Ex-Tory Brexit minister Lord Frost rejects party’s claims over Europe-wide customs scheme – UK politics live | Politics

Suella Braverman, the former Tory home secretary, has suggested it is not impossible that Britain could become an Iran-style enemy of America, led by an Islamist government, within the next 20 years.

She raised the suggestion in a speech today to the rightwing Heritage Foundation in Washington, reviving a suggestion originally made by JD Vance before he was picked by Donald Trump to be vice president.

Braverman, who is one of the most rightwing figures in the Conservative party and who is seen as a potential defector to Reform UK, devoted much of the speech to praising Trump, saying that his re-election could lead to the demise of “progressive thinking” in the west.

She went on:

More importantly, what will happen in the west, if it does not? What will happen if democracy is indeed thwarted by the existing political class?

Vice President JD Vance said, at the National Conservative conference at which I also spoke in the summer, that the UK was going to be the first Islamist nation with nuclear weapons. I don’t think he was joking.

Is it an impossibility that 20 years from now, it will be the UK, not China or Russia, that will emerge as the greatest strategic threat to the USA? Born out of a broken relationship and weak leadership. What happens if the UK falls into the hands of Muslim fundamentalism, our legal system gets substituted by Sharia Law and our nuclear capabilities vest in a regime not to dissimilar to that of Iran today?

Regardless of whether one thinks this is a realistic outcome, which I do not, should we not have the courage to ask these questions?

Braverman indulged in further anti-Muslim scaremongering in the Q&A. Referring to Axel Rudakubana, the Southport killer, she falsely described him as an “Islamist extremist”.

She justified this by saying that he had looked at Islamist material online. But Rudakubana came from a Christian family, and although he had looked at Islamist material online, he had also looked at lots of other extremely violent material online that did not have an Islamist connection. Sentencing Rudadkubana last week, the judge, Mr Justice Goose, said:

The prosecution have made it clear that these proceedings were not acts of terrorism within the meaning of the terrorism legislation, because there is no evidence that Rudakubana’s purpose was to advance a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

Last week, when Maroš Šefčovič, the European Commission vice president, floated the prospect of the UK joining the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean Convention (PEM), a Europe-wide customs scheme, Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, denounced this idea as a “betrayal” that would “shackle us to the EU”.

But this means that the Conservative leadership is now taking an even more hardline approach than some of the most prominent Brexiters in the party.

In an interview in the Times today, Lord Frost, the former Brexit minister who negotiated the post-Brexit trade deal with the EU, said that joining PEM would not threaten any of Britain’s Brexit freedoms. He said, when he was in government, he considered the case for joining. He explained:

We didn’t see it as raising any issue of principle, but we equally didn’t consider it to be particularly in UK interests. The EU also seemed to lose interest rapidly so the negotiations on this point quickly ran out of steam.

And Daniel Hannan, the peer and former MEP who was one of the leading Tory pro-Brexit campaigners in 2016, has also indicated that he would not mind the UK joining PEM. In his column in the Sunday Telegraph this weekend, referring to the response to the Šefčovič proposal, Hannan said:

Immediately, Conservatives were denouncing “membership through the back door” while Lib Dems were exulting in Brussels being “receptive to the UK joining the Customs Union”. But the PEM is not a customs union (something which, for the avoidance of doubt, the UK, as a global trading nation, should not join). Are we really going to oppose, on principle and without looking at it, anything containing the word “Euro”?

This article by Jennifer Rankin explains how PEM works.

Parents have ‘lost trust’ in special educational needs provision, MPs told

Richard Adams

Parents have “lost trust” in special educational needs provision for children in England because of the hurdles they face getting help from local authorities, MPs were told.

A joint session of three parliamentary select committees – education, health and social care, and housing and local government – heard evidence from charities and organisations on the crisis facing children with special needs and disabilities in England.

With the number of children and young people granted education, health and care plans (EHCPs) heading towards 600,000, and local authorities reporting rising high needs budget deficits, the experts said resources were being strained to breaking point.

Imogen Steele, policy and public affairs officer for Contact, said her organisation was overwhelmed by calls to its helpline, and was trying to help parents rebuild their trust in what has becomeaninaccessible system.

A lot of parents don’t have trust in the system because they have been trying to get in touch with local authorities and they don’t reply, so they feel lost in the system.

Amanda Allard, director of the Council for Disabled Children, said:

What happens at the moment is that we have a ‘many wrong doors’ policy in too many areas, as opposed to one front door. And that is because of the different agencies involved and the different things that they commission, and the arguments – quite frankly – that happen over who pays for what.

Asked about improving the current distribution of high needs funding, Allard said:

I think that is a really, really difficult question…. what I would say is that the money couldn’t be spent any more badly than it is currently being spent.

Later witnesses were asked about the link between pupils with special needs and permanent exclusions. Tania Tirraoro, co-director of the Special Needs Jungle support group, said it was often only after pupils had been excluded from their school that they were found to have special needs. Tirraoro said:

We think that this should be banned – we don’t think a school should be allowed to exclude a child until an assessment of need has been carried out.

Paul Kohler, MP for Wimbledon and the Lib Dem transport spokesperson, told the Commons that Heathrow expansion would make it impossible for the UK to meet its climate commitments. He told MPs:

Whilst we must grow the economy, we must not do so at the expense of the environment. Expanding Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton airports will drive, fly, even, a coach and horses through our climate commitments, adding 92 million tonnes of carbon dioxide to our carbon footprint by 2050.

Why has [Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary], the former London deputy mayor for transport, now changed her mind? Two, how can the government reconcile this massive growth in carbon emissions with our carbon commitments? And three, why if the government is looking to grow our economy isn’t the government engaging meaningfully with Europe by negotiating a customs union?

Ministers are normally relatively respectful when responding to Liberal Democrat spokespeople in the Commons (they tend to make a point of taking them seriously, in part to make the Tories look more lightweight). But Mike Kane, the transport minister, was withering about Kohler. He replied:

One foot in, one foot out, you know, sort of ‘shake it all about’. Say one thing to one community under a flight path, saying another thing about jobs to another community on the flight paths.

Whatever I say will end up on [Lib Dem Focus leaflets], but you can’t have it both ways – you can’t support growth, you can’t support jobs, you can’t support airspace modernisation, you can’t support sustainable aviation fuels and then go to your constituents and say, ‘well look at what this terrible government is doing’.

MPs representing constituencies in west London expressed reservations about the Heathrow third runway plan during the urgent question.

John McDonnell, the former shadow chancellor whose Hayes and Harlington constituency includes Heathrow, is a strong opponent of the third runway and he asked:

Has the department provided … an assessment for example of where the 8-10,000 people in my constituency who have their homes demolished or rendered unliveable will live if the Heathrow expansion goes ahead?

Has [the minister] also mapped out for the chancellor the flight paths of the additional quarter of a million planes flying over the homes of people in those marginal seats of Uxbridge and Watford and Harrow and elsewhere?

And also has he advised the chancellor on some of the figures that have been bandied about about the economic benefits which seem to derive from the Airport Commission’s figures that are out of date – that his own department rubbished very thoroughly only in recent years.

Rupa Huq, the Labour MP for Ealing Central and Acton, said some of her constituents would want “a better not a bigger Heathrow”.

And Deirdre Costigan, the Labour MP for Ealing Southall, said while some of her constituents would “welcome the good-quality, well-paid jobs airport expansion will bring” but others would have environmental concerns.

Gareth Bacon, the shadow transport secretary, told MPs that his party supported a third runway at Heathrow – but he suggested that Labour was not serious about the proposal.

Speaking during the urgent question, he said:

We have heard that the chancellor is about to announce her support for airport expansion at Luton, Gatwick and Heathrow. His Majesty’s opposition are supportive of airport expansion because we recognise the huge economic benefits that that would bring.

In the case of Luton and Gatwick, the planning processes are well under way, but the situation at Heathrow is rather different. A completed third runway at Heathrow would undoubtedly bring economic benefits, which we would support, but delivering it will not be straightforward because there are major logistical barriers to its construction.

After asking for an assurance that a new planning application for a third runway would be submitted, he went on:

I sincerely hope that the minister can answer these questions today because if not, it will be clear that this is not a serious policy, but rather a panicked and rushed attempt by the chancellor of the exchequer to distract attention from the state of the economy, which is currently withering under this floundering Labour government.

Mike Kane, the transport minister, said Bacon was showing “brass neck” in criticising Labour on the economy given his party’s record.

Allowing Heathrow expansion would be “vastly irrresponsible in the midst of approaching climate breakdown”, the Green MP Siân Berry told MPs.

In a Commons urgent question on the proposal to approve a third runway at Heathrow, she said that if this were to happen, the government would be “literally flying in the face of climate change”.

Does the [minister] understand that expanding London’s airports and building a third runway at Heathrow will be vastly irresponsible in the midst of approaching climate breakdown, literally flying in the face of the Climate Change Committee’s advice?

How can ministers even be considering this when 2024 was the year we went over 1.5C degrees warming, the limit we’re committed to not breaking in the Paris Climate Agreement?

How can ministers see catastrophic wildfires in California, deadly floods in Spain last year and devastating floods this year in the UK and still pursue a wrong policy?

And Berry asked why the government was floating plans for airport expansion when the Climate Change Committee is due to provide new advice for government. She cited a report by the New Economics Foundation that says airport expansion could undo all the gains from the government’s clean power plan.

Mike Kane, the transport minister, was responding to Berry. In his opening remarks he prompted laughter when he claimed that the stories about Heathrow expansion that prompted the UQ were purely speculative.

He also said that, when applications for airport expansion were considered, there were trade-offs.

There is always a trade-off to be had, if applications do come forward, between noise, carbon and growing our economy.

But he then talked up the case for expansion.

We recognise that Heathrow has operated at over 95% capacity for most of the past two decades, which has presented limited opportunities for growth in route networks and passenger numbers.

We live in an interconnected world where people want to visit their family members and do business across our planet, and we have moved faster in this government in the first 6 months than the last government did in 14 years.

He said the government was “cleaning up” the transport sector, and he urged Berry to support that.

He also claimed, in his opening remarks, that the aviation sector in the UK was world class, and that the government was committed to supporting it.

We have been clear that any airport expansion proposals would need to demonstrate that they contribute to economic growth, are compatible with the UK’s legally binding climate change commitments and meet strict environmental standards of air quality and noise pollution.

There is currently no live development consent order application for a third runway at Heathrow airport, and it is for a scheme promoter to decide on how it takes forward any development consent order application for that runway.

The government would carefully consider any consent order application for the third runway at Heathrow in line with relevant planning processes.

James Cleverly, the Tory former home secretary, said that when Margaret Thatcher was prime minister, Lord Scarman produced a report after the Brixton riots. Although Scarman did not use the phrase, he identified a problem with two-tier policing, with black communies being treated unfairly. The police responded, Cleverly said. He asked why it was now regarded as far right to complain about two-tier policing?

Jarvis said that he knew Cleverly respected the police, and understood they did a difficult job. People who were spreading a narrative about two-tier policing were doing the police “no favours whatsoever”, he said. They were making the job of the police more difficult, he added.

Jarvis claimed that previous governments used these issues as “a political football”. It was motivated by the desire to score political points. “That will never be the approach of this government,” he said.

I have to say that it is the case that previous governments sought to use these particular issues as a political football. It is the case that previous governments were on occasion motivated as much by a desire to score political points, and that will never be the approach of this government. We’re only motivated by a desire to protect the public.

Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said the leak of the report did propose an extension of the definition of extremism. He asked a series of questions.

He asked if the government agreed with the recommendation of William Shawcross’s review of the Prevent programme. Shawcross said Prevent should focus on extremist ideology.

94% of terrorism caused deaths since 1999 were caused by Islamist terrorism. Does [the minister] agree that combating Islamist terrorism is more important than policing the manosphere?

Philp said problems like violence against women and girls, and an obsession with violence generally, were best dealt with by the police.

He asked if the government would continue with the policy of the last Tory government, telling the police to focus less on non-crime hate incidents.

Police should not be looking into matters or recording personal data where there is no imminent risk of criminality. To do so would waste police time and infringe freedom of speech. Any move away from this will enable the thought police to stop anyone telling uncomfortable truths that leftwing lawyers don’t like.

Philp also said the internal report said that people campaigning against rape gangs, or commenting on two-tier policing, were far right. He went on:

That is nonsense. Campaigning against rape gangs is not extremist or far right, and commenting on policing, whether you agree or not with the comments, is simply the exercise of free speech. So will the minister categorically disown those remarks which were contained in the home secretary’s report?

In response, Dan Jarvis, the security minister, said that the government has recommended all but one of the Shawcross recommendations.

And, on non-crime hate incidents, he said the government had been clear that the police should focus on making the streets safer.

He did not address Philp’s final point.

Dan Jarvis, the security minister, is responding to a Tory urgent question about the Policy Exchange report about a leaked, internal Home Office document about extremism.

He says many documents are published across government that are not government policy.

He says the document did not recommend an expansion in the definition extremism, and he says “there are not and have never been any plans to do so”.

But he says there has been a “troubling rise” in the number of cases of teenagers drawn into extremism, and the home secretary has set out plans to deal with that.