Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Yes, and I think the Government have plans for that, but they keep pulling back because it is a difficult thing to talk about. The spin doctors and spads will tell their political masters, “Oh no, don’t talk about that—the polling says it is terrible.” I am afraid that we have to confront the polling. We have to confront the population with the ugly truth: this country is at far greater risk than it has ever been since the height of the cold war.
In this paper entitled “Understanding the UK’s Transition to Warfighting Readiness” that I am just about to explain briefly to the House, we refer to Norway’s concept. Norway’s total war concept is being embedded in its national life and embedded across Government policy through all branches of Government. For example, we refer in the report to the need to galvanise our universities to be ready for war, so that research and development programmes are directed towards suitable and useful capability, creating sovereign national capability and protecting those research programmes from foreign infiltration. I love having foreign students in our universities—it is good for the economy and for our universities—but we cannot have Chinese nationals at the heart of chip manufacture and design, robotics or AI systems. We have to protect our national technology from being spied on by people sent to this country to go to our universities in order to collect that information, steal it and give it to our enemies. The context of the document, which is almost old hat even though it is only a few months old, is the changing geopolitical situation, the withdrawal of America from European security, the collapse of the rules-based international order, the failure of democratic governance models to rise to the challenge, the unpreparedness of most western democracies to be ready to confront the hybrid warfare that we already face, and our lack of adaptability. I commend the point made by the former Armed Forces Minister: there is no point in ordering a whole lot of kit that will be out of date as soon as we get to the next war. If the next war starts in the Balkans, the Baltic states or Poland, it will be about drones. The Government are moving some way on that, but we are so slow. The Ukrainians were way ahead of us in helping to protect the Gulf states while we were still sending multimillion-pound aircraft that cost £25 million an hour to fly to shoot down a drone that cost £150,000. We must adapt our industry to produce cheap, numerous capability so that we have the scale to deal with that. We need that whole-of-society mobilisation. We need much more adaptable governance.
We need resilient financial systems. We need sovereign defence capabilities and sovereign critical national infrastructure. I am glad that we have stopped handing over so much of our CNI to foreign owners, but an immediate, radical transformation is required. This document is 19,000 words drafted for me and for my friend the hon. Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg), who serves on the Defence Committee and is a renowned expert on defence in the House, by Chris Donnelly, who used to be a Soviet expert at NATO, worked in the Ministry of Defence and finished up teaching at Shrivenham. He is a wise defence guru. If hon. Members want to know how much really needs to be changed, they should just read through these 19,000 words of analysis and recommendations. There is a huge task, but to carry it through we need to carry the people. The SDR promised a national conversation—where is that national conversation?
There is a national conversation about who will be the next Prime Minister or whether there will be a by-election in Clacton, but there is no such national conversation about the existential threats to our freedom and democracy. It is democracy across the western world that is failing this challenge. The autocracies are winning at the moment. We are facing circumstances where Russia may well be struggling in the Ukraine war, but that makes it more unpredictable. What will Putin do as he feels that his political support is slipping away and Russia’s vulnerability is increasing now that there are petrol queues in Moscow and explosions in Russian cities? There is a growing awareness—it has even been said in the last 24 hours by a serious propagandist for Mr Putin—that this is no longer a special military operation; it is a war. The circumstances are changing as we speak, and I am afraid that a lack of urgency is being shown by the whole House, apart from, say, the Defence Committee and the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. This is how we get into wars—by being unprepared for them. We need to change our whole concept of deterrence from the old concept that somehow just having a nuclear weapon keeps us safe. No, we must have a much more flexible ability to respond to changing circumstances. What will happen when the Russians move into a Russian-speaking town in one of the Balkan states? What will we do as our soldiers start being killed? Will we start letting off nuclear weapons or will we have analogous, appropriate, flexible military capability to be able to respond and escalate at pace? Our inability to escalate is the greatest danger at the moment.
Will the hon. Member give way?
I happen to agree with the hon. Member about the failure of the coalition Government to make progress with the deterrent, but there were many of us complaining about that at the time, including my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). Indeed, as shadow Defence Secretary in the early 2000s, I was complaining about the cuts in defence spending that were then being made as we went to war in Iraq and as we went to war in Afghanistan. I very much welcome the hon. Member’s bipartisan approach, but rather than pretending to be bipartisan, and making oblique references to what happened under previous Governments, he should be bipartisan, and then we would all get on much better.
I am listening very carefully, and this is about assuring the battery manufacturing process. Is it just these draft regulations or is research being done into thermal runaway and how toxic fallout from the vapourisation of heavy metals can fall on to farmland? A big concern in my constituency is that thermal runaway in battery storage at solar sites could poison land through the vapourisation of heavy metals. Is there any research into that safety concern?
I thank the Minister for that answer. That is something I have been pushing on. It is an important aspect of battery storage in a rural constituency, so I very much accept her offer to write to me with any information she may have.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) for securing this important debate. I am sure that all Members of this House will advocate for ensuring that the next generation has every opportunity to thrive, and to develop confidence and resilience. Youth enrichment is fundamental to building stronger communities, improving wellbeing, fostering social mobility and developing skills that needed by employers, communities and, of course, the country. My first point follows a conversation that I had with GoWild Outdoors, which is a business that operates outdoor education activities for children and young people across my constituency and beyond. That business is extremely worried about the Government’s decision to end the physical education and sport premium for primary schools, which gives primary schools direct control over funding, after the 2025-26 academic year and to replace it with the PE and school sport partnerships network. GoWild Outdoors told me that the change would mean not only a potential reduction in schools’ autonomy over how PE and sport provision is developed, but a 22% drop in annual funding. As a result, schools are already starting to cancel sessions from third-party providers, because there is a lack of clarity from the Government on how the new PE and school sport partnerships network will work and will impact funding. That lack of clarity is not just harming local businesses and third-party providers in my constituency, such as GoWild Outdoors; it is having a hugely negative impact on the children whose learning and wellbeing benefit from additional non-classroom provision. GoWild Outdoors asked me to ask the Minister for reassurance that the new scheme will not negatively impact the ability of third-party providers to deliver for children and young people who rely so desperately on the programmes that they provide, because the uncertainty is having a direct impact, right now. My second point is about the Government giving mayoralties the ability to roll out a tourism tax and apply it to accommodation for youth organisations, such as the Girl Guides and Scouts. I seek reassurance from the Government that the tax will not apply to organisations that provide youth enrichment through accommodation that is generally provided through charitable means. Doing so will have a direct impact on the youth enrichment programmes run by the many great volunteer organisations that I am sure many Members of Parliament interact with across our constituencies. I would greatly appreciate the Minister responding to those implications of the tourism tax.
Q11. Coughlan’s Bakery, which was founded in 1937, has announced the closure of all its stores, five of which are in my Reigate constituency. The reasons given by Sean Coughlan include recent employer national insurance and business rate hikes. That much-loved family business, which has survived a world war and multiple recessions, has not be able to survive this Labour Government. How many businesses need to go under before this Government learn that they cannot tax their way to growth?
I thank the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for securing the debate. This is a really important topic, and I do not think there has been enough focus on it in the last few years. Her speech was very powerful, and the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) made really important points about corridor care not happening in a silo. There is a wider system of things going on, so we need to look at this more broadly. I feel strongly about this issue because I have seen the shocking reality for myself at East Surrey hospital, in my constituency, and at St Helier hospital, which is outside my constituency but serves some of my constituents. Patients are being cared for in spaces that were never designed for clinical treatment, and staff are trying their best to do their jobs in impossible circumstances. I cannot imagine how upsetting it must be to go into hospital with a serious medical problem, only to spend hours on a trolley, surrounded by noise and footfall and without any sort of privacy, and to be denied basic dignity. In fact, I saw one example of a patient who was near automatic doors, which opened and shut every time someone walked past them. That is not dignified or appropriate in any shape or form. How can it be right that doctors are forced to discuss private medical matters with patients in public hallways, or even to attempt examinations and treatment without the facilities that they need being close at hand? Let me be clear: all the staff I met on my visits were doing the best they could in extremely difficult circumstances. The problem was not down to their lack of commitment or compassion; it was down to a system that is operating without enough physical space to meet the excessive demand placed upon it. The previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), promised to eliminate corridor care by the next general election in 2029, and we need to understand how it will be addressed. I think we all accept that this is not an easy thing to solve, but it would be good to know what steps will be taken to address this big issue. The crux of the issue appears to be hospital flow. Emergency departments cannot move patients into wards when beds are full, and beds remain occupied when people who are medically fit to leave cannot access the care, rehabilitation or support that they need outside hospital. Delayed discharge therefore remains part of the problem. Without sufficient social care capacity, community service and intermediate care, hospitals cannot safely discharge patients. At St Helier, there is another fundamental issue: physical space. The hospital is trying to offer a modern service in buildings that the trust says are no longer fit for purpose. Much of the estate is older than the NHS itself, and staff contend with leaking roofs, flooding, damp, mould and buildings that are difficult to keep at a suitable temperature. Those conditions make it harder to provide safe care, and place still more pressure on staff, who are already overstretched. One example of the type of challenge is the women’s health block, which is currently a big issue. Routine testing has identified low levels of legionella and pseudomonas in the water supply. While filters have been installed and regular testing commenced, that highlights the fact that these measures are not a sustainable long-term solution, given the age and complexity of the building’s water system. This is hugely disappointing for patients and staff, particularly considering the hard work that has gone into improving the hospital’s women’s health services. That is why I strongly support the planned new specialist emergency care hospital in Sutton to be delivered alongside significant investment to modernise both St Helier and Epsom hospitals. The new hospital would bring together major emergency care, acute medicine, critical care and emergency surgery in modern facilities designed around the needs of patients and staff, while crucially leaving 85% of services at the existing hospital sites. This is exactly the sort of investment urgently needed to reduce overcrowding and end the indignity of patients being treated in corridors, yet the start of construction has been delayed—pushed back to 2033. I urge the Government to reconsider that timeframe, as that would be important in helping to address the challenge we face with corridor care.
What reassurance do we have that these savings will be passed on to customers, rather than just going towards the companies’ bottom line?
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 July.
I entirely associate myself with the Deputy Prime Minister’s opening and personal remarks. The Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) are both proud football fans. Given that the Deputy Prime Minister clearly thinks the Prime Minister has always been match fit, how does he feel now that his own MPs have given the boss the red card and brought on a left winger to get them out of the relegation zone? [Laughter.]
Order. The speaking limit will drop to three minutes after the next speaker.
I have a correction to make. Back Benchers are on a four-minute speaking limit. We have found some more time.
Order. I call Sarah Hall.
I will now announce the results of today’s deferred Divisions. On the draft Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 (Establishment of Schools) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 369 and the Noes were 102, so the Ayes have it. On the draft Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 317 and the Noes were 103, so the Ayes have it. On the draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 283 and the Noes were 182, so the Ayes have it. [The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]
I now call another doctor—it is easier to see a doctor here than to get a GP appointment.
Order. I call Amanda Martin.
I call James Naish to make the final Back-Bench contribution.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I call the shadow Minister.
I thank the Minister for giving notice of his point of order, and for seeking to correct the record so quickly, which he has now done. Hopefully that draws a line under it.
Unless I am misunderstanding him, the Minister has committed to making a policy announcement this month. There are only a few more sitting days, and he will know that Mr Speaker does not take lightly policy announcements being made outside the House; this House is where those announcements should be made for scrutiny by Back-Bench MPs. No doubt the Minister’s staff will be scribbling that down. Question put and agreed to.
The hon. Gentleman is making a very accurate critique. Is he aware that the Treasury Committee, led by the redoubtable hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), was looking at defence funding at lunch time today, and that in that hearing, barely an hour ago, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury admitted under persistent questioning that the Government have done no work on how to get to 3.5% of GDP on defence?
The hon. Member is right on the funding—I will mention that later—but one important thing that did happen after 2014 was under what was then called Operation Orbital. We began training Ukrainian soldiers on Salisbury plain, because they knew what was coming—and, I think, perhaps so did we. We will talk about the money in a minute, but the training of Ukrainian troops in Britain did start fairly shortly after 2014.
My right hon. Friend mentioned reserves. During the debate on the Armed Forces Bill, we talked a lot about enhancing the reserves. Is he aware that while there is some funding for the so-called active reserve, in the DIP there is hardly any funding at all for the strategic reserve, which the Government made a very big thing of for five months while we were debating the Bill? There is hardly any money for it.
The university’s records do not show how every individual student voted, but we know that many of the students who were present at that famous debate in 1933 subsequently signed up in 1939 and 1940.
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) and the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling this important and timely debate, which coincides with the NATO summit. I will make what is perhaps a point of consensus: yet again, when we debate the defence of the realm—the first duty of Government—the Reform Bench is empty; yet again, the plastic patriots have gone AWOL when we discuss the defence of this country. Count Binface clearly has them worried in Clacton. As I am a historian by training, perhaps I can offer some historical context. Arguments about military readiness are not new. The Roman military theorist, Vegetius, some two millennia ago, coined the now-famous phrase, “Si vis pacem, para bellum”—he who desires peace should prepare for war, in order to deter it. There have been times in British history where we have disregarded Vegetius’s sage advice. For instance, in 1919, following the first world war, when Britain had fought at great cost—both human and financial—a Liberal-led Government introduced the concept of a 10-year rule: a pan-Whitehall edict that no major war was likely for at least a decade. That continued on a rolling basis into the 1930s. On 9 February 1933, just 10 days after Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, in the now famous Oxford Union debate, referred to several times already, the students resolved by more than two to one that: “This House would, under no circumstances, fight for King and country.” And yet, a few years later, we know that many of them did. The 10-year rule was only finally rescinded in the mid-1930s. Nevertheless, as General Lord Dannatt pointed out in his excellent recent book “Victory to Defeat”, our armed forces still did not recover sufficiently in time to deter Hitler from launching what eventually became world war two, in which some 60 million people perished worldwide.
NATO is the most successful defensive alliance in history, and article 5 is its absolute fulcrum. We must maintain our commitment to article 5 to keep all NATO nations safe. In 1946 in Fulton, Missouri, Churchill said that an iron curtain had descended, leading us into the cold war. In the mid-1980s, under Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, defence spending was gusting about 5% of gross domestic product. When the Berlin wall came down in 1989, countries across the west took a peace dividend. Francis Fukuyama wrote his famous book “The End of History” in 1992, and many in the west believed that the threat of world war had finally receded. When the Conservatives left office in 1997, we were spending around 3% of GDP on defence, and that downward trend continued under Tony Blair’s Government—although, in fairness, he was only doing what many other western democracies were also doing. Today, we face a revanchist Russia led by Putin—
In a moment. We face a revanchist Russian led by Putin, who launched an invasion of Crimea and the Donbas in 2014, and then an even more brutal, full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. As someone who visited Ukraine in February of this year, I remind the House that the Ukrainians would argue that they have therefore been at war with Russia not for four years, but for 12 years—longer than the first and second world wars combined. Against that rising threat, Labour produced its much-vaunted strategic defence review, and there was much good in it. However, it still contained echoes of the 10-year rule, declaring the Government’s intention, on page 43, “to deter, fight and win—with allies—against states with advanced military forces by 2035.” That is nine years away. The Chief of the General Staff has warned that we might have to fight Russia by 2027, the First Sea Lord said 2029, and even the outgoing Prime Minister said that this might happen by 2030. How are we supposed to deter Putin without a single attack submarine currently at sea, with no new AWACS aircraft in service in the Royal Air Force, still, and with Ajax almost a decade late and still not in operational service, despite Ministers previously promising us that it was fine? That really is corrosive complacency, is not it? The threat is now, and we need to rearm accordingly, including by spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2029 at the very latest, if not earlier. The three co-authors of the SDR were adamant that the cost of implementing it was spending 3% of GDP on defence, and a year after the SDR was published, we finally received Labour’s plan for how to pay for it: the so-called defence investment plan. But that was not before Labour’s Defence Secretary and Armed Forces Minister—the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is in his place—both resigned on 11 June after months of frustration with the Treasury over the paucity of funding in the plan. As the outgoing Defence Secretary powerfully wrote in his resignation letter to the Prime Minister, “you have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats.” That is damning. The former Armed Forces Minister said in his letter: “I have sat in the rooms, seen the assessments, and spoken to the commanders who will be asked to do more with less, and I cannot in good conscience stand at the dispatch box and defend a level of investment I know to be inadequate to the task.” Moreover, the outgoing Defence Secretary revealed that he had been offered an increase in defence spending to only 2.68% of GDP by 2030—billions short of what the SDR authors required. The new Defence Secretary has tried to argue that he has been given some additional funding—a bit more than £1 billion—but that takes defence spending to barely 2.69% of GDP by 2030, a difference that does not even touch the sides. Sadly, it is worse than that. The chiefs of staff have been urging the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to invest an additional £28 billion in defence over the next four years, partly to enable them to implement Labour’s SDR. They were offered barely £15 billion instead. On closer examination, even that sum unravels rapidly. As we have heard, £10.7 billion relies on so-called efficiency savings, which is Whitehall code for cuts in MOD spending over the next four years, the bulk of which have not even been identified. On the day of publication, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee described that as an old accountant’s trick. It still does not disguise the fact that the MOD would have to make massive in-year spending cuts, including from operations and training, to recycle that money to fund the defence investment plan. The Chief of the Defence Staff warned of the implications of doing that only the other day. The disastrous DIP also relies on a further £4.7 billion, which has not yet been cleared by the Treasury and will be subject to another public spending round. In other words, the two sums combined will be more than the £15 billion of extra money that was promised. There is practically no new money for defence at all. All we have been offered is Enron accounting and smoke and mirrors to try to pretend that there is a massive increase in defence spending—barely 0.01% of GDP over four years.
No, I am summing up. Lord Robertson, the lead author of the SDR, told the Defence Committee only yesterday that “we are running out of years… the challenge is now bigger, more serious and earlier than we had anticipated, yet the defence investment plan does not come up to it.” General Barrons, his co-author, told the same Committee that “the Prime Minister is saying that Russia could attack NATO by 2030, and we essentially lost a year of mobilising for that.” Incredibly, even the DIP says on page 78: “The figures presented are indicative rather than precise cost estimates. They do not constitute binding commitments and are subject to the Government’s approval processes, affordability considerations and contracting procedures. Figures have been rounded and, therefore, may not sum.” You can say that again. In other words, the document isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. The plan relies on extra money that does not exist. We will not deter the likes of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping with such unfunded proposals. If Trotsky was right, and war is interested in us, we must rearm now to deter it. I reluctantly find that the Labour Government are failing the people of this country in the first duty of Government: the defence of the realm. If the incoming Prime Minister cannot plug the £5 billion black hole that he is about to inherit, he should make way for people who can.
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) on securing this important debate. We all recognise that this issue is increasingly important to our constituents across the country. I spend a lot of time discussing it as both the local MP in Old Bexley and Sidcup and a shadow Minister. I have had the pleasure of having young people on work experience with me this week to keep me on my toes. It has been a busy week. In 2022, the previous Government allocated £560 million over three years to fund the national youth guarantee, ensuring that young people aged between 11 and 18 in England had access to regular clubs and activities, something to do after school, experiences away from home and opportunities to volunteer. As part of that, we allocated £300 million to youth facilities, improving and developing 300 of them. We established the National Citizen Service; this Government cancelled it, but more than 750,000 young people participated in it and it had a 93% satisfaction rate—something this Government could only dream of. As the Government well know, youth charities, like all employers, are subject to national insurance contributions, and the increase in contributions requires them to find additional funds. According to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, these changes could cost the charity sector an additional £1.4 billion a year. For smaller charities with limited reserves and core funding, that will seem like an insurmountable challenge. As has been mentioned, this has led to a reduction in provision. Youth work has huge economic benefits. Research has shown that every £1 of Government investment in youth work has a social return on investment of between £3.20 and £6.40. Moreover, it saves around £500 million annually by preventing antisocial behaviour, knife crime and associated criminal justice costs. As a Government, we established the youth investment fund, which delivered £300 million over approximately three years. This Government scrapped it, and announced a new national youth strategy, which analysis shows cuts the funding by around £50 million each year over the life of the strategy. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) and I hosted a roundtable with those from the enrichment sector—it is great to see some of them in the audience today. The renewed national focus on enrichment is welcome and timely, but access to enrichment remains uneven, and Government funding cuts will only make that worse. We agree with those we heard from yesterday that the challenge is how we ensure that fantastic youth enrichment provision is accessible for as many young people as possible across the country. As others have said, enrichment is not an optional extra; it is a vital way in which young people learn fundamental life skills that often cannot be taught in traditional learning environments. I have seen some of the Duke of Edinburgh work in one of my local schools, with pupils putting up tents and camping. The Duke of Edinburgh’s award celebrates a milestone next week—70 years—and I am sure that many Members will be there to support that tradition.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for one of his famous interventions. I am pleased that his son enjoys camping; I am not sure I am as sold on a camping holiday in this weather. He is right that it teaches young people key life skills that they can take forward for the rest of their lives. We all know the crisis we have, with more than 1 million young people not in education, employment or training. A good enrichment offer is a key way of reversing the alarming increase we have seen in recent years. The Government’s national youth strategy has some noble aims, including halving the participation gap in enrichment activities between disadvantaged young people and their peers, and giving half a million more young people access to a trusted adult outside of the home by 2035—I believe passionately in the power of role models, and I would love to go on about it longer, but I am looking at the time, so I will not. The warm words in the strategy are all well and good, but the funding must match them. Governments of all colours make big announcements, but the funding does not always match them. That is my concern: that the money being put forward is not enough to deliver the objectives. Government can often be siloed, so I hope that the Minister will also commit to making a concerted effort to ensure that policies and programmes across Government are put into practice in a more holistic and strategic way in this area. There ought to be an understanding of the need for funding pots and programmes for enrichment to complement one another, to work in tandem, and not to duplicate efforts or to compete with other Departments’ aims. Will the Minister therefore urge colleagues in the Department for Education to reverse the 22% cut to school PE funding and reverse the cut to the opening schools facilities fund, which would help many youth clubs to have somewhere to provide their services?
The attempted murder of Stephen Ogilvie in Belfast last month shocked people throughout the country. The man accused of this horrific attack is thought to have crossed into Northern Ireland illegally from the south. People from all communities are asking what more can be done to prevent people from coming into the UK illegally across that land border. Following the terrible events in Belfast last month, will the Government commit to significantly enhanced operations on the border, similar to those already run by the Republic?
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) for securing this important urgent question. Anyone who has travelled or spoken to those who have tried to use the new European entry-exit system understands why the scale of the challenges over summer is so great, and despite all the problems, it has now been reported that a separate new online system to preauthorise entry to the EU will be delayed until next year. That is a pitiful response, indicative of the problems facing so many UK travellers, and there is nowhere near the urgency needed to address the problems facing the EES as we enter the summer holidays. As the president of Airports Council International Europe recently expressed, politicians should “stop pretending...that EES is working just fine. It is not.” That delusional attitude among EU colleagues is not acceptable. With the EU telling representatives of the travel industry that a full suspension of the system is not needed and not possible, the Government must stand behind the interests of British travellers. For instance, there appears to be a ridiculous situation in which a facility built in Dover cannot be activated until the technology for the kiosks, which is the responsibility of the French authorities, is working. My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands, who chairs the Home Affairs Committee, is right: it is time to “apply maximum pressure” before chaos arrives at the border at Dover. Will the Minister detail what conversations the Government have had, and what pressure they will apply? Have they asked for a temporary suspension, relaxation or phased use of EES checks at periods of exceptional congestion? Given the increased traffic, what have the Government done to strengthen plans in case queues spill out of Dover or Folkestone? It is in all our interests to ensure that people can get through border checks quickly, and it is time to ensure that that happens.
I beg to move, That this House has considered the draft UK-EU Agreement on Gibraltar. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir John, for what I hope will be an interesting and constructive debate about the future of Gibraltar. I am delighted to be joined by the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar—the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin)—on which I serve as the vice-chairman. As the result of a discussion between me and the Gibraltar Government representative, who is in the Gallery, we thought it would be useful to have a fact-finding trip to Gibraltar, so that when the treaty on the future of the Rock was up for discussion, we could have one from an informed position. Two or three people who were hoping to go on the trip were unable to, but I was delighted that Baroness Butler-Sloss, the Cross-Bench peer, accompanied me, and we were also joined for one or two of the meetings by Lord James Wharton, from the upper House. Following discussions with the Gibraltar office here in London, we put together a programme that was pretty comprehensive and gave us a good overview of the views of the local population, the business community and, of course, the politicians in Gibraltar. We had a meeting with His Excellency the Governor, which was just a courtesy call, but it is always a pleasure to meet up with him and other senior diplomats to hear how they approach the issues. I should point out that we went at our own expense, so we were independent of the Government of Gibraltar. After we had seen the Governor, we were delighted to go to the airport and be joined by the Chief Minister, who delighted in giving us a tour of the airport. He has clearly devoted a great deal of time and effort to the arrangements that are necessary to ensure that all sides are content and, importantly, that the sovereignty of Gibraltar is maintained. We all know the long history of Spanish claims on the Rock, but that is definitely not in any way part of the treaty; sovereignty is absolute.
I can see the Minister nodding; no doubt he will confirm that later. On our trip to the airport, the concerns about Spanish officials operating on the Rock were, to some extent, assuaged. I was delighted that we were able to receive reassurance from not just the Chief Minister but his senior officials who accompanied us on the tour of the airport. I know there have been certain concerns about Spanish officials, police and the like operating within British territory, but the arrangements that have been made mean that, to a great extent, our fears can be assuaged. Next we visited the commander at the British base. He assured us that there is co-operation with the Spanish authorities, which is only beneficial to both sides. There is no interference in the operations of the base, and the military is content with the arrangements. The American navy had been in the port only a day or two before our visit. It was encouraging, particularly in view of the current world situation and some of the noises coming from the American Administration, that work and co-operation are continuing at a purely operational level. There was one visit on which we heard some discontent. We walked along Main Street and called in to see a number of retailers, purely at random, and they raised some concerns. As we know, the retail sector is struggling in many countries, and Gibraltar is no exception. Interestingly enough, one of the shops we went into dealt in ceramics, and the owner imported most of his products from the UK. He pointed out that because of various impositions on the ceramics sector, the costs were rising in the UK so much that it was becoming unprofitable to operate. With the proposed taxation arrangements in Gibraltar affecting retailers, he was going to cease operations in the not-too-distant future after being in business for about 25 years. It was very sad to hear that. But on the whole, although many of the retailers were not particularly happy, they recognised the overall benefits to Gibraltar of the operations. I have mentioned the concerns about security and so on. One of our meetings was with the chief commissioner of the police, who recognised that there are a number of issues that need what he described as “further consideration”. Having said that, when we left the meeting we felt that, on the whole, his concerns could be worked through. I am sure the Minister is well aware of them, but I would be more than happy to discuss them with him if that would be beneficial. We then had a lunchtime meeting with the Chief Minister, the Attorney General and the Health, Care and Business Minister. It is important to stress that we had full co-operation from the Chief Minister and his Ministers during our visit, bearing in mind that we had no official standing and were merely there as representatives of the all-party group. I want to put on the record our sincere thanks to the Gibraltar representative for assisting us in making the arrangements for the visit. In the course of the lunch with the Chief Minister, once we had dealt with the routine matters we were there to discuss, we had a very useful political discussion. It is always interesting to hear an outside politician’s views of what is happening over here in the UK. I am not entirely sure what they would make of it today, but a couple of months ago we had a fascinating discussion, mainly about whether there were concerns about the treaty across the political spectrum here in the UK. We were able to give reassurance, based on the meetings we had and knowing the views of colleagues from the all-party parliamentary group, that there would be all-party support from Westminster. According to the report we put together, we discussed the evolving UK-EU relationship, and on the whole the direction of travel was greatly supported. We also discussed a number of the issues that were causing concern, including—if I can remember the ins and outs of it—people taking advantage of the arrangements that were being put in place. It is probably not something we need to cover today, but it is worth recording that there were some concerns about people trying to take advantage of the health services provided in Gibraltar. We also had a constructive meeting with the vice-chancellor of the university, whom we had met on previous occasions. It was interesting to receive an update on how things were progressing there. We had an interesting meeting with Keith Azopardi, the leader of the opposition in Gibraltar, because we wanted to ensure that we received views on the treaty from across the political spectrum. He pointed out that the opposition had imposed a number of red lines in their discussions, but as Members will know, the draft treaty was eventually approved unanimously by the Gibraltarian Parliament. The leader of the opposition quite understandably pointed out his party’s concerns. As opposition parties do, it obviously wanted to carve out a position whereby if something went wrong, he would be able to say, “I told you so.” I can see Government Members smiling at that, because they have been in opposition—my party is in opposition now, and the shadow minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), may point out one or two of our concerns in that respect. Mr Azopardi expressed genuine concerns but—he will probably not thank me for saying this—in all honesty I think he was struggling to find reasons why he would have been tempted to vote against the treaty. It is important to recognise that political parties across Gibraltar have supported the treaty and feel on balance that it would be beneficial for it to be ratified.
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Following our meeting with the leader of the opposition, we met with Eva Wallace, who is a store manager at Morrisons. Those who know Gibraltar well will know that Morrisons is not just a key part of the retail scene there but a big business operation. Ms Wallace outlined what she described as the significant complexities that arose following Brexit, and the different but equally substantial complexities—such as labelling requirements—that will follow the treaty’s implementation. She pointed out that there would certainly be a reduction in the range of stock the store could offer. Having said that, it currently carries 20,000 different products, so I suspect most customers will not notice if that goes down to 17,000 or 18,000. Morrisons does business with Morocco, from where it gets tomatoes, and there had been problems with labelling. The store has a loyal customer base in Gibraltar, but felt that the ease of crossing the border would increase the footfall coming from Spain, for which bus trips were being arranged. The business is well established there and knows how to continue and hopefully increase footfall. The university vice-chancellor referred to the new immigration rules, and we noted in our report that the university would closely assess their impact on its attractiveness to prospective students from around the world. Research funding had been difficult to secure since Brexit, and the vice-Chancellor hoped that that might ease with the conclusion of the treaty. I will draw my comments to a close and allow other Members to take part. On balance, we came away with the overwhelming view that the treaty negotiations had been a success and that the final version of the treaty should be approved. It has cross-party support in Gibraltar and it would be regrettable if that were not reflected here at Westminster. I am interested to hear contributions from other Members. Having in a sense imposed problems on Gibraltar as a result of our leaving the EU, it is important that we have reached a satisfactory conclusion. We should congratulate our negotiating team, and the Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister and their colleagues in Gibraltar. I know from several visits over recent years that they have worked tirelessly to achieve the treaty, which is, on balance, welcome. I hope that, as it passes through the various stages in Westminster, we are able to finalise it in the very near future.