality of outcomes and the quality of engagement with the child.

    On the forthcoming response to the Nutbrown review of early years and childcare education

    We need to make sure that it’s not just the people in the nursery and childcare system who understand what’s happening, but also that parents understand what qualifications mean. It’s back to this point about simplicity and transparency.

    I want the early years profession to be a really attractive occupation for people leaving school and for graduates. I want it to be something that people want to go into. I think it’s really important that the profession is as outward-facing as possible, and that people understand what the qualifications are and what they mean.

    There [need to be] new expectations around salary levels. There is an issue with pay in particular parts of the sector. I think all these things are linked, so I want to give quite a comprehensive response about the regulatory system, and about what we’re going to do about qualifications as well.

    I want to build on the Early Years Professional Status (EYPS). It’s been a positive move and I want to build on it. We’ll also be looking at Ofsted and the way Ofsted measures outcomes. That will all be addressed under our response to the Nutbrown Review.

    The other aspect is increasing the level of professional discretion and professionalisation, and that means allowing, where there are not issues of quality and safety, providers more say in how they operate.

    I think it’s really important that if we say to people you are a graduate leader, that we allow people to exercise that professional judgement, and that’s what parents want – high quality, trusted people who are properly regulated by Ofsted, making decisions about how they run their nursery, their childminding practice.

    On lessons from abroad

    If you look at countries such as France and Germany, they are managing to get very high quality. If you speak to French parents about the quality of their 0-3s care, it’s very well regarded. They are managing to get high quality and high affordability and the government funding is more evenly spread across providers. So they are managing to use that government funding better, they allow more discretion, they’ve got very strong quality measures. So my question is, how do we get to that kind of system?

    I don’t think we should be defensive. Yes, a lot has been achieved, but in order to get to a new level, and we need to get to a new level both for the sake of children and their development and for the sake of parents who are struggling, we need to be flexible.

  • Liz Truss – 2012 Comments on Using Calculators in Exams

    Liz Truss – 2012 Comments on Using Calculators in Exams

    The comments made by Liz Truss, the then Education Minister, on 9 November 2012.

    Maths influences all spheres of our daily lives, from working out the change from your shopping to an architect’s calculations in designing the latest London skyscraper.

    The irony is that while maths is all around us, it seems to have become acceptable to be ‘bad with numbers’. The habit of simply reaching for the calculator to work things out only serves to worsen that problem.

    All young children should be confident with methods of addition, subtraction, times tables and division before they pick up the calculator to work out more complex sums. By banning calculators in the maths test, we will reduce the dependency on them in the classroom for the most basic sums. Children will have a solid grounding in the basics so they can grow up to be comfortable with the maths they will need in their adult lives.

  • Liz Truss – 2012 Speech at the National Education Trust

    Liz Truss – 2012 Speech at the National Education Trust

    The speech made by Liz Truss, the then Education Minister, in Norfolk on 9 November 2012.

    Thank you for those kind words Derek and let me also thank the National Education Trust for inviting me along today. It is a pleasure to be in Norfolk for this very important conference.

    It’s no exaggeration to say this is a make or break period in the history of maths in this country.

    All around us, the influence of mathematics is shaping our lives in previously unimaginable ways. From our experience of online shopping to the financial performance of investments and pensions, we live in a world entirely framed by maths.

    Even in those professions not traditionally associated with mathematics, there’s now a heavy reliance on algorithms and calculations: in journalism to spot the patterns in data; in architecture to use algebra and calculus with confidence; in marketing to make sense of the enormous array of statistics the world creates every day.

    That modern orientation towards deduction and logic, that appetite for maths, the appreciation of statistical analysis, technology and probability, opens up tremendous opportunities for young people in this country. But to take full advantage, we need to start exploiting mathematics as urgently as other countries might drill for oil.

    In technology, the media, e-commerce, design, engineering, medicine, the environment and beyond, the openings are almost limitless for those young people who are confident with numbers and able to read across into other technologies and industries. Only last week, 17-year-old Nick D’Aloisio rose to prominence after creating an app that uses algorithms to summarise news headlines.

    Success stories like Nick’s highlight the incredible opportunities that maths and formal logic can open up, and it’s why this government is so determined to restore the subject to its proper place in the curriculum.

    The issue we face is one of a growing mismatch between the demand for mathematical skills in this country, and our ability to supply that demand.

    For their part, maths teachers have worked – and continue to work – exceptionally hard to inspire more young people in the subject, but they operate within a desperately limiting system that often turns children off maths.

    As a result, the number of gifted young mathematicians coming through the ranks in this country still lags far behind those of other areas: reflected in the fact that we haven’t produced a single Field medallist in the last 14 years, despite producing 6 in the previous 40.

    Indeed, according to the Nuffield Foundation, we now have the smallest proportion of 16- to 18-year-olds studying maths of any of the 24 countries measured: well behind nations like France, Estonia, Russia, Australia, Spain, the US, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand and China.

    Many of these countries – like Canada where I spent a year in school – spotted the need to promote maths years ago: spurred on by lobbying from employers who wanted stretching, engaging curriculums that promoted the core essentials.

    We are now playing catch-up. The support has not been there for maths teachers in this country, nor the iron will and determination to encourage more young people to take the subject after GCSE.

    So, what do we need to do to sort it out? Well, first of all, I think we need to promote maths much better to children at primary age. Because it’s at this point that pupils are most likely to develop an affinity for the subject.

    Take Alan Turing as an example – albeit a very gifted one. He did not stumble across maths at university, he was obsessed by it as a child: running around the garden fascinated by the mathematical patterns he saw in nature and the recurrence of sequences in plants.

    Indeed, all the evidence shows that a thorough grounding in the essentials of maths from an early age directly correlates to improved results later in life. The CfBT has reported on the success that’s been enjoyed by Hungary, Finland, Russia and Japan – all of whom place great emphasis on supporting mathematical competence at primary age.

    The government’s draft programme of study for mathematics is designed to recalibrate the primary curriculum and make it much stronger. Our intention is to set out the very highest expectations of primary pupils: making sure they are fully prepared for secondary school and beyond.

    So, we are improving the structure of the maths curriculum by removing level descriptors: giving teachers more freedom to focus on what to teach, rather than asking them to label pupils with a level every single week or term.

    And we are focussing more heavily on the importance of exploring and understanding. Asking children to select and use appropriate written algorithms and become fluent in mental arithmetic: including requiring pupils to learn their 12 times tables by the end of year 4, instead of year 6.

    For too long, children have been leaving school without the necessary confidence in maths thanks to weaknesses in the curriculum. We can’t allow it to go on.

    Academics at King’s College have shown us that the number of young people with a poor grasp of basic calculation has more than doubled over the last 30 years. 15 per cent of pupils today fail to achieve the most basic standards – showing they can successfully solve problems involving doubling, trebling and halving – compared with just seven per cent in the mid-70s.

    Employers are not happy with this. And we are doing children no favours if we go on pretending it is ok to leave school without the mathematical agility required in the modern world.

    So, I am very pleased to announce today that we are removing the use of calculators from key stage 2 tests by 2014.

    Calculators can support the teaching of mathematics very effectively – it would be wrong to claim otherwise – but they are no substitute for calculations that can be carried out by a child with a pen and paper, or in their head. Particularly in a test that is designed to check whether a child has mastered the basics.

    That doesn’t mean it’s not important for students to become confident users of calculators, we’re not calling for the return of the abacus at the expense of technology, but we need to get the order right.

    I’m yet to meet a young person who doesn’t know how to swipe their fingers across an iPad or operate a device like a calculator, but I have met some who struggle with mathematical agility.

    To progress at secondary education, children need to have a deeper understanding of what it is they are asking a calculator to do, not just a superficial appreciation of the sequences they’re inputting.

    In that sense, it is no more appropriate for a child to rely on a calculator before they understand the maths behind it, than it is for them to rely on a computer’s spell check before they learn to order letters correctly.

    By getting the fundamentals right at primary, we have more opportunity to encourage pupils to study maths to a high level; to move from the concrete to the abstract; and to enjoy the subject beyond GCSE.

    Before the summer, we announced that the study of mathematics should be a requirement for all young people, up to the age of 19, who have not achieved a good grade at GCSE.

    We are now going even further by funding the education charity ‘Mathematics in Education and Industry’ to see how we might engage more students who get a C or above in maths at GCSE, but take it no further. One of the areas they will be looking at is whether they can help teachers support young people by focussing on problem solving rather than pure theory.

    In Japan, one of the top performing nations in maths, schools place a lot of emphasis on giving children a problem to solve and then encouraging them to find solutions for themselves.

    The British mathematician Timothy Gowers, one of our last field medallists, has been leading thinking in the same area over the last few years: demonstrating that if you ask young people mathematical questions that are open ended, you are likely to grip their interest.

    Among the conundrums Professor Gowers suggests are questions like (and I quote):

    Studies have shown that British vegetarians have, on average, higher IQs than the general population. Does this show meat is bad for your brain? What other explanations might there be? How informative is an average anyway? And how large a random sample is needed if you want to be convinced that an observation is probably more than just a random fluctuation?

    Or:

    You are in an airport and walking from the main departure lounge to a distant gate. On the way there are several moving walkways. There is a small stone in your shoe, which is annoying enough that you decide that you must remove it.

    If you want to get to the gate as quickly as possible, and if there is no danger of your annoying other passengers, is it better to remove the stone while on a moving walkway, or while on stationary ground, or does it make no difference?

    Now, the great strength of this approach, as teachers here will be able to testify, is that it encourages students to think laterally about problems and make links between different mathematical concepts.

    It is also tried and tested. Euclid’s treatise on geometry was essentially deductive. While in China, archaeologists have unearthed mathematical brain teasers that date back to the 2nd century BC. Maths in our classrooms should reflect this rich legacy.

    The best maths schools, like Lakenham Primary in Norwich; Paston College in North Walsham; New College in Nottingham; Comberton Village College in Cambridgshire and many hundreds of others across the country, have inspiring teachers in place who bring the subject alive.

    We are already looking at how similar approaches could be reflected in curriculum assessment by marking students on their ability to analyse open-ended problems and communicate their solutions.

    On top of this, we are working with organisations like the Advisory Committee for Mathematics Education to look at other possibilities for new post-16 courses. And we are addressing the gap in abilities at the top end of the spectrum with the support of the Cambridge University Mathematics Programme.

    As many here will know, there has been a shortage of students entering higher education with the right maths skills. Cambridge University has been one of the hardest hit by this lack of math-readiness among students. So I’m delighted they’re working with us to help develop an advanced curriculum that can give students a better grounding in key mathematical ideas like trigonometry and complex numbers.

    In addition to this, it is hugely encouraging to see the work being done by heads, teachers and sponsors through the opening of schools like the Sir Isaac Newton Free School right here in Norfolk. This opens in 2013.

    Rachel de Souza and David Prior have done a terrific job in making this project happen. I would like to thank them in advance for the opportunity they are giving so many young people in the region to excel in maths. In David’s words, “we need a bomb to go off in maths and science” – which I took to be a positive thing.

    But of course, when that bomb does goes off, we will need the largest possible supply of excellent maths teachers in this country. And that is why we have made secondary maths a priority for recruitment into initial teacher training. Candidates with a first class degree in maths are now eligible for the very highest level of bursary: £20,000 to support them through their training.

    I started by saying how we’ve struggled to keep pace with the demand for mathematics in this country. I want to finish with a word of optimism. If you look at the Asian tigers and our nearer competitors like Canada and Germany, there is a huge reluctance to be beaten in education.

    They lionise maths and the teachers of maths. They use exciting textbooks and teaching materials. But if you ask anyone for examples of the very best maths teaching in the world, you will find them right here, in Norfolk, East Anglia and beyond. Schools who are promoting the fascination and depth of mathematics. It’s links to great music, art and literature.

    So yes, there is a solid base to build from. We can be optimistic. But we can’t be complacent if we want to build on our tremendous mathematical legacy created by thinkers like Turing.

    That is why we need to be more ambitious than any other country. I want a renaissance in maths. I want teachers to be properly appreciated and supported by a curriculum that is fit for purpose. I want them to have the freedom to inspire their pupils.

    On the 100th anniversary of Turing’s birth, we are absolutely determined to make sure the ‘supreme beauty’ of maths – to quote from Bertrand Russell – is reclaimed. And to make sure this country can take advantage of the enormous opportunities that this subject is creating in the world around us.

  • Liz Truss – 2012 Comments on the EBacc

    Liz Truss – 2012 Comments on the EBacc

    The comments made by Liz Truss, the then Education Minister, on 5 October 2012.

    The EBacc has not just arrested the decline in students studying academic subjects – it has spectacularly reversed it.

    It is great news that more students are studying important subjects that will open more doors to them for their future.

    The EBacc is the platform for young people to go on to A levels and high-quality vocational study, and is helping us compete with leading nations like Canada and Germany who expect all students to study a rigorous academic core.

  • Liz Truss – 2010 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    Liz Truss – 2010 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    The maiden speech made by Liz Truss, the Conservative MP for South West Norfolk, in the House of Commons on 8 June 2022.

    Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, and may I congratulate the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) on her passionate advocacy of the economic development of her constituency? I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on his advocacy of the importance of education programmes.

    I am very grateful to be called in today’s economy debate, as I believe that addressing the deficit and powering economic growth are the two most important things that this Government can do. I believe that South West Norfolk, and Norfolk as a whole, have a lot to offer in helping us to achieve those objectives.

    The people of South West Norfolk are not afraid of hard work. Indeed, we are a forward-looking and self-reliant county. We are part of the east of England, which is one of the three regions in the country that puts more in the tax pot than it takes out of it. To carry on being a net contributor, however, we need to make sure that we have the necessary infrastructure and skills in our county, and that is what I am going to talk about today.

    My predecessor, Christopher Fraser, worked hard on those issues—to secure further funding for the A11 and to protect Swaffham community hospital. He spoke out frequently on the issue of flood defences, which are important for members of our community, some of whom can use their road for only 200-odd days in the year because at other times it is closed due to flooding.

    South West Norfolk is famous for some strong characters. Thomas Paine was born in Thetford—a man who started off revolutions on two continents. Boudicca was reputed to have had her base in Thetford as well. She led an uprising against the Romans. Sadly, when she left the county of Norfolk and moved on she was strategically outmanoeuvred at the battle of Watling street. That is not a fault that afflicted one of my other predecessors Gillian Shephard, now Baroness Shephard, who successfully steered many reforms through this House as a Minister for Agriculture and as Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

    Agriculture is a huge part of the economy in South West Norfolk. We have the world’s biggest sugar factory in Wissington; we also have some amazing arable production and pig production, and we are still enjoying the bounty of the asparagus crop. I have just been enjoying asparagus in the Tea Room and I hope that it was Norfolk asparagus. If it was not, I will certainly be working to make sure that it is in future. Agriculture faces problems, not least the Rural Payments Agency, which I want to work to reform, particularly the mapping exercise, which has caused many farmers in South West Norfolk utter consternation.

    We have two other key market towns in South West Norfolk—Swaffham and Downham Market. I do not know whether hon. Members have heard of the pedlar of Swaffham. He came to London to look for treasure, but he found out that the treasure was in Swaffham all along. I can tell the House that there is much more treasure to be unearthed in Swaffham—its tourism industry and its energy industry. Downham Market is another fine town that used to boast orchards. It is still a centre for agriculture, and now has a number of commuters living in the constituency, who travel to Cambridge, Kings Lynn and London. I shall be wanting to make their lives easier by seeking improvements to that train line.

    The constituency stretches from the fens to the brecks and right down to the Suffolk border. In all those areas various business are tucked away. We have innovative businesses producing fuel from cooking oil, high-tech lasers and airport scanning equipment. It is amazing the things one finds. All those businesses tell me the same thing. They are frustrated with dealing with too many Government agencies, a plethora of initiatives, and too much red tape. They also want action on the creaking infrastructure in Norfolk and say that we need more specialist skills. That is why, together with my Norfolk colleagues, I shall be fighting for dualling of the A11 from the fiveways roundabout to Thetford.

    I notice that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor mentioned earlier that he wanted to put money where there was a high-level economic return. I can tell the Minister that there is a benefit-cost ratio of 19 for this project, so it is of high value. It will unlock more growth in Norfolk. We also want to see a successful conclusion to the train franchise agreements, and of course broadband rolled out across the county.

    The other thing that I will be pushing for is an overhaul of our qualifications system. Like everywhere else in the country, the economy of South West Norfolk has changed. With increased automation, we now have more highly skilled jobs. A typical farm now employs an eighth of the employees that it did 40 years ago, but those employees are in highly technically skilled and business management roles. We need to ensure that we educate people for those jobs. That is why I want to look to our great universities to lead on academic qualifications. I have previously called for maths and science to move from geek to chic. Never has this been more important, and I will be pressing for that.

    I also want to see employers lead in on-the-job skills, because people get a passion for work and a sense of craftsmanship from watching someone who cares about it doing the job. I will be fighting for that to make sure that those people, not bureaucrats, are in charge of setting our qualifications.

    Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech today. I am truly grateful. I know that we have the right policies and that the will is there among those on our Front Bench. We can make not just Norfolk a powerhouse but the whole of Britain a powerhouse for the future of our economy

  • Liz Truss – 2022 Comments Backing Boris Johnson’s Resignation

    Liz Truss – 2022 Comments Backing Boris Johnson’s Resignation

    The comments made by Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, on 7 July 2022.

    The PM has made the right decision.

    The Government under Boris’s leadership had many achievements – delivering Brexit, vaccines and backing Ukraine.

    We need calmness and unity now and to keep governing while a new leader is found.

  • Liz Truss – 2022 Speech at the Freedom of Religion or Belief Conference

    Liz Truss – 2022 Speech at the Freedom of Religion or Belief Conference

    The speech made by Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, at the QE11 Conference Centre in London on 5 July 2022.

    Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen, Excellencies, I’m delighted to welcome you to the freedom of religion or belief conference.

    This is the first of its kind to be hosted in the United Kingdom. I hope there will be many more. I’d like to thank Fiona Bruce for all her hard work as the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy and Lord Ahmad as our Minister for Human Rights.

    The freedom to believe, to pray and commit acts of worship, or indeed not to believe is a fundamental human freedom and has been one since the dawn of time. Societies that allow their people to choose what they believe are better, stronger and ultimately more successful.

    This fundamental right is covered in the very first clause of Magna Carta and Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is one of the Four Freedoms Franklin D Roosevelt said were “essential everywhere in the world”.

    Yet throughout history, we have seen oppressors crack down on freedom of religion or belief in order to exert control. Whether it the appalling persecution of the Jewish community over centuries or Stalin trying to stamp out religion in the Soviet Union.

    Today there is further evidence of this around the world:

    in Nigeria, terrorist groups in the North East, including Islamic State West Africa and Boko Haram, indiscriminately attack those who do not subscribe to their extremist views

    just a month ago, at least 40 people were killed in a heinous attack by gunmen while worshipping at the St Francis Catholic Church in Ondo State

    in Xinjiang, the evidence is clear of the extraordinary scale of China’s targeting of Uighur Muslims and other ethnic minorities, including severe restrictions on the freedom of religion

    in Afghanistan, many of those with a belief the Taliban does not condone are forced to follow this in secret or flee for their safety. They also die at the hands of Da’esh, or see their places of worship attacked

    These are a handful of examples. And we know that Hindus, Humanists and many others are prosecuted and persecuted for their beliefs.

    Persecution ranges from exclusion and discrimination to forced conversion, destroying places of places of worship and targeted killings.

    The Bishop of Truro’s 2019 review for the UK government provided recommendations to support members of all faiths, beliefs and those of no religious belief. I welcome all of those recommendations, and we have taken forward the 22 in a way that will make a real change for everyone persecuted for their religion or belief.

    Over the next 2 days, we will see people from across the world come together to discuss freedom of religion or belief, and the practical steps we can take to advance it.

    Ukraine is on the frontline of this struggle. They are a free democracy, one of the first countries to join the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, fighting for their future.

    Vladimir Putin and his enablers claim that Russia is waging a holy war, but in truth they believe nothing is sacred. We are seeing growing evidence of heinous war crimes committed by Russian troops.

    Innocent civilians are having to shelter from Russia’s indiscriminate bombardment in places of worship. Churches, synagogues, and mosques have been reduced to rubble. Religion is proving to be collateral damage from Putin’s aggression.

    To Ukraine’s delegation in the audience today, I want to say: the UK will not rest until you prevail and until your people are free to live, believe and thrive.

    And I can see that sentiment is shared across this conference. We all want a world where people are free to believe.

    That is why since becoming Foreign Secretary I have taken a strong stand against anti-Semitism, condemning the hateful act of terrorism at a Texas synagogue earlier this year.

    I continue to stand with our international partners in calling out the shocking persecution of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang. I am at the forefront of standing up for all those suffering in Ukraine including Orthodox Christians.

    Authoritarians and oppressors feel threatened by the freedom of religion or belief, fearing it will encourage people to think freely and question their authority.

    We cannot allow them to win. That is why we’re deepening links with our allies and partners to build a Network of Liberty around the world.

    As St Paul told the Corinthians: “Be on guard, stand firm, be courageous, be strong”.

    So let’s work together in that spirit to defend freedom of religion or belief and show the potential for positive change. Together, we can forge ahead to a fairer, safer world for people of faith across the globe.

    Thank you.

  • Liz Truss – 2022 Statement on the Persecution of Christians

    Liz Truss – 2022 Statement on the Persecution of Christians

    The statement made by Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 4 July 2022.

    At the beginning of 2019, the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), asked the Bishop of Truro to review what more the then FCO could do to address the persecution of Christians. The Bishop published a report in July 2019 setting out the gravity of the issue, as well as practical recommendations for an enhanced FCO response to the plight of persecuted Christians and people persecuted for holding other religious beliefs, other beliefs, or no religious belief at all.

    Recognising that the persecution of people for their religion or belief is unacceptable and a significant international problem, the Government committed to implementing the recommendations of the Bishop’s review. His final recommendation was that an independent assessment of our progress in doing so should be carried out three years after the original report. I am pleased to publish that assessment today. We welcome and accept this expert review on progress and in line with the findings, accept their assessment for the need to continue to work to promote and strengthen freedom of religion or belief as a fundamental human right for all. We thank the reviewers for their important work. A copy of the report will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

    I have seen first-hand how much work has gone in across the organisation to delivering the review recommendations. Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon has worked closely with the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion or Belief, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), to promote freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) internationally and to oversee progress on implementing the review recommendations. The independent assessment concludes that the majority of the recommendations are either at an advanced stage of delivery or in the process of being delivered, whilst noting that there is still more to do. The reviewers have also recognised where there have been constraints to delivery or an alternative approach has been taken.

    I am encouraged by what has been achieved in recent years, in the face of many global challenges. We have led international efforts to increase collaboration to support those who are persecuted for what they believe. In March 2021, Lord Ahmad hosted a meeting at the UN Security Council to raise awareness of persecution of religious minorities in conflict zones. We used our G7 presidency to secure language on FoRB in the G7 communique for the first time, galvanising support for those suffering discrimination and persecution. The FoRB Special Envoy holds the Chair of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance this year, demonstrating UK global leadership on FoRB. We have sent a clear message that the international community will not turn a blind eye to serious and systematic violations of human rights through our global human rights sanctions regime. Religion for international engagement training is now available to all civil servants to enhance their understanding of the role of religion and belief in a wide variety of contexts, in order to deliver the UK’s international objectives more effectively.

    Building on this work, we will continue to ensure that the changes we have made are embedded and to look for opportunities to make FoRB central to the FCDO’s wider human rights work. We will do this, working alongside others, to deliver real change for the good, protecting and promoting everyone’s right to freedom of religion or belief.

    Our work on this important human rights issue will never be complete, and we will continue to champion global efforts on FoRB. As part of that, on 5-6 July this year, the UK will host an international ministerial conference on freedom of religion or belief. We look forward to welcoming partner countries and stakeholders from around the world to London.

    Attachments can be view online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2022-07-04/HCWS174

  • Liz Truss – 2022 Speech at the Ukraine Recovery Conference

    Liz Truss – 2022 Speech at the Ukraine Recovery Conference

    The speech made by Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, in Lugano, Switzerland, on 4 July 2022.

    Thank you very much Prime Minister, thank you very much to President Cassis for hosting the conference today. Ukraine’s recovery from Russia’s war of aggression will be a symbol of the power of freedom and democracy over autocracy.

    It will show Putin that his attempts to destroy Ukraine have only produced a stronger, more prosperous and more united nation.

    The United Kingdom is resolute in its support of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and we will remain at Ukraine’s side as it emerges as a strong and thriving democracy.

    We have led on support for Ukraine during the war and will continue to lead in supporting the Ukrainian Government’s Reconstruction and Development Plan.

    This needs to be a new Marshall Plan for Ukraine and it needs to be driven by Ukraine itself.

    We will push for immediate investment and to drive economic growth because it’s absolutely imperative we get the Ukrainian economy going, we need to need able to support returning Ukrainians returning to Ukraine, we need to give people hope about the future, and we need to give them the means to be able to support themselves.

    Reconstruction should embed reform, modernisation, technology and transparency.

    The United Kingdom is very pleased to join the Joint Reconstruction Coordination Group.

    It’s our view that it’s vital that that is open to partners right around the world, we need all of the free world supporting this effort. It must be open and comprehensive, and it must involve international organisations as are represented on stage at the moment.

    It must involve all of those who have been active in helping Ukraine defend itself and who back Ukraine for the long term through thick and thin, whatever it takes.

    The United Kingdom has committed to host next year’s 2023 Ukraine Reconstruction Conference.

    President Cassis, we have a lot to learn from you, it’s been a fantastic conference so far.

    We are also exploring how we engage British business, tech companies and universities in that reconstruction effort, we’re looking at how we can use English and Scots law to ensure investors have the confidence to participate in the reconstruction effort, and we will use the might of the City of London and the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development which is based in London to make Ukraine one of the world’s top destinations for investment in 2023.

    We think there is a real opportunity for Ukraine to near-shore manufacturing, agribusiness, technology, to be an extremely vibrant economy going forward. As the Prime Minister mentioned the United Kingdom is actively looking at how we legislate to seize assets from those who have contributed to this appalling war, it’s vitally important that we acquire those funds for the reconstruction of Ukraine.

    The UK will be championing the recovery of the Kyiv region, in response to President Zelenskyy’s specific request from our Prime Minister for UK leadership. We believe that despite the appalling suffering, despite the terrible war crimes that have taken place, the devastation, and the human cost, that Ukraine will emerge stronger and more successful after this war.

    President Zelenskyy you have demonstrated that Ukraine is a bastion of freedom and democracy, and it’s our duty as your friends and allies, as the free world, to do whatever it takes to support you.

    Thank you.

  • Liz Truss – 2022 Statement on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

    Liz Truss – 2022 Statement on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

    The statement made by Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 27 June 2022.

    I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

    We are taking this action to uphold the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which has brought peace and political stability to Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland protocol is undermining the function of the agreement and of power sharing. It has created fractures between east and west, diverted trade and meant that people in Northern Ireland are treated differently from people in Great Britain. It has weakened their economic rights. That has created a sense that parity of esteem between different parts of the community, an essential part of the agreement, has been damaged.

    The Bill will address those political challenges and fix the practical problems the protocol has created. It avoids a hard border and protects the integrity of the UK and the European Union single market. It is necessary because the growing issues in Northern Ireland, including on tax and customs, are baked into the protocol itself. Our preference remains a negotiated solution, and the Bill contains a provision that allows for negotiated agreement, but the EU has ruled out up-front making changes to the text of the protocol.

    John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)

    I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on her very patient and good diplomacy. Will she confirm that this very moderate measure is completely legal and essential to the peace and good will of Northern Ireland?

    Elizabeth Truss

    I can absolutely confirm that this Bill is both necessary and legal, and the Government have published a legal statement setting that out.

    Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) rose—

    Elizabeth Truss

    I will make a bit more progress and then allow some further interventions.

    We continue to raise the issues of concern with our European partners, but we simply cannot allow this situation to drift. Northern Ireland has been without a devolved Government since February due specifically to the protocol, at a time of major global economic challenges. Therefore, it is the duty of this Government to act now to enable a plan for restored local government to begin. It is both legal and necessary.

    This Bill fixes the specific problems that have been caused in Northern Ireland while maintaining those parts of the protocol that are working. It fixes problems in four areas: customs and sanitary and phytosanitary; a dual regulatory model; subsidy control and VAT; and governance. On customs and SPS, the Bill creates a green and red lane system. All those trading into Northern Ireland will be part of a trusted trader scheme. Goods destined for Northern Ireland will not face customs bureaucracy. Goods for the Republic of Ireland and the EU will go through four EU-style border procedures. All data from both the green and red lanes will be shared with the EU in real time as the goods depart from Great Britain. This means that the EU will have this data before the goods arrive in Northern Ireland, ensuring that the EU single market is protected.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I thank the Secretary of State for bringing this forward and for her comprehensive understanding of the position of many people in Northern Ireland. As someone who has had businesses contacting me for those who have openly stated that they are from a nationalist tradition and yet feel afraid to voice complaints to their own MP for fear of reprisals, I speak with confidence in assuring the Secretary of State that Northern Ireland as a whole needs this Bill not simply for cultural identity, which is imperative, but for financial viability for small businesses due to the effects of the EU’s vindictive approach to block VAT and state aid. This Bill really is long overdue.

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

    Order. Interventions should be fairly brief because we have a lot of people wanting to speak in this debate.

    Elizabeth Truss

    I was talking about the data that we are sharing with the EU. I am pleased to say that we already have this system in place. We are giving demonstrations to businesses and the EU to show how it works, and I am happy to make those demonstrations available to Members of Parliament as well. Any trader violating the lanes will face penalties and would face ejection from the scheme.

    Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)

    I have an immense amount of sympathy with what the Foreign Secretary is saying, and it does seem to me as though the EU is not being particularly constructive in trying to get the solution that we all want to see. But many of us are extremely concerned that the Bill brazenly breaks a solemn international treaty, trashes our international reputation, threatens a trade war at a time when our economy is flat, and puts us at odds with our most important ally. Can she say anything to reassure me in my anxieties on these points?

    Elizabeth Truss

    As I said at the outset, our preference is for a negotiated solution, and we have sought that for 18 months, but as recently as last weekend the EU has refused to change the text of the protocol. That is why there is strong legal justification, as set out in our legal statement, for us taking this action. Our priority, as the United Kingdom Government, has to be political stability within our own country. While we put this Bill through Parliament, we will continue to seek a negotiated solution with the EU, and there are provisions in the Bill to deliver that. I would strongly encourage my right hon. Friend to raise this with the EU directly and to encourage a negotiated solution, because there is a solution to be achieved. We have laid it out very clearly with our red and green proposal, but we do need the EU to agree to change the text of the protocol. That is the fundamental issue that needs to be addressed.

    Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)

    I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. The Government’s legal position prays in aid the international law doctrine of necessity, but the International Law Commission says that where a state has itself contributed to the situation of necessity, that doctrine cannot be prayed in aid. Given that the Prime Minister signed the withdrawal agreement, including the protocol, in the knowledge that it would give rise to precisely the difficulties of which the Government now complain—we debated it on the Floor of the House—does the Secretary of State not see that there is a pretty big hole in the legal advice she has been given?

    Elizabeth Truss

    We set out the case extremely clearly in the legal advice, and the doctrine of necessity has been used by other Governments in the past where there is a severe issue and the other party is unwilling to renegotiate that treaty. That is the position we are in with the Northern Ireland protocol. What I would ask the hon. and learned Lady and other Members on the Opposition Benches is this: given that the EU refuses to reopen the Northern Ireland protocol, and issues around customs and tax are specifically baked in, what is their solution for dealing with the real issues in Northern Ireland? We have looked at all the alternative solutions, and the only effective solution is this Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, in the absence of the EU being willing to negotiate a new protocol.

    Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)

    My right hon. Friend could also point out that the protocol itself contains provisions for it to be changed, and the EU refuses to contemplate using those provisions. May I also point out that at the time we signed the protocol, we did not know the shape of the trade and co-operation agreement, and it was reasonable to expect the EU to give mutual recognition of products and standards, including SPS standards, as it has with New Zealand, for example? The EU refuses to give us those provisions. The problems in the protocol would be much less if the EU had given us a better trade deal.

    Elizabeth Truss

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the protocol is not set in stone. That is why for the past 18 months this Government have sought to achieve negotiated changes to the protocol. In the absence of the EU being willing to change the text, the only way to resolve this matter is for us to legislate.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Elizabeth Truss

    I am going to make more progress, and then I will take more interventions.

    We fully understand and respect the legitimate concerns of the EU that the single market should be protected. Our solution does just that. The Bill will also establish a dual regulatory regime so that businesses can choose between meeting UK and EU standards. That removes the barriers to goods made to UK standards being sold in Northern Ireland and it cuts the processes that drive up cost for business. It prevents unnecessary divergence between two parts of the UK internal market. Anybody who trades into the EU single market will still have to do so according to EU standards.

    The Bill will also ensure that the Government can set UK-wide policies on subsidy control and VAT, overcoming constraints that have meant Northern Ireland has not benefited from the same support as the rest of the UK. For example, at present people in Northern Ireland are not able to benefit from the VAT cuts on solar panels that the Chancellor announced in the spring statement.

    These are essential functions of any 21st-century state, but they are especially important in Northern Ireland, where the UK Government play an outsized role in the local economy. We will maintain the arrangements in the protocol on VAT, which support trade on the island of Ireland while ensuring that Northern Ireland can still benefit from the freedoms and flexibility available in Great Britain.

    Caroline Lucas

    Does the Secretary of State understand why so many people would accuse this Government of the most rank hypocrisy? First, this is a predictable outcome of the agreement that they negotiated when they did not give a fig for the situation in Northern Ireland, frankly. Secondly, if they were serious about negotiations, they could be using article 16. Thirdly, at the very same time that the Prime Minister is gladhanding G7 leaders in Bavaria and extolling the virtues of a rules-based international system, his own Government at home are riding a horse and coaches through a rules-based system. Does she understand the concerns we have? What kind of reputation will the UK have on the global stage as a result of this proposal?

    Elizabeth Truss

    As I have made clear, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement should have primacy. The fact is that it has been undermined over the past two years, as we can see from the fact that the institutions of Northern Ireland are not up and running. That is why the Government need to act, and we are doing so in a reasonable and legal way.

    Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)

    I entirely accept my right hon. Friend’s desire to achieve a negotiated settlement if at all possible; I know how much work has gone into that. To return to the legal point, she will know that the application of the doctrine of necessity requires both the legal tests to be met and the evidential base to be there, because it is largely fact-specific to show whether those tests have been met. I know that the Government have been working hard to assemble that evidential base, but can she tell us when it will be available to the House so that we can form a judgment as to whether those legal tests are met and, therefore, proportionality and necessity are met? It would be helpful to have that before we come to a conclusion on the Bill.

    Elizabeth Truss

    I thank my hon. Friend for that point. There are clearly very severe issues in Northern Ireland, including the fact that its institutions are not up and running, which mean that the UK has to act and cannot allow the situation to drift. I do not think that we have heard what the Opposition’s alternative would be, apart from simply hoping that the EU might suddenly negotiate or come up with a new outcome.

    Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Elizabeth Truss

    Perhaps the hon. Lady can give us an idea about her alternative plan.

    Karin Smyth

    Over the past six years, I have given several alternatives, including as a shadow Minister. The Secretary of State talks about the institutions. Can she give the House the details of the agreement she has secured from the political parties in Northern Ireland that they will return to Stormont on the completion of the Bill—or on the completion of Second Reading, at any point during the Committee stage, or on Third Reading? What in the Bill has secured that? What role is there for anybody in Northern Ireland, given that the powers go to the Minister of the Crown?

    Elizabeth Truss

    I note that the hon. Lady has not come up with any alternatives to the Bill to move the situation forward. The approach we have taken, with the four areas that I am talking through, is to identify what the practical problems are for the people of Northern Ireland and to come up with solutions that address those problems while protecting the EU single market. It is our expectation that the passage of the Bill will result in the institutions being re-established.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Elizabeth Truss

    I will make progress on talking through the elements of the Bill, but I will be happy to accept further interventions later.

    The Bill will ensure that the Government can set UK-wide policies on subsidy control and VAT, which will overcome the constraints that have meant that Northern Ireland has not benefited from the same support as the rest of the UK, as I mentioned. It will also maintain the arrangements in the protocol on VAT that support trade on the island of Ireland, while ensuring that Northern Ireland can still benefit from the freedoms and flexibilities available in Great Britain.

    The Bill will remove the role of the European Court where it is not appropriate, including its role as the final arbiter of disputes. That is in line with normal international dispute-resolution provisions, including in the trade and co-operation agreement. The Bill will also enable courts to seek an opinion from the European Court on legitimate questions of the interpretation of EU law, which will ensure that it can still be applied for the purposes of north-south trade.

    The Belfast/Good Friday agreement is based on consent from both communities. All Unionist parties have cited the European Court as a main cause of major democratic deficit. Together with VAT and state aid rules, it causes Unionists to feel less connected and less part of the UK. This is not a hypothetical issue; the European Court has already become one of the most controversial elements of the protocol and threatens to disrupt everyday lives. The EU has brought infraction proceedings against the UK in five areas that cover issues such as parcels and transporting pets. To be absolutely clear, the Bill changes only the parts of the protocol that are causing the problems and undermining the three strands of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

    Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)

    I have a very short question, which is simply this. The Foreign Secretary says the Bill is legal, but lots of people disagree with her, including lots of very eminent lawyers both in this country and elsewhere. Which body will arbitrate on the decision as to whether this Bill is legal?

    Elizabeth Truss

    We have published our Government legal statement, which clearly states the reasons why this Bill is legal and the necessity of pursuing this Bill. I return to my point about the lack of alternatives being proposed by the Opposition. We have exhausted all the other avenues, and this remains the course of action that is actually going to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland and re-establish the institutions.

    Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)

    There is a lot of talk about international law, but can I take the Foreign Secretary to paragraph 3 of article 2 of the UN charter? It says:

    “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.”

    That is incumbent on us and the EU, and the EU needs to engage with us and negotiate so that peace is not threatened.

    Elizabeth Truss

    My hon. Friend is right. It is very clear from the legal advice that one of the issues is that the EU will not change the text of the protocol even though, when the protocol was negotiated, it was very clear that it was not set in stone and should be subject to change because of the very unique situation in Northern Ireland.

    We are very clear that there are elements of the protocol that are working and that we do want to maintain. We will maintain the conditions for north-south co-operation and trade, and uphold the common travel area. We will maintain the functioning of the single electricity market, which benefits both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.

    The Bill provides specific powers to implement technical regulations as part of our solution, and today we launched a consultation with businesses to make sure that the way it is implemented works for the people of business in Northern Ireland. We will continue consulting with businesses and the EU over the coming weeks to make sure that the implementation works.

    Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)

    One of the fundamental purposes of this long-awaited Bill is to uphold the critical Good Friday agreement, which as the whole House knows completely underpins the maintenance of peace and political stability in Northern Ireland. That being the case, for those who follow this matter closely, including in the United States, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that one of the strongest advocates for action on this has been Lord Trimble, the Nobel laureate, who helped negotiate the Good Friday agreement in the first place?

    Elizabeth Truss

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We all know how hard-won peace and political stability in Northern Ireland was, and we all know how important it is that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is upheld and is not undermined. That is the discussion I have been having with colleagues in the United States and around the world, and those who have experienced the situation in Northern Ireland fully understand how important it is that we act and that we cannot allow this situation to drift.

    I know there are those across the House who want to give negotiation more time. The problem we face is that we have already been negotiating for 18 months. We have a negotiating partner that is refusing to change the text of the protocol. Meanwhile, we have a worsening situation in Northern Ireland. So it is firmly the view of this Government that we need to act. We are pursuing this legislation as all other options have been exhausted.

    Our first choice was and remains renegotiating the protocol text with the EU. This is in line with the evolution of other treaties, which happens all the time. For example, both the EU and the UK are currently renegotiating changes to the energy charter treaty. Given the unique nature of Northern Ireland and the unprecedented nature of these arrangements, it was always likely that flexibility would be needed. In fact, that flexibility was explicitly acknowledged in the protocol itself, but despite the fact that we have been pursuing these renegotiations we have not seen the flexibility needed from the EU.

    As recently as this weekend, the EU said it will not renegotiate the text of the protocol, and Members across the House will have seen that the EU put forward proposals last year and again a fortnight ago; it is worth pointing out that those proposals will leave the people and businesses of Northern Ireland worse off than the current standstill arrangements. Its proposals would make the situation on the ground worse, adding further to the tensions and stresses; goods going solely to Northern Ireland would still face customs paperwork and sanitary and phytosanitary certificates.

    Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Bill is borne out of necessity: necessity to act in our national interest, to provide a permanent solution to a temporary measure, to preserve the Belfast agreement, and to preserve the constitutional settlement that keeps Northern Ireland as part of the UK? It is a necessity to prevent a democratic deficit and to use international law to safeguard and protect our essential interests while protecting those of the EU.

    Elizabeth Truss

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We still face a situation in which the EU has refused to change the text of the protocol, and its proposals do not even address many of the issues of concern—over governance, subsidies, manufactured goods and VAT. Without dealing with those very real issues for the people of Northern Ireland we are not going to see the balance of the Belfast Good Friday agreement restored, and we are not going to see the cross-community support we need to get the political institutions back up and running.

    Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)

    The Foreign Secretary knows that the three things that need to be resolved are the friction in trade; repairing the harm to our constitutional position within this country; and erasing the democratic deficit at the heart of the protocol. The Foreign Secretary has fairly outlined the myriad steps the Government have taken; if this Bill is required, they can have our support in resolving these issues, but she will also hear a lot of opposition from Members of other parties on this side of the House. In hearing that opposition from colleagues sitting to my right and left, can she identify even one of them who advocated using article 16 or the provisions of the protocol, or have they simply no interest in trying to resolve the issues affecting the people of Northern Ireland today?

    Elizabeth Truss

    The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Those who advocate further negotiation with the EU need to persuade the EU to change its negotiating mandate so the text of the protocol can change, because we know that those specific issues, including on the customs bureaucracy and VAT, can only be addressed by addressing the text of the protocol itself.

    I want to come on to the specific point the hon. Gentleman made about article 16. Of course we have looked at triggering article 16 to deal with this issue; however, we came to the conclusion that it would not resolve the fundamental issues in the protocol. It is only a temporary measure and it would only treat some of the symptoms without fixing the root cause of the problems, which are baked into the protocol text itself. It could also lead to attrition and litigation with the EU while not delivering sufficient change.

    I want to be clear: we do not rule out using article 16 further down the line if the circumstances demand it, but in order to fix the very real problems in Northern Ireland and get the political institutions back up and running, the only solution that is effective and provides a comprehensive and durable solution is this Bill.

    Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)

    I suspect that when the Foreign Secretary was campaigning for Britain to remain in the European Union, she never in a million years thought she would be standing here proposing a Bill of this sort. In light of the comment she just made about article 16, why are the Government not proposing to use the legal method to raise these questions with the European Union through the treaty they signed, rather than claiming necessity? The Foreign Secretary has yet to give me a single example where the British Government have claimed necessity for abrogating a treaty they have negotiated and signed.

    Elizabeth Truss

    The reason why I am putting the Bill forward is that I am a patriot, and I am a democrat. Our No. 1 priority is protecting peace and political stability in Northern Ireland and protecting the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested will achieve that end.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Elizabeth Truss

    I will finish off my remarks.

    The only way for us to uphold the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and fix the problems in Northern Ireland is to pass this legislation. We have heard all kinds of complaining from the Opposition side about the solution that the Government are putting forward, but no alternative solution that will deliver.

    I want to be clear that this is not my preferred choice, but, in the absence of a negotiated solution, we have no other choice. There is no need for the EU to react negatively. It will be no worse off as a result of the Bill. These issues are very small in the context of the single market, but they are critical for Northern Ireland.

    Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)

    The Foreign Secretary knows that I have grave concerns about her Bill, but may I ask her coolly to reflect on praying in aid patriotism as a defence of it? Is she seriously impugning the patriotism of colleagues across the House who have concerns about her Bill? I find that a false conflation.

    Elizabeth Truss

    I was directly responding to the point made by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) about why I campaigned one way in the referendum and am now working to ensure that the Brexit negotiation that we achieved works for the people of Northern Ireland. That is because I believe in the Union of the United Kingdom and in the relationship between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I want to resolve those issues.

    All I am pointing out to colleagues across the House is that I have negotiated in good faith with the European Union, but it has refused to change the text of the protocol. I have looked at all the options—including triggering article 16—to see whether they would work to resolve the serious issues in Northern Ireland, and I have come to the genuine conclusion that they will not.

    Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)

    Will the Secretary of State commit that never again will a Government stand at that Dispatch Box and change the Act of Union in a way that is detrimental to this United Kingdom that we all adhere to and all admire? Will she also confirm that more than 300 hours have been spent in negotiations with the EU and that it has resisted any change whatsoever, such is its animosity towards Northern Ireland?

    Elizabeth Truss

    The very clear reason why we are acting now is that there has been a refusal to change the text of the protocol, which is causing real problems in Northern Ireland. As I have said, these issues are very small in the context of the single market, but they are critical for the people of Northern Ireland, and it is in their interests that we are acting in putting through the Bill.

    Once the legislation is enacted, we can draw a line under the issue and unleash the full potential of our relationship with the EU. Fundamentally, we share a belief in democracy, in freedom and in the right of all countries to self-determination. We are natural allies in an increasingly uncertain and geopolitical world.

    Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)

    Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

    Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)

    Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

    Elizabeth Truss

    I will not give way any more—the House will be pleased to hear that I am almost at the end of my remarks. We want to work with the EU for the betterment of not just Europe but the world, and we want to focus all our efforts on tackling external threats, such as Putin’s Russia. Once this legislation is passed, we will have a solution that helps to restore the balance between the communities, and that upholds the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That is the purpose of the Bill, and I commend it to the House.