Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

The signalling and messaging are important, as are the practical effects of proscription. I will come briefly to the middle east peace process, and our continuing hopes for a peaceful and sustainable future for all.

It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to, support or arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation. It is also a criminal offence to wear clothing or carry articles in public that arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation. The penalties for proscription offences are a maximum of 14 years in prison and/or an unlimited fine. Given the wide-ranging impact, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after thoroughly reviewing the available evidence on an organisation. That includes open source material, intelligence material and advice that reflects consultation across Government, including with intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The cross-Government proscription review group supports the Home Secretary in her decision-making process. The Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe is only taken after great care and consideration of the particular case, and it is appropriate that it must be approved by both Houses.

Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary believes that Hamas in its entirety is concerned in terrorism and the discretionary factors support proscription. Although I am of course unable to comment on specific intelligence, I can provide the House with a summary of the group’s activities. Hamas is a militant Islamist movement that was established in 1987. Its ideology is related to that of the Muslim Brotherhood combined with Palestinian nationalism. Its main aims are to liberate Palestine from Israeli occupation, the establishment of an Islamic state under sharia law and the destruction of Israel, although Hamas no longer demands the destruction of Israel in its covenant. The group operates in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

My intervention is further to that of the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who made the key point: what assessment have the British Government made of the impact of the measure on the internal political dynamics of the Palestinian Territories? Does it weaken Hamas, as the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean said, and help the moderate forces, or is there a danger that it might strengthen Hamas’s hand?

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

The Home Secretary and I strongly believe that the proscription of Hamas IDQ should be extended to cover the entire organisation. Subject to the agreement of this House and the other place, the order will come into force on Friday 26 November.

Before continuing, I extend my thanks and pay tribute to the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), for the tone and content of what he said, and for his support and that of his right hon. and hon. colleagues for the order. I join in the praise that he rightly gave to our counter-terrorism police, the rest of the policing family, the agencies and everybody who works so hard to keep us safe.

I shall try to address what the shadow Home Secretary said, starting specifically with the proscription review group. As he will know, it is a cross-Government group, chaired by the Home Office, that supports the Home Secretary in her decision making on proscription issues and remains active.

I absolutely reassure the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) of the rigour of the process on this and every occasion. We constantly keep the list of proscribed organisations under review. The evidence for that is that over the past two years we have proscribed the extreme right-wing terrorist groups Sonnenkrieg Division, Feuerkrieg Division and Atomwaffen Division, as well as the militant white-supremacist group called the Base. We have also added four aliases to the list of proscribed organisations, as well as this order to extend the proscription of Hamas.

There was a question about whether there should be more consultation in respect of a proscription. Proscription is an Executive tool based on assessment from security departments and across Government. The proscription regime itself is scrutinised by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who makes annual reports on how the Government use their counter-terrorism powers. Of course, in debating this order today, we have an opportunity to consider it specifically.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Successive incumbent independent reviewers of terrorism legislation have all argued for the introduction of timeliness in respect of proscription orders; are the British Government considering that?

[Damian Hinds]

We keep proscription—including not only whether organisations that are not proscribed should be but whether the proscription of those that are remains the correct and proportionate approach—under constant review.

The shadow Home Secretary and others asked implicitly—in fact, the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), who spoke for the SNP, asked explicitly—why now? It is because we keep the response to terrorism under continual review. It is entirely appropriate that we take all available opportunities to strengthen the UK’s response to domestic and international threats. The extension of the proscription of Hamas is part of that response. As I have said, the group in its entirety is assessed to be concerned with terrorism, with the lines that the Government had previously drawn between its constituent parts now being assessed as artificial.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) spoke movingly and with great passion about the terrible case of 26-year-old Eli Kay. Ultimately, it is a reminder of what we are discussing here—the end result of terror and why it is essential that our Government and Governments around the world be constantly attentive to the threat of terrorism and do what is required to mitigate that threat.

A number of colleagues across the House spoke about the position of NGOs and related matters. Implicitly, the question is, would this stop the work of UK NGOs or others in location? The shadow Home Secretary asked about that, as did the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and others. The Government recently published guidance to support our NGOs to operate overseas in high-risk jurisdictions while complying with the counter-terrorism legislative framework and sanctions regime. A specific section refers to proscription, including how to operate around what are known as sections 11 to 13 offences. That is guidance, and we encourage our NGOs to seek legal advice in relation to specific activities and ensure compliance with terrorism legislation.

The UK will continue to work with international partners and NGOs to support the people of Gaza, including through our long-standing support of the United Nations—

Channel Crossings in Small Boats

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend. First, I think Labour Members have made their position clear, not just on legal migration but on illegal migration, with their resistance to everything we have done on a points-based system, ending free movement and, obviously, our plans now to reform a broken asylum system and tackle illegal migration. The Bill is an important piece of legislation. We want to make it harder for the criminal gangs behind these crossings; we want to make the UK less attractive and viable for illegal migration, which really is crucial; and importantly—this is something that the Labour party has not been supportive of either—we want to remove those individuals with no legal right to be here, and we will do that through our legislation.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

In response to the British Government’s policy, the Albanian Government have said that Albania

“will never be a hub of anti-immigration policies of bigger and richer countries.”

Which other territories are the British Government considering for their immoral offshore migrant centres?

[Priti Patel]

I am not going to provide any commentary at all in terms of other countries that we are negotiating with. It is for the Government to go away and do this work, which we are doing, and not to start speculating and creating false expectations around much of this work.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kenny MacAskill]

With regard to serious and organised crime, certainly in Scotland, and I think through the NCA, it has already been mapped. We know who it is; what we require to do is to work against them. With regard to those coming in, that comes back to the recently departed Donald Rumsfeld. There are known knowns. There are a lot of people that we know are active in people-trafficking gangs. There are others that we do not. It is about police resource and police intelligence; that is how we deal with it, not by compounding the hardship upon people who are already suffering.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for the very informed comments that he is making from a place of experience, having been in government. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) answers his own point. The way to deal with the issue is to increase the size of the legal resettlement programme. That undercuts people smuggling. Otherwise, we are engaging in a war like the war on drugs—a war against people smuggling that cannot be won.

[Kenny MacAskill]

I fully agree, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for his eloquent contribution.

Opposing the Bill is about seeking to protect values, as has been mentioned, as well as opposing actions that, in terms of where people are to be placed and how they are to be treated, I believe are fundamentally wrong. On each of them, I believe that there are clear failures. Foreign venues seem to be mentioned and trumpeted. What we have seen in Australia with the use of Nauru was frankly shameful. Indeed, Australia appears to be backtracking from that because of the failures that have occurred there.

There seems to be little planning and few suggestions. I have recently asked parliamentary questions about what jurisdiction would apply and who would be in charge. We do not know. We are just told to believe that the 1951 convention will be adhered to and all will be well. In Scotland, we would say that all will be hunky-dory. No, it will not. What the Government are seeking to do is to move people to a place away from visibility, where they will be treated appallingly. It has been dreadful in Australia, and it would be shameful if this country were to replicate it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

This Bill, of course, reflects a manifesto commitment from the Conservative party at the last election—a manifesto that delivered an overwhelming majority for the Conservative party and a mandate to do precisely what we are doing today.

Since last spring, a great many of my constituents have been alarmed by a still ever-increasing number of migrants making the dangerous channel crossing. They are troubled by the risk to life, the reprehensible actions of illegal gangs exploiting vulnerable people and the challenges of protecting our own borders. This Bill meets all three key concerns of my Orpington constituents for reasons that I will set out, so I will be strongly supporting it this evening. Before I begin, however, I would like to pay tribute to Border Force personnel for all the work they do to save lives and keep our country safe—thank you to them.

This Bill is necessary because conflict and instability have displaced hundreds, if not thousands—or, indeed, millions—of people over the past few decades. In 2015 alone, more than 1 million migrants crossed into Europe. Over the last three years channel crossings have increased: 1,900 made this journey in 2019; that quadrupled in 2020 to over 8,400; and in the last six months alone, it has reached almost 6,000.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The House of Commons Library briefing on this issue indicates that, at the beginning of the century, the number of asylum claims was about 84,000 a year, which went down to 36,000 in 2019, the last year before the pandemic. Is not this narrative of a deluge of asylum seekers somewhat overstated by the Government?

[Gareth Bacon]

I do not believe so, and I do not recall using the word “deluge”. It is undeniably a problem, and it is one of the largest things to feature in my inbox on a daily basis.

This has been exacerbated by criminal gangs that are making an immoral profit from human smuggling and trafficking. Critically, migrants are crossing through safe European countries and refusing to claim asylum there. In ever growing numbers, migrants are being drawn to this country, and the situation is becoming unsustainable. The UK is one of the world’s most generous countries for refugee resettlement, and that is right.

EU Settlement Scheme

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Wednesday 7th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The point, as I have said, is that the Government could have made this process a hell of a lot easier. Government decisions have made this difficult, not anything else.

We know from research that discrimination is widespread when private actors have to undertake even basic checks, such as passport and visa checks, and it is blindingly obvious that the half a million people who are in the queue are going to face discrimination on stilts if they have to explain these processes. Other than telling employers and landlords to follow guidance, what more is being done to clamp down on and prevent this discrimination? What monitoring, even, is being done?

In theory, public bodies should find this easier, yet we hear of cases of universities not being prepared to confirm that students are eligible for home fee status, or the Student Loans Company not confirming eligibility for student finance until their status is decided. Just an hour ago, I learned of a universal credit case being turned down because, even though the national insurance number and date of birth all matched up, the Department for Work and Pensions could not verify the digital share code. What is the Home Office doing to identify and accelerate these cases to ensure that no one is denied the educational opportunities that they are entitled to? How will people be compensated when they have been wrongly refused entry to the UK, work or housing, or been charged for NHS treatment or incorrectly denied home fees or student finance because of a failure to apply the law correctly?

Another huge problem is that use of the checking service provides a landlord or employer with only a six-month guarantee of protection from prosecution, but why would an employer or landlord take on someone when they can have a guarantee of only six months’ rent or six months’ work? That is why it was wrong to end the transition while over 500,000 people were in this perilous position. A freedom of information request in May showed that 100,000 people had been waiting for over three months for a decision. That is a hell of a long time to be in this semi-legal limbo.

Finally on this particular topic, I understand that there are also significant numbers of cases where people have completed parts of the application process online but not the whole process—for example, even just the final “submit” stage. Is the Home Office taking steps to identify and reach out to those people as well?

Turning to people who apply late, or have applied late and are waiting for a decision, it is welcome that they can continue to access healthcare and that, if I understand it correctly, they can continue to exercise rights that they are currently exercising, such as keeping an existing job or social security benefit if they apply with 28 days’ notice. However, the huge gap here is that there is no right to take on a new job or new accommodation in England, or to claim a new social security benefit or use other services, so an important first question is why the Home Office thinks this is consistent with the withdrawal agreement, which states that pending a decision on any application, all rights will be deemed to apply to the applicant.

It is easy for the Government to say, “Well the process is quick and therefore these issues should not be widespread. Get the application in and then get on with your job hunt or social security application”, but, in practice, it is not that simple. We know that over 100,000 people had been waiting for more than three months in May, and remember, too, that, as we know from Windrush, it is precisely when people are making new job applications or applying for social security or a tenancy that they suddenly realise that they have not applied and should have done. Waiting for three months at these moments of crisis could destroy lives, with employment, accommodation and financial support all missed out on.

The Home Office has mentioned a process for accelerating certain cases, which is welcome, but how does that work? How can we ask on behalf of our constituents that their case is accelerated for these very good reasons? What will the criteria be for accelerating cases, what will the timescales be, and what does that mean for other cases and how long they will take?

Finally, on late applications, I previously asked the Minister what would happen if someone incurred health charges because they had failed to apply for the settlement scheme, but, having realised their error, they then went on to apply late and successfully showed that they had a reasonable excuse. If I recall correctly, the Minister suggested at the Home Affairs Committee that it would be ridiculous to then insist on those charges being paid. After all, they had had a reasonable excuse for a late application, but, as I understand it—I would love to be corrected—that is exactly what will now happen in England. How can that be justified? Why is it that someone who is considered to have reasonable grounds to apply late can still be held liable for healthcare charges incurred before submission of their justifiably late application? It seems an incredibly strange situation.

What about those who have not applied at all? I want everyone to apply, though late—I am sure we all do—so what is the Government’s strategy here? Is there not a danger that the reasonable excuse test is going to put people off, especially if, as suggested in the guidance, it has to be more strictly interpreted the more time goes on? Why is that advice there? Those who encounter border enforcement, whether the Home Office version or delegated private actors such as employers, are going to have 28 days’ notice to apply, but what has been done to make sure that some of the people most likely to have missed a deadline—vulnerable and marginalised groups, and maybe those with health issues or with poor English—understand what that notice means and what exactly is required of them? For example, is it going be available in different languages, will they be signposted for advice and what happens if that 28-day deadline is missed?

It is much more likely that people who have not applied will become aware of the problem only through an encounter not with Border Force, but with an employer, the DWP, a landlord or somebody else, so what work has been done to ensure that, rather than just saying no, they signpost and, in the case of Government Departments, assist them in ensuring that an application can be submitted. The Government are committed to funding grant-funded organisations supporting EU citizens with late applications until September. Why is it only to September? Can we have funding for beyond that as well?

Finally, I turn to the issue for those who actually get settled or pre-settled status. Even if somebody is successful, that is not the end of their problems, and others, as I have said, will speak about the lack of a physical proof of status. There are more than 2 million people with pre-settled status, and many of them will struggle to prove the five-year residence required for settled status. What support will be available to help them with equally vital applications, and what happens to those who fail to apply at the time when their pre-settled status expires?

The settlement scheme may have been designed to be straightforward, but its interplay with our complicated immigration system means that it just cannot be. I struggle to follow its implications, and I suspect many hon. Members will have struggled to follow them as well, yet guidance for employers and landlords was issued just a couple of weeks back. This has, I am afraid, at the end of the day, ended up being a rush job. Even if all our other ideas are rejected, at the very least we need a longer transition period, and for the umpteenth time, I do ask that the Minister meets the3million campaign group.

In closing, during the referendum the now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster also promised that, after Brexit, Scotland would have immigration powers. That seems to have gone the same way as his promise to EU nationals. We have debated the devolution of immigration or at least some immigration powers before, and it is on these occasions that the normally very measured Minister tends to start engaging in tub-thumping rhetoric rather than the arguments in the discussion. I am not going to repeat all those arguments today, but report after report from the Scottish Government, academics, thinktanks and immigration lawyers offer myriad reasons why this should be done, and templates for how this could be done.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

I have been lobbied quite strongly by businesses in my constituency, where there is a big shortage of HGV drivers, for instance. Analysis indicates that there are up to 76,000 vacancies in the sector, which hits logistics and construction. Would not one reform that would help with the economic problems we face in Wales and Scotland be for the British Government to allow the Welsh and Scottish Governments to put sectors of the economy where there are skills shortages on the shortage occupations list?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I think the hon. Gentleman makes an absolutely fair point, but as I say, there are many different ways we could do this, and all I ask is that people engage with these ideas, rather than just dismiss them out of hand. At the very least, the Government should think again about the remote areas pilot scheme recommended by the Migration Advisory Committee, which the Government just promptly ditched without any sort of explanation at all, otherwise it will be clear that there is no prospect of Scotland having any real influence over these vital powers while it is part of the UK.

In the meantime, I believe we all want to protect EU citizens. We have offered our proposals. We believe that the status quo is fraught with a million problems. There needs to be action and significant changes if protection of EU citizens is to be a reality.

Fire Safety Bill

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 7th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The system as a whole is fundamentally broken, and it is the developers as well as the Government who need to look to their own actions and correct them.

The Government have made many promises to bring justice to the survivors and their families, to change building and fire safety regulations and to do this quickly, but the Government are yet to make their promises a reality. At every stage, we have had to drag them into action. During the passage of this Bill, we have sought constructively to improve it, so that it goes further as a piece of primary legislation towards improving fire safety.

New clause 1 would do what the Government say must come later. It would place robust requirements on building owners or managers and implement the recommendations—the key recommendations—from phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. The Government said that they would implement the Grenfell phase 1 inquiry in full and without delay. This new clause, which we are moving tonight, would fulfil that promise. In what is a very complex world of building and fire safety, the new clause is relatively simple. It seeks to do four things: the owners of buildings that contain two or more sets of domestic premises would share information with their local fire and rescue service about the design and make-up of the external walls; they would complete regular inspections of fire entrance doors; they would complete regular inspections of lifts; and they would share evacuation and fire safety instructions with residents. These measures are straightforward and are supported by key stakeholders. Frankly, it is pretty extraordinary that they are not already enshrined in law.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way at this point. She is making a very powerful case. I will be supporting new clause 1, as it is worthy of support. Will she put some pressure on her Labour colleagues in the Welsh Government in Cardiff to bring forward similar proposals for consideration by the Senedd in Cardiff before the elections in May?

[Sarah Jones]

The Welsh Government have a proud record on fire safety, and I point the hon. Gentleman in the direction of the many actions that have been taken. In this case today, we are looking at the actions of the Government and their failure to act since the Grenfell Tower fire three years ago.

Time and again in Committee, the Minister supported what we were saying in principle but told us that we must wait for a consultation to finish, a taskforce to report, or the experts to tell us what to do. That is not good enough. We have seen with covid what can be done with political will: hospitals built in days, and whole systems restructured to respond where there is a need. If the political will was there, the Government would support this new clause and we could take one step in the direction of keeping the promises that we all made in those days and weeks after the Grenfell fire. The Government have given no timetable for when they will deliver the inquiry’s recommendations through secondary legislation. The Government have continuously pushed back on their promises while thousands of people across the country are stuck still in unsafe flats.

Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am very aware that the murderer of his constituent’s daughter, Stuart Campbell, is still in prison. It is to precisely that kind of person that the provisions of the Bill apply, because we want to make sure that when—

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Can I add another name to the list? My constituent Michael O’Leary has been missing since January, suspected to have been murdered, and the individual charged with his murder is refusing to let the police know where the body has been hidden. For the families who are now living through this trauma, the fact that they cannot retrieve the body is hugely traumatic. They wanted me to put on the record today their support for what the Government intend to do.

Police Grant Report

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Unlike Scotland or Northern Ireland, Wales is subject to having its policing policy set by Westminster, in the capital city of another country, far away from where the police forces are carrying out their duties. Our underpowered Welsh Parliament has been consistently denied the powers necessary to deliver the policing our communities need. As a result of having had our hands tied by the Home Office, Wales has lost more than 500 police officers since 2010. That is an incredible statistic. We have not only lost police officers; in Dyfed Powys, we lost our dedicated police helicopter to a pooled England and Wales service. The performance of the new centralised service, as far as the communities I serve are concerned, is woeful.

If Welsh policing were funded on the basis of population, as is the case with other devolved services, police forces in Wales would be better off by £25 million per year. Instead, we are tied to England and Wales funding criteria that penalise our police forces in Wales. I say this as a constant critic of the Barnett formula. If Barnett were reformed on the basis of need, or even if the funding settlement between Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland were equalised upwards, the windfall for Wales would be even greater.

There is little excuse for keeping these powers in Westminster, given that the British Government are actively considering devolving swathes of the criminal justice system to English cities such as Manchester. In Wales, not only do we have to suffer the humiliation of being treated as a second-class nation by Westminster, but we are not even given the same status and respect as English cities. Rather than being in control of our own destiny in Wales, we face a situation whereby the British Government make PCCs the scapegoats and abdicate their duty to properly fund policing, instead relying on PCCs to raise the local tax precept, with 63% of the increase in funding for local police coming from an increase in local taxation. This is Westminster creative accounting at its best. As many colleagues have said today, this local taxation is extremely regressive.

The British Government boast about increasing the personal allowance and freezing income tax rises, but these things are largely eroded by the increased council tax bills. PCCs are given the stark choice between either increasing the precept or cutting services. Police forces are given no certainty about when the comprehensive spending review and review of the funding formula will conclude—whether it will be in 2019-20 or 2020-21—further hindering their ability to plan.

Rural Welsh forces are uniquely handicapped by the gearing—the proportion of total funding that comes from the police grant and local taxation. Welsh forces have an approximately even split of Home Office and local government funding, with local taxpayers in rural Wales contributing considerably more to policing than local taxpayers in English cities. For example, Northumbria police receive 81% of their funding from the Home Office, whereas the figure for North Wales police is 47.5%. Due to the lack of devolution, and the England and Wales funding framework, the people of my country are being asked to disproportionally pay far more for their policing than other parts of the British state. Once again, the British Government are placing the burden on rural Wales to pay for urban England; this is truly a partnership of unequals. As public awareness rises in Wales, the position of the Unionist parties will become untenable, as they are once again putting their own narrow ideological British nationalist dogma before the interests of their constituents.

I would be grateful if the Minister answered a few questions in his wind-up. First, will he confirm when the comprehensive spending review and funding formula will be finalised? If that is to be in 2020-21 rather than in 2019-20, as is looking likely, will he give an assurance that his Department will allow the same flexibility with the grant uplift next year as this year, and give PCCs the flexibility to increase the precept once again? Finally, when his Government do finally agree the comprehensive spending review and the funding formula, what is he going to do to ensure that Welsh taxpayers are treated fairly?

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

May I start by paying tribute to you, Mr Speaker, for your longevity in sitting through the business today and last night? I think your presence throughout the whole debate shows the importance of these deliberations. As many Members have already said, these are perhaps the most important votes we will ever face in our political career. I think we can safely say, Mr Speaker, that your bladder is considerably stronger than mine.

There is little doubt that people were misled during the referendum by those purporting to suggest that a land of milk and honey awaited if leave won. Two years later, reality bites and the British Government have been forced into signing a humiliating agreement and a political declaration that means that the British state, due to the intransigent policy pursued by the Prime Minister, will leave the European Union with absolutely no idea what the future trade arrangements with its largest trading partner will be after the transition phase.

At every step, the British Government have been outwitted by the European Commission. Its priorities were threefold: first, get the British Government to commit to paying their outstanding liabilities; secondly, preserve the Good Friday agreement, leading to the backstop; and thirdly, negotiate formally only the divorce proceedings before the end of the article 50 period. The British Government, on the other hand, seemed to think that they would be able to negotiate the terms of the final relationship and settle Brexit before the end of the article 50 period. The withdrawal agreement and the accompanying political declaration indicate that what the British Government are claiming as a diplomatic coup is nothing of the sort—it is a capitulation.

All this does not bode well for the detailed negotiations that will happen from March if the current policy is adopted. During those negotiations, the British Government will be a third country, outside the European Union and in a far more vulnerable position. I am not a professional trade negotiator, but it is crystal clear that in those circumstances, the larger participant in the negotiations—the European Union—will be able to squeeze the smaller participant. International trade is a brutal business, where the size and wealth of the market matters. Brexiteers point out that under current arrangements, EU countries collectively export more to the UK than the UK exports to the EU. That shows a gross misunderstanding of how international trade negotiations work. During the negotiations, the European Union’s objective will be to increase that disparity in its favour at the expense of UK producers.

Despite the stark economic reality, we face a Brexit policy being driven by the British Government and the Labour Opposition on the basis of scrapping freedom of movement, regardless of the fact that it is a reciprocal right that works both ways. British subjects will lose the right to work and live in 27 European states. In her obsession with curbing immigration, the Prime Minister set out red lines in her Mansion House speech that made the current shambles inevitable. Because of that, my colleagues and I voted against triggering article 50. From the very start, the Prime Minister has prioritised party management above the greater good. Like a salmon poacher, the approach of the British Government has been to massage the fantasies of Brexiteers, as opposed to being straight with the people of the UK that they were sold a false prospectus and that if Brexit was to be delivered, it would mean making people far poorer, with the poorest and most vulnerable hit worst.

In the September withdrawal agreement debate, I warned the British Government to take no deal off the political table. It served no purpose as a negotiating tactic with the European Union, which knew that the British state would never be willing to accept the economic damage of no deal or able to get itself ready for the eventualities of no deal by March. I also warned that threatening no deal would not bribe MPs into supporting the Prime Minister. We will wait to see whether my prophecy was correct on Tuesday evening next week. The House’s support for the amendment tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) last night effectively takes no deal off the political table in any case.

Right hon. and hon. Members and our constituents should be aware of the ruling of the advocate general in the European Court of Justice yesterday recommending that article 50 is revocable unilaterally by the British state. If that recommendation is adopted by the Court, it will clearly indicate that the Prime Minister put forward a false argument that it is a choice of her deal or no deal. This House or the British Government have the power to stop no deal at any time of their choosing. Considering the dire warnings of the British Government over recent weeks, the game of chicken that they have been playing with Members of the House now rebounds on them.

If the British Government’s policy is implemented, it will effectively mean leaving the European Union with absolutely no idea what the long-term future relationship will be following the end of the transition phase. The British Government have utilised the vagueness of the political declaration to try to appeal to kamikaze Brexiteers who favour the WTO option and more sensible politicians who seek a more formalised association-type agreement by saying that everything will be up for grabs during the transition phase. I have outlined the vulnerability of the negotiating position of the British state in those circumstances. The negotiations will be far more complex than the withdrawal agreement, with far more at stake.

Writing in the Western Mail last month, I described the events of the last two years as a tickle fight compared with what would await us if the British Government’s policy was carried. Labour’s policy of trying to use the crisis to force a general election is a complete distraction. I will not waste my time eviscerating their position, but two words come to mind: incoherence and cynicism. With the House of Commons effectively in control of Brexit policy, the Labour party must decide what it wants, a softer Brexit or a people’s vote. Those are the only two options facing us that are palatable to me and many others.

Should we aim for a people’s vote on the British Government’s policy, or the status quo? If the House of Commons cannot agree a way forward, the people must be asked once again to cast their verdict. The only other solution I can see is to support moves towards a formalised association status with the European Union by staying within the economic frameworks—namely, the single market and the customs union. For Wales, that would end the cynical power grab of our powers by the British Government, except in policy fields not within the EEA-EFTA agreement, such as agricultural measures.

The vision that I and my colleagues have for Wales has no time for the narrow-minded British nationalism at the heart of the Brexit project. Ultimately, as we emerge from the current wreckage, the people of my country need to start asking ourselves serious questions about where our best interests lie and what future we seek for our people—the splendid isolationism of British nationalism, or an outward-looking Wales playing its full part in the world. I know which future I choose.

Medicinal Cannabis

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I have met all the families I know about who are going through these incredibly difficult situations. Everyone understands that parents would do absolutely anything for their children in these circumstances, and I have huge respect for that, so of course I will meet the hon. Lady. The straight answer to her question is that we have demonstrated today—it is not yet completed with Alfie Dingley—that we are prepared to look at licences in a new way, but it needs to be clinically led, and that is the fundamental point.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

An advisory vote in the Senedd in support of legalising cannabis for medicinal purposes was hailed as a victory for common sense and compassion by Arfon Jones, the police and crime commissioner for north Wales. Only two AMs voted against it. Considering the political support in Wales and the fact that health is a devolved issue, why will the British Government not allow the National Assembly to make decisions on this issue on behalf of Welsh patients?

[Mr Hurd]

It is not a devolved matter at the moment. I am more than happy to have those conversations, but we deal with the system as it is.

Rural Crime and Public Services

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

There has been the same level of demand from 101 and 999 as, just a few years ago, the police would have experienced only on new year’s eve. As I say, that is coming not only from traditional crime but from the demand on other public services.

This is not only wrong for the police, who are not trained or equipped to deal with the responsibilities of other public services, but, most importantly, wrong for the people struggling with their health needs, who are met with a criminal justice response rather than a health one because the proper provision simply is not available.

The result of all this is that criminals have recognised that our rural communities do not have the protection they need, and they are exploiting that. One reason why we are now hearing calls for all rural police officers to be armed is that the response time is unacceptably high for police and armed officers in significant swathes of the country, but arming all officers fundamentally undermines the principle of policing in this country: to police in communities and by consent.

While all forces experience seasonal variations, the minimum relative to maximum variation, especially for daily crime and antisocial behaviour, is far greater in rural forces with national parks and coastal areas attracting tourism. The seasonality of demand must be recognised, to ensure not only geographic equity but that minimum levels of service can be maintained throughout the year.

Clearly the police funding formula needs to take into account the real picture of demand and pressure facing every police force. We know that the current funding formula is broken. It uses age-old data and does not reflect the needs, demands and pressures on forces, nor the modern demands of policing.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; I am listening to her with great interest. One of the worst aspects of the centralisation of police services in England and Wales over the last few years has been the centralisation of air support services and the creation of the National Police Air Service. That has removed dedicated helicopters from Dyfed-Powys, for instance, which covers two thirds of Wales. Would it be the Labour party’s policy to scrap NPAS or to keep it?

[Louise Haigh]

The issue with the centralisation of services such as NPAS is that those decisions have been made for all the wrong reasons. They have been made to drive cuts, rather than being genuinely about where provision should be. We would certainly keep NPAS and other services like it under review, but those decisions need to be made on the basis of the efficiency and effectiveness of that service, not solely to drive cuts for ideology’s sake.

The police funding formula cannot be reformed from a position of ever decreasing budgets. We saw what happened when they tried to do that with schools; it just shifted the pain elsewhere. It has to depend on need and take into account all demands for policing services. Though crime levels are important, we know that some rural forces face other unique challenges, such as the cost of policing a huge area, modern slavery and seasonal influxes of tourists. That has to be reflected in the funding formula.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. Is he suggesting there are hunts in central London or in city centres? I do not know, but perhaps I have misunderstood his intervention.

[Jonathan Edwards]

rose—

[Victoria Atkins]

I will move on, however, because I would love to hear from the hon. Gentleman.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Over the recent bank holiday weekend, an illegal rave was held in Brechfa forest in my constituency. More than 1,400 people descended on the small village of Brechfa and into the forest to hold the rave, causing huge disruption for local residents. Will the Minister look at what extra powers can be given to the police to chase the organisers of illegal raves and to act as more of a deterrent to stop such events happening in future?

[Victoria Atkins]

That is very interesting. I am looking at the Solicitor General. If I remember correctly, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 introduced measures to deal with organisers of illegal raves. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could write to me and I will provide an accurate response.