Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban
Order. I will implement a three-minute time limit after the next speaker.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban
We now come to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban
I call the shadow Minister.
- Hansard source
Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order, and for informing the right hon. Member to whom he has referred. The document entitled “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons” deals with this matter. When a Member visits another Member’s constituency, except on a purely private visit, they should take reasonable steps in advance to tell the Member in whose constituency the visit is taking place. The guidance states that a “failure to do so is rightly regarded by colleagues as very discourteous.” A party political activity is not a purely private visit, and I hope that by stating this very clearly from the Chair, it will reduce the frequency of such discourtesies in future.
- Hansard source
Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. Let us not dwell on the secrets of the barmen. However, he will know that this is not a matter for the Chair, even though this occupant of the Chair might have a keen interest. I am sure we all wish Richard well for his retirement.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T7. The current heatwave shows no signs of abating, and during such times the demand for water increases. The water companies are already imposing restrictions on the supply of water, so what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the water supply and when will she consider nationwide restrictions?
- Hansard source
Iran Conflict: Ceasefire
The flagrant breaches of the ceasefire that have taken place clearly demonstrate that Iran has no interest in anything other than dominating the region. The Minister may call in the chargé d’affaires, and he may call for action, but we want to see some action from the UK Government. Will he undertake to expel those people who are involved in action in the UK that threatens Iranian citizens living in the UK who are not part of this regime? Will he take action to ensure that the so-called foreign diplomats in the Iranian embassy are kicked out, to demonstrate that we are not going to tolerate this?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Of course, we do not know whether the Leader of the House will become Prime Minister in a few days’ time, but we do know that either he will continue in his current role or someone will replace him. On behalf of the Backbench Business Committee, I ask that we get early warning of what time we will receive when we return after the summer recess. The Leader of the House has suggested that our Committee will get a slot on the day we return. If that does happen, we already have potential offers out to bidders for both the Tuesday and the Thursday. I turn to the business in Westminster Hall. Next week, on Tuesday 14 July, we will have a debate on isolation and hidden deprivation in coastal communities. On Thursday 16 July there will be a debate on the impact of the national policy planning policy framework changes, followed by a debate on capital funding for Changing Places toilets. On Tuesday 1 September, when we return from recess, we will have a debate on the provision of face-to-face banking services in rural areas. On Thursday 3 September there will be a debate on vaccination rates in England, followed by a further debate, the subject of which is yet to be confirmed. On Tuesday 8 September there will be a debate on the safety of the Jewish community. On Thursday 10 September there will be a debate on reform of the vascular sector, followed by a debate on the contribution of fathers and positive male role models to families and society. Finally, on Tuesday 15 September we will have a debate on building safety remediation of residential buildings. As you can tell, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are getting on with the job of allocating the time that we have available to us. The Leader of the House will probably be aware, there is currently a scandal around local authority social rented properties and housing association properties being let on Airbnb. I have been a strong campaigner for more social housing to be built in this country, but it is clearly important that the people who have the tenancies actually live in those properties and use them. If tenants do not use them, they should be vacated and used for people on the waiting list who desperately need them. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister to make a statement in the House next week on what the Government will do to expose this scandal and ensure that the tenants who are supposed to be in these properties actually live there? If they are not living there, the properties should be released for those who desperately need them.
- Hansard source
Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I visited Gibraltar as a guest of the Government of Gibraltar. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this important debate at a pivotal moment for Gibraltar. It is somewhat extraordinary that, although the provisional application of the UK-EU Gibraltar treaty is expected in a little more than a week’s time, Parliament has still not been afforded a meaningful opportunity to scrutinise an agreement of such significance. Let me begin by making one thing absolutely clear: we welcome the fact that a deal has been reached. Businesses in Gibraltar and across the UK, frontier workers, and British citizens travelling to Gibraltar need certainty. Above all, Gibraltar deserves certainty about its future. This agreement helps to provide that by giving businesses, residents and those who rely on the frontier a clearer framework for the future. I am also proud of the work undertaken by the previous Conservative Government. Those negations were never straightforward, as I know from personal experience. They sought to balance Gibraltar’s prosperity with the practical realities of the frontier, our constitutional responsibilities as a sovereign power and our unwavering commitment to Gibraltar remaining British for as long as the people of Gibraltar wish. Welcoming a treaty does not mean dispensing with scrutiny, however. On 23 April, the Government of Gibraltar confirmed that the treaty had received unanimous approval from all EU member states, and that provisional application is expected to begin on 15 July. We know, because the Government of Gibraltar have helpfully kept parliamentarians informed, that the treaty will be formally signed before then, although even now no date has been publicly confirmed. We also know that the final sections of the frontier fence will be removed on 15 July, allowing fluid movement across the land border for frontier workers, residents and visitors, before the treaty proceeds towards full ratification in the following months. Those are constitutional, economic and practical developments of huge significance, yet it has been the Government of Gibraltar, rather than His Majesty’s Government, who have kept Parliament involved as events have unfolded. That should concern every Member of this House, regardless of their party, because Ministers are accountable to this Parliament for United Kingdom treaty obligations. Since the agreement was announced, Members of both Houses have had to rely on urgent questions, oral questions and written parliamentary questions simply to establish the Government’s intentions. I know that the Minister is aware of that. When the draft treaty was published on 26 February, the Minister assured the House that the Government welcome scrutiny, but the answers that we have received have too often amounted to little more than references to previous statements or generic replies that fail to engage with the substance of the questions being asked. That is not meaningful scrutiny, and it is not how Parliament should be treated. The question before us is no longer whether there should be a treaty; it is whether Parliament will be permitted to scrutinise it properly before it takes effect. The Government have repeatedly said that they are committed to transparency and respect for Parliament. If that commitment means anything, it must surely apply to a treaty of this constitutional significance. We are now only days away from provisional application, and fundamental questions remain unanswered. Parliament still does not know when the treaty will be signed, when it will be laid before Parliament under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, whether elements of the agreement will begin operating before Parliament has completed its scrutiny, and what opportunities Members will have to debate it further. These are not procedural technicalities. The CRaG exists because Parliament recognised that international treaties should be subject to democratic scrutiny before they bind the UK. If substantial parts of the treaty are allowed to take effect before Parliament has had a meaningful opportunity to consider it, many will understandably question what practical value that scrutiny is intended to have. For those reasons, I hope the Minister will answer some straightforward questions today. Will the Government commit to providing time for a full, substantive debate on the treaty in both Houses before provisional application begins? When precisely do Ministers intend to lay the treaty before Parliament under CRaG? What assessment have the Government made of the constitutional implications of allowing provisional application before Parliament has completed its scrutiny under that Act? Do Ministers genuinely believe that the standard 21-day scrutiny period is sufficient for an agreement of this constitutional, economic and strategic importance? I believe those are reasonable questions that parliamentarians should not have to drag out of the Government. This debate is about more than process. As we have heard, companies involved in cross-border trade need certainty and clarity about customs arrangements, regulatory compliance and border procedures. Ministers have spoken about the opportunities the agreement presents, but opportunities must be matched by preparedness. Businesses cannot prepare for new arrangements if Government guidance does not arrive until implementation is already under way, and Parliament cannot properly represent those affected if Ministers do not provide the information necessary for proper scrutiny. The Government should therefore answer some practical questions today. Can the Minister explain in clear terms whether any new checks, controls or administrative procedures will govern the movement of British troops or military equipment to and from the military base? Given Gibraltar’s strategic importance, Members will rightly wish to understand exactly what arrangements are envisaged. Will the Government set out the precise process by which British goods will enter Gibraltar under the new arrangements, whether by land, sea or air, and explain how they differ from the arrangements that businesses operate under today? What engagement have the Government had, both before and since the treaty was announced, with British businesses that export or import goods into Gibraltar? What assessment have Ministers made of the readiness of those businesses for implementation, and what support is being provided? The Government have spoken confidently about the benefits of closer co-operation with Spain, but what contingency plans are in place should Spain seek to create difficulties or exert pressure once the frontier fence has been removed? Gibraltar’s scrutiny and prosperity should never depend on good will alone. The Minister should also explain the rationale behind the governance arrangements for Gibraltar airport in the treaty, including the proposed operating structure, and why Ministers believe those arrangements are in Gibraltar’s long-term interests. What discussions have His Majesty’s Government had with the Government of Gibraltar regarding the parliamentary lock that the Gibraltar Parliament has indicated it wishes to have over implementation of the treaty? How do Ministers intend to respect Gibraltar’s democratic institutions as the agreement process progresses? I would like to place on the record my appreciation for a significant recent development. The Government of Gibraltar have announced that Gibraltar has been removed from Spain’s list of non-co-operative jurisdictions, bringing to an end a designation that had remained in place since 1991. That is undoubtedly welcome news, and it represents another positive step in strengthening Gibraltar’s international standing. Once again, however, many Members first learned of that through media reports rather than from the Government. Gibraltar occupies a unique constitutional position, and the UK retains responsibility for its external relations. It is therefore entirely reasonable for Parliament to expect timely information from our Government on developments of such significance. No one in this House wishes to see unnecessary delay or to undermine the progress that has been made. However, supporting Gibraltar and scrutinising the Government are not competing objectives; they are complementary responsibilities. I hope the Minister will use this debate not simply to repeat previous statements, but to provide the timetable for scrutiny that Parliament has been seeking for many months. Please tell us, Minister, when the treaty will be signed, when it will be laid before Parliament, what opportunities Members will have to debate and vote on it and why the Government believe that Parliament should be expected to scrutinise a treaty only after key parts of it have already begun to take effect. Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham for securing this important debate, which has provided an opportunity to discuss the treaty. But as I have set out, this debate should not take the place of the vital, detailed scrutiny of the treaty that this place deserves. I await the Government’s setting out the detail; now is the Minister’s opportunity to do so. If the Government are confident that the treaty commands support, they should be confident enough to subject it to full parliamentary scrutiny before its provisions take effect.
- Hansard source
Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar
Will the Minister set out the timeline today and assure us—
- Hansard source
Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar
He is nodding, so I will sit with bated breath.
- Hansard source
Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar
rose—
- Hansard source
Draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar
It was along those lines, but for absolute clarity, does the Minister envisage the treaty coming forward before we break for recess?
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
The hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) has highlighted a number of pertinent questions that collectively pointed to the increased threat that we face. I also very much agree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca). There is a lot of common ground in the Chamber today. One example of that is that I agree fundamentally with the comment from the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) that we “must not underestimate the level of change that is required.” None of that detracts from the point that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) highlighted in his opening remarks on the structural flaws in the funding allocated through the defence investment plan. The hon. Gentleman elaborated in more depth but, for example, less than half the headline figure announced is new money. Of the £15 billion announced, £6.9 billion over four years is new money, with £4.7 billion for the next budget, and £3.4 billion from asset sales and moving liabilities around. As he said, that is in addition to £10.7 billion of efficiencies. In addition to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, I want to illustrate how the Government’s narrative contradicts itself with regard to the efficiencies; three Government documents, which the Government agree with, actually contradict each other. For example, on page 79 of the DIP we see the total resource departmental expenditure limit of £7 billion, from savings on staffing, and a capital departmental expenditure limit of £3.4 billion. Those are figures in the Government’s own annex, yet just last year on page 5 of the strategic defence review, the Secretary of State said, in no less than his own foreword: “We will unlock nearly £6 billion of new savings”. In a year we have gone from the Secretary of State saying, “We’re going to unlock £6 billion” to “We’re going to unlock over £10 billion.” As the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells alluded to, there is no clear plan and confidence is low. Confidence is not just low because the defence investment plan states that it is low, although indeed its working states “of which remaining plans at lower maturity” with £5 billion on RDEL and £3.4 billion on CDEL—£8.4 billion of low confidence. Let us look, too, at the independent findings of the National Audit Office. It is stated on page 10 of one of its most recent reports, from December 2025, that the accounts were qualified in a number of areas and that: “Lack of effective departmental oversight of a number of these arrangements has meant that the MOD did not have appropriate information nor assurance to ensure that transactions and balances”— blah-de-blah. In other words, the Department itself does not have a grip. Quite rightly, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak pointed to the scale of challenge, but we have a set of efficiencies in a 10-year plan that fundamentally contradict the Secretary of State’s own assurances just a year ago. The main point I wish to highlight—I say this as someone who has spent time in the Treasury, and I keep raising this point with MOD colleagues—is that I continue to be baffled as to why the Department is not highlighting and prioritising the reserves more than it is. Again, I think an area of consensus is the value of the reserves in delivering scale, and the fact that they are value for money as an option. Page 61 of the DIP just states £4.2 billion for reserves over four years—there is no breakdown, no detail, and no information, and it is not even clear if the training days and reserve service days for this year are secured. Can the Minister give us an assurance? Can he say what equipment will be funded for the reserves over the next four years? Can he give any colour on that, and can he explain why the reserves are not being prioritised more than they are? My next point speaks directly to the issue of national resilience that the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak correctly identified. Looking at the Red Book, £310 million has just been agreed for a digital campus in Manchester, and there is £1.196 million—£1.2 billion—on boiler upgrades over four years. But that is not enough, so the Government are extending that by £400 million this year, £600 million next year, and over £600 million the year after. I am not saying that those programmes are not useful—I am sure they are—but if the Prime Minister’s Munich speech is correct, and given comments from colleagues in the House, is this really the priority? Is £4.7 billion over four years on cycling and walking really this Government’s priority if we are to boost national resilience?
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the broader point, which is the lack of detail on reserves, other than to say that it is all being parked until the next Parliament. That is a wasted opportunity. Reservists also need clearer communication from the Government, including on the training days and reserve service days this year. I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate, he will say a bit more about that. Finally, we know that a Government reshuffle is coming, and if issues such as national resilience are to be addressed, they quite rightly require an all-of-Government response. Yet there is very little detail. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar said regarding the answer to his written question, the MOD is often reluctant to answer on national security grounds, and there is very little detail on how other Departments will prioritise their budgets and what the key performance indicators are, particularly when new Ministers are likely to be coming in. Will the Minister clarify whether there will be KPIs relating to the defence investment plan for those Departments, and if so, when will they be set out?
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
Will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
Could the Minister clarify why the efficiency target has gone up over 73% in a year compared with the strategic defence review? Was the SDR just too unambitious?
- Hansard source
European Entry and Exit System
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what measures the Government have put in place to ensure that in the coming holiday season, travellers and business freight are not delayed at our ports, our international railway stations and our airports as a result of the imposition of the European entry and exit system.
- Hansard source
European Entry and Exit System
As the Minister has indicated, over the spring bank holiday there was chaos at Dover, at St Pancras and at the channel tunnel because of the failure of the EES. The French authorities were quite simply not prepared or able to implement the facilities properly. Based on bookings for the coming season, which starts in 10 days’ time, the authorities are now predicting that there could be 12-hour delays to passengers and therefore to freight, which affects our businesses. That is simply not acceptable. Will the Minister, before it is too late, approach the French authorities again and suggest that a waiver must be put in place before the holiday season starts so that we do not again face the chaos that we faced in May?
- Hansard source
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
This House has the capacity to criticise, but it also has the capacity to be fair. The Minister probably finds himself between a rock and a cliff face in a situation that he did not make himself. That does not absolve the MCA from the criticism that has rightly been levelled at it earlier today. Mine is one of those peculiar constituencies that have both a north coast and a south coast. Those two coastlines are served by dedicated volunteers who go out in all weathers to save lives, and I have heard from some of them. It is quite clear that unless this situation is resolved swiftly, those people will be lost—and if they are lost, they will not come back. Obviously I cannot speak for others on these Benches, but I will back whatever measure the Minister seeks to take in order to ensure that there is a timely resolution to this issue, so that we do not lose good people.
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
Having spoken on this very subject the week before last, I thought that I would, for once, sit and listen to what others have to say. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons for the failure of deterrence at the beginning of both the second world war and the first world war was that the United States was detached from the future of security in Europe? The success of NATO has hinged on the knowledge that an attack on any NATO country would mean war with the United States from the outset. Does he share my concern that the United States is at present led by someone with insufficient regard for that history?
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
Will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
I congratulate the Minister on acceding to office, but he needs to appreciate that the cost of all Departments goes up in absolute financial numerical terms year on year, but the way in which we measure the investment in defence is by looking at it as a proportion of GDP. During the cold war, when the risk was almost as high as it is now, we were spending 4.5% to 5% of GDP. Vladimir Putin does not have nine years for us to spend 3.5% of GDP. Those are the measurements the Minister has to look at; we are nowhere near spending enough.
- Hansard source
Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy
I rise in support of much of what the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) has said. He has done a service to this Chamber, and Parliament more generally, by highlighting the threats that AI will bring. Perhaps I can set the scene by reminding Members present that it took 25 years for Parliament and successive Governments to recognise that the internet must be regulated. That is extraordinary. When I was in the IT industry back in the ’80s and ’90s, I became aware of the concept of the internet—before it was widely spoken about—and even then I knew the harm it might do. In 2000, at the beginning of the new millennium, I was privileged to be able to speak at the Spalding Gentlemen’s Society, with which I do not imagine you are familiar, Ms McVey, but suffice to say it is a learned society of the old school—it now does admit women, you will be pleased to know. It has a lecture programme on all manner of things, and I was pleased to be invited to give the first lecture of the millennium. Then, I warned of what the internet might do. Most of the audience, by the way, disbelieved what I said. It was a very civilised meeting—it was not raucous in any way—but they could not quite come to terms with what I predicted. What I predicted then has come to pass. What has occurred is the distortion of public discourse, the enabling of widespread fraud and the provision of the means for every imaginable form of harm, from hardcore pornography being available to children, to internet gambling addiction, suicide sites and much more. Now, the prospect of AI will make all that still more chilling. As the recognition of what is real and what is invented is increasingly blurred, it will become more and more difficult for people to navigate the inevitable vicissitudes that pervade every life. Imagine a future where the once secure certainty of what really exists is so undermined that people can no longer believe what they are told and have no place to go to establish that certainty—the basis on which we all gauge reality and are able to live reasonably productive lives. I see wellbeing being affected by that detrimentally; unless the Government take very urgent and extremely serious action, that will happen far more quickly than anyone here envisages.
- Hansard source
Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy
I absolutely agree. That is why I began by describing what has occurred over the last quarter of a century and the misunderstanding—a pervasive one that affected all political parties and Governments of all kinds—that a dangerous fascination with novelty was more important than the certainty that I have just outlined. The hon. Member for Poole is right to issue a clarion call for action. Let me go into a little more detail. He is right, for example, that we have allowed a handful of multinational corporates, which have displayed a carelessness to the effects of what they do, to wield immense power—more power than national Governments. It is increasingly difficult for Governments to pull levers that affect these people, because they exist beyond the purview of this House or of any Government Minister. They have shown by their example that carelessness, and only when they have been prevented from doing harm have they ceased to do so. I am delighted that the Government are now taking steps to prevent children from accessing social media and mobile telephones; I would like to go much further, actually, and I hope the Government will. I called for the ban on phones in schools, along with many other Members of this House, a long time ago. But AI makes all that more serious, because the AI available through that technology, which has the ability to distort the very nature of reality, will be immensely difficult to control. And yet we must try to do so. Legislation is not always the only means of doing that but, as the hon. Gentleman set out, it certainly must play a part. Umberto Eco described the internet as the “empire of imbeciles”. Over time, it has become impossible to distinguish experts from idiots, and every bar-room bigot now has an audience of millions. Most people had a sense of proportion; my parents were working-class people who left school at 14, but they had a very good sense of what really mattered. Now we have elevated trivia to an extraordinary degree and, as a result, that sense of proportion, which was once taken as read, can no longer be guaranteed.
- Hansard source
Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy
I know from my dealings with the hon. Gentleman that he is a good and effective Member of Parliament who takes a very responsible view of these things, but we must not let the virtues that he describes blind us to the vices. That is what happened with the internet. When I made that speech back in 2000, when people said, “But I can reunite with my family in Australia.” I replied, “Well, if they really wanted to unite with you, they wouldn’t have gone to Australia in the first place.” I remember Friends Reunited—as though we want to get in touch with people we were at primary school with. They look so different; that is frightening in itself. Why would we want to revisit our ancient history? But that is all an aside. I think the hon. Gentleman is right, and of course it is true that there will be the advantages that he describes, particularly in the research field. My fear is that they will obscure, in the eyes of those who have the power to make a difference, the points that the hon. Member for Poole made. I hope that does not apply to this Minister, who I am sure is far more clear-sighted than that suggests. Parliament and the Government need to act quickly and decisively to deal with the points that the hon. Member for Poole made and that I have attempted, imperfectly, to amplify. It is critically important to understand that although innovation may matter, ethics matter more; that science and technology are morally neutral and have no implicit ethic; and that what really counts is not what is new, but what is true.
- Hansard source
Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy
I am interested in the right hon. Lady’s comment on productivity, because it is one of the prevailing macroeconomic challenges facing this Government and previous Governments, as the stalling of productivity has been a problem across western economies for a while. It is true that AI might help, but it could also harm. Equipping people with skills is critical to building productivity, and dependence on AI may actually undermine people’s confidence and their skills over time.
- Hansard source
Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
- Hansard source
Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy
I hear what the Minister says, but there are no specific laws governing the standards of AI, there is no dedicated regulator to deal with AI development, and there are no sanctions on companies that knowingly use AI for malevolent purposes. Those things are all needed now.
- Hansard source
Engagements
I echo the right hon. Gentleman’s tribute to Sir George Howarth and pass on my party’s condolences to his friends, family and loved ones. I also echo his support and encouragement for the England football team in their forthcoming match against Norway. Of course, I also echo his words about those people murdered on 7/7, and their friends and their families, and I pay tribute to the emergency services that did so much on that day. Will the Deputy Prime Minister apologise to the victims of the rapists, sexual predators and paedophiles that he is planning to release early?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The right hon. Gentleman makes a joke about the use of figures. Let me give him a figure: 50,000 prisoners released early in just two years on his watch. I am genuinely shocked that, when given the opportunity to apologise to the victims, he very publicly failed to do so. Let me remind him what this is about. Let me quote Fiona Goddard, a victim of grooming gangs who has been brave and open about how his policy will impact her: “Finding out that they may be released early has completely set me back. I have barely left the house. I feel constantly anxious, frightened and unsafe. I can barely sleep”. That is the impact his policy is having on victims. He refuses to apologise, but why is he pursuing a policy that he must know is both wrong and dangerous?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The right hon. Gentleman talks about 10,000 early releases over 14 years of Conservative government. The Labour Government have released 50,000 in two years. He knows it is wrong—he is a good man. He must know that it is wrong to release 5,000 serious criminals, including rapists and paedophiles. Not only does he know it is wrong, but his party knows it is wrong—not one of the 400 Labour MPs voted to support the Government’s policy in the vote last night. They know it is wrong and the country knows it is wrong, but he insists on pursuing it anyway. If he will not change course, will he at least make this guarantee: that not one rapist or paedophile will be released early later on this year?
- Hansard source
Engagements
I think the Deputy Prime Minister will look back on this exchange and be shocked by how it is coming across: no apology to the victims; and no guarantee that paedophiles and rapists will not be released early. We all know that releasing dangerous criminals on purpose is wrong, but not content with doing that, he is hellbent on releasing dangerous criminals by accident. Last year, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), the Deputy Prime Minister claimed that Labour had got a grip of accidental releases, yet we now know that there have been more accidental releases in the last two years than in the entirety of the last Parliament. I will give the Deputy Prime Minister another chance: will he apologise to the country for his abject failure to keep prisoners in prison, where they belong?
- Hansard source
Engagements
It is the dangerous criminals that the Deputy Prime Minister is letting out early. So he refuses to apologise to victims, and he refuses to guarantee that sexual offenders and rapists will not be released early. Another thing that the country, and indeed this House, knows instinctively is wrong is his personal crusade to scrap trial by jury. We know that it will not clear the backlog, we know that it undermines fundamental British freedoms, and we know that the legal profession is united against it, so will he now admit that it is wrong, and will he commit to reverse his proposals to scrap trial by jury?
- Hansard source
Engagements
The Deputy Prime Minister talks in glowing terms about what he claims to be doing, but what we are actually seeing this Government doing is stripping money from where it is needed and squandering it on the welfare bill, which has ballooned by £20 billion this year alone. He talks about getting over the detail, but here is a simple detail for him: when I was Home Secretary, we had more police officers than at any point in British history. Since Labour taking over, that number has dropped by over 2,000 officers. At the Dispatch Box last week, the Leader of the Opposition highlighted this Government’s failure to defend us internationally. Today, I have highlighted the Deputy Prime Minister’s failure to defend us domestically. If the soon-to-be Prime Minister—is he in the room anywhere?—does not want to be complicit in the Deputy Prime Minister’s failure, he should come out and condemn the plan, not just hint that he opposes it. If this Labour Government cannot protect the citizens of this country, either domestically or internationally, then what on earth is the point of them?
- Hansard source
Troubles Legacy: Legislation
2. What steps he is taking to replace the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.
- Hansard source
Troubles Legacy: Legislation
We were promised a substantial package of amendments and that the Bill would return to the House early in the Session. Is the delay occasioned by a pause for thought following the personal statement of the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) to the House? I certainly hope so.
- Hansard source
European Entry and Exit System
Will the Minister point out to the European Union that, because we have a common travel area with the Republic of Ireland, and because the Republic of Ireland is not applying any of these checks on British citizens going to and coming from Northern Ireland or direct from the United Kingdom, there is actually an open border between the European Union and the United Kingdom, so they might as well allow the same access through Dover rather than trying to impose all their rubbish on the United Kingdom? On the suggestion that this is all the fault of Brexit, this did not exist when we left the European Union; this is a result of a decision that the dysfunctional European Union is inflicting on travelling British citizens for its own reasons, not for any practical benefit.
- Hansard source
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
May I help the Minister answer the question he was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), who is on the Opposition Front Bench? The answer is that the law is an ass and the law should be changed, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said. How can it be that the law is interfering in a perfectly happy relationship between coastguard volunteers and the MCA? The law is an ass, and that is quite clearly the view of the coastguards I met last week in West Mersea in my constituency.
- Hansard source
Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness
It is an honour to succeed the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) who opened the debate—a very timely debate it is, too. I particularly commend the point that the former Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, made about this being a whole-of-nation approach, because we are preparing for war. We might actually be at war in some senses, because Russia is knowingly saying that it is conducting a war against NATO, and we are certainly subject to a hybrid war against our national infrastructure—hacking our hospitals, closing down Jaguar Land Rover and harassing our shipping. This is a very low level of war, but we have certainly been under attack from the way that Russia rations gas to western Europe as a weapon. Turning energy into a weapon, turning food into a weapon—Russia is doing the lot, and the writing is on the wall. The Government still have not woken up to the fact that the head of NATO, and even the Prime Minister at Munich, has said that we have to be ready to fight a war—a shooting, kinetic war—against Russia by 2030. There is no sign in the implementation of policy that the Government understand the urgency of that. There are plenty of people in Government who get the urgency of this, and I met some of them with Lord Robertson earlier this week to be briefed on national resilience, but there is a deep reluctance in the Government to recognise that to mobilise for war is not about the armed forces and a few branches of Government. Armies may fight battles, but nations fight wars. If the whole nation is not galvanised to do what is necessary, to be ready for what is going to happen, and to make the sacrifices and suffer the pain of diverting resources to less popular things than the popular things that Governments tend to spend their money on, we are not ready for war.