Alec Shelbrooke MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 16 Dec 2024 · United Front Work Department · Hansard source

  More

  The west certainly learned a lesson about energy supplies and where they come from when Russia invaded. To build on what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, I want to press the Minister on solar and renewables. The Government have an agenda to push this country quickly towards renewable energy, yet China manufactures and processes a lot of the materials that we need for it. Before we accelerate towards that goal, will the Minister undertake an assessment of the risk to our energy supply? That is a crucial piece of our national security.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Cumberlege Review: Pelvic Mesh · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend has just made an important point. He spoke about the removal of protrusions and seven surgeries. That almost puts a gloss on what has happened. We have all heard from women who have had the surgery and the experience of many of them is that they have been butchered. It is important to make that clear in this debate, especially for new Members, because we have discussed this in Parliament before: when we think of surgery, we think of any other normal surgery, but this surgery leaves huge amounts of scar tissue and has butchered women in ways that I will not go into now. That must be recognised when we describe some of the remedials that have happened, mainly because those carrying them out do not really know what they are doing at this stage.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Cumberlege Review: Pelvic Mesh · Hansard source

  More

  This is such an important debate, and many of us in this room have been working on this issue for a very long time. I point the hon. Gentleman to the Government’s review of the NHS. We only have nine centres. We have to emphasise how important it is that the review addresses the need for more surgeons in these areas. The issues that he is outlining are so common, yet we only have nine centres.

• 5 Dec 2024 · Cumberlege Review: Pelvic Mesh · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince); it is encouraging that new-intake MPs are already raising this issue. As he said in his opening remarks, constituents have been to see their Members of Parliament because of the pain, suffering and injustice that they have gone through, and they are still not getting anywhere. I am not sure who the lady is, but it is very nice to see her in the Gallery because it is an exceptionally important issue for women. Can we get back to one very important fact about this? We are dealing with people who have had their lives destroyed in the prime of life because of something they were recommended by the NHS. In all honesty, if we were at, say, the dentist’s and they said, “We need to do this to your tooth”, we would say, “Okay.” We would not say, “Can I come back tomorrow?” and then google for any issues. We trust the clinicians and listen to what they say. Let us flip that coin and give the other side: at the time, a lot of those clinicians genuinely thought that vaginal mesh was, for want of a better description, a bit of a miracle cure. As time has gone on, it has become apparent that it was one of the worst procedures that could ever have taken place, and it is the time lag that has created the problem. I have spoken about this topic many times. I have described some of the things that have happened to some of my constituents, including people who were once extremely active now not being able to stand up. When my constituent came to see me, she had to do the entire surgery stood up and leant over the table because she could not sit. She was younger than I am now. She eventually managed to take out private loans and have the mesh removed. There lies one of the big injustices: this was something done by the NHS, and the NHS has run away from its responsibility to solve the problem. I accept that it is difficult for someone who has had the procedure to accept that the surgeon who put the mesh in might be the person who will remove it. But we do not have enough experts in this area, which goes back to the intervention I made on the hon. Member for Harlow: as the review of the NHS comes forward, resourcing must be considered. I have said it before and I will say it again: I believe the NHS to be a misogynistic and sexist institution that was too quick to pat women on the head and say, “Oh well, it’s just what women go through,” in so many aspects of gynaecological health, as well as other things. I have known the Minister for a long time. I consider him to be a friend, and I know that he is in the job because he fundamentally believes in people’s rights. He has a hard task ahead of him. That hard task is not because of what the Minister wants to drive into place; it is because of the pushback that he is going to get from the NHS and the Treasury, which will say that it cannot be done. He is going to have a tough time, but we can already see that this is not a party political issue in the House. Many of us on the Conservative side criticised our own Government in debates on this subject, because they were getting the pushback from the Department of Health and Social Care and the Treasury—and we said that it was not good enough. Removing mesh is like taking hair out of chewing gum. It is not a simple operation. It is not just that it breaks up and starts to infect other organs in the body, which is what can cause the incontinence, as it makes its way into the gut; it has now been shown that there are low-level infections within the mesh. My constituent who finally had mesh removed had a period for the first time in 10 years. Think about that for a moment—being told, “Well, we’re not quite sure what is wrong,” and then, when the mesh is removed, suddenly having periods again after a decade. That shows how much the issue has not been taken as seriously as it should have been. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), and I were speaking only last week about a constituent who has a similar issue. Where could she find the mesh centres? There are nine mesh centres, but the issue affects the entire country. The hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) mentioned the NHS compensation scheme. We moved on from that because it simply was not working. People were not getting the compensation from the scheme because it was not really accessible, and it was confrontational. That comes back to the point of the NHS doing something but not wanting to take responsibility for it. I am afraid that the Minister will be under pressure from people saying, “You must defend the NHS. That is your job. You represent the NHS. When people criticise the NHS, they are criticising you and the Government.” But that is not true: the Minister will have our full support for pushing back in that way. This is the Thalidomide situation again—it is as controversial and, frankly, as scandalous as Thalidomide. We are talking about the “miracle drug” that women took in pregnancy to stop them from getting morning sickness, and it took years before it was banned; in some countries, it was used for several years after that. We pay compensation to victims of Thalidomide for the rest of their lives. I am proud to have been the Member of Parliament who in 2012 got the health grant extended for another 10 years. It is now a lifetime health grant. I am proud of that; it is something we did in this House. People turn around and say, “Redress is something we have to assess because there are so many people,” but why is that? There are so many people because the procedure was done willy-nilly and now those involved do not want to take responsibility. Many other Members want to speak, and I will let them have their say. The Minister has my full support and, I am sure, the full support of many Members here—and he is going to need it. I ask him to stay strong, to keep in mind why we are doing this and to remember the victims who have had their lives destroyed in every single aspect. They must have the redress and the ability through the NHS to have the situation rectified so that they are not borrowing £25,000 to go privately to the same surgeon they would see on the NHS.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is quite frightening about this policy is that perhaps the Government know exactly what they are doing, and that, a bit like “Animal Farm”, they think everything should be collectivised?

• 13 Nov 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. On 29 November, the House will be asked to consider the Second Reading of one of the most consequential pieces of legislation about the country’s make-up. I am genuinely approaching it with an open mind, but have many concerns. One is the short space of time for debate on that day. Will the Government commit, before 29 November, to two days—16 hours—of protected Government time for the Bill on the Floor of the House, so that we can examine and debate the Bill on Report, which is when much of what we are concerned about can be brought up? Otherwise, people like me may decline it a Second Reading, through fear that we may not be able to debate the issues in full.

• 11 Nov 2024 · Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will my right hon. Friend give way?

• 11 Nov 2024 · Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. We know what our rural communities are like, and I am sure we all enjoy a pint, but when I go to the pub at the moment I hear farmers in despair saying, “We were told this wouldn’t happen.” As much as the small family farms, it is the tenant farms who are under real threat. For all the statistics that are pumped out by the Treasury saying this and that, it very much sounded from the Secretary of State’s opening remarks that there is a small cabal at the top of No. 10 making all the decisions and that everybody else has to go out and sell them. We have all read that book, and we know where it comes from. I have to say to the Labour party that “Animal Farm” is not an agricultural playbook. That is what is going on: it is, “We will tell you how to run your farms. We will tell you where to get the money from. If you can’t do it, it is your failure. The state knows best how to run it.” Everything we have heard from Labour Front-Bench Members dismisses everything that has come from the NFU and thousands of farmers around the country. I find it hard to believe that anybody has had nothing but positive letters and positive emails in their inbox saying, “Oh, it’s fine. We’re very happy about it. Everything you’re doing is great for the community. It’s all right. We believe you. It was written in big white letters on the barn door that everything will be fine.” That will probably change later on and Labour will say, “No, that’s what it always said.” We have read that book, and the Labour party needs to start listening to the people who till and farm our land. It is not good enough to say, “You will be protected,” because they know that they will not be. That brings me back to the beginning. If we lose the people who understand the countryside and the hydrology, when in towns such as Tadcaster and rural villages such as Bishop Monkton and many more around my constituency we see housing going up on the land that has to be sold off to pay the inheritance tax bill, the flooding will become greater and greater. Ultimately, that will lead to a far higher cost to the country than the small amount of punitive tax that Labour claims will save the NHS.

• 11 Nov 2024 · Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. I congratulate all hon. Members who have made their maiden speech today; they have all been genuinely fascinating and worth listening to. I want to touch on the flooding issues that really cause concern in rural areas. Even in towns such as Tadcaster, which has the River Wharfe running through it, flooding is caused not just by water from the river, but by run-off in the town. The town depends on serviceable drainage, which can often get blocked, and drainage flaps. We are trying to get flood defences built, and are moving forward with money put in place by the last Conservative Government. Tadcaster’s flood alleviation scheme is crucial to the economic regeneration of the town, because people in such towns cannot have faith in the local economy if they are flooded all the time. I say with this with great disappointment. I have had several meetings on these issues with the Environment Agency, Yorkshire Water and Councillor Kirsty Poskitt—she is an independent councillor, but we are working well together—and Yorkshire Water promised us that the flap valve in Tadcaster that drains the water from the high street would be serviced once a month. That was a lie, and it has now said that it will do so every six months. That is not good enough. We are trying to do what we can for our communities, but we see the people in charge—the people whose responsibility this is—lie to our faces. We will have further meetings about that, because communities need certainty, and so do businesses. There are also issues when housing developments are built in places with existing flood concerns. When we really get out into the countryside, communities can be cut off completely. They are struggling to cope with the watercourses as they are now, and we know that the weather and climate are changing—there is more water. I have had had several meetings in one village, Bishop Monkton, since I became the Member of Parliament. I have spoken to local people, the parish council, local councillor Nick Brown and the flood groups. Again, promises were made, but we are not getting anywhere. Bishop Monkton has been let down by Yorkshire Water and the EA for too long. There is a new planning application for 60 new homes, and they say that the water system can cope with it. It cannot—that is blatantly obvious. When these big developments go in, Yorkshire Water and the Environment Agency should make them do water alleviation work through soakaways and slowing the flow, rather than just saying, “Well, according to our models, it can cope.” Sewage flows down the street in that small, picturesque, beautiful Yorkshire village in my constituency, yet it is claimed that there is nothing wrong. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), who is a sound man, being a West Ham fan, said that nobody knows land better than those who manage it. He is absolutely right. That is why we should be concerned about this inheritance tax raid on farming, which will get rid of tenant farmers—those who have worked the land for generations and understand best the watercourses and what happens there. In the villages where I talk to people, who knows better than anybody else the hydrology of the land? It is the farmers and the people who live there. If all that goes to corporates who have no contact with the local communities, we will lose the knowledge and memory of the people who have worked that land for centuries.

• 11 Nov 2024 · Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is hitting the nail on the head. In my speech, I mentioned that Tadcaster is unable to get rid of the surface water. That affects a few businesses, but the whole town is destroyed by those businesses not being able to reopen and having insurance problems, despite the fact that there are not enough houses under the Environment Agency’s plan. The point that the Environment Agency has to take notice of is, where does the economy build from?

• 29 Oct 2024 · Zero Emission Vans · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) on securing the debate and on her thoughtful and well laid-out speech, covering a range of really important issues. The way she has brought this debate is a credit to her. In that spirit, I hope the Minister and I can have a positive interaction and try to get some answers. I know we can all agree that vans play an integral role in our economy, and if the UK is to decarbonise successfully, vans will need to play a central part. Any measures in service of this welcome transition must offer a pragmatic and reasonable way forward, which the hon. Lady outlined so well. It is key to remember that too speedy a transition to electric vehicles can present challenges that we may not yet be ready to address. It is probably no surprise that I want to draw attention, first, to the measures taken by the last Conservative Government and the manner in which they did so. They spent over £2 billion to transition the UK to zero emission vehicle use, and as of November 2023, the plug-in van grant alone had supported over 40,000 electric vans and HGVs across the UK. The previous Government also acknowledged the challenges presented by battery warranty requirements and amended battery warranty capacities, which was a welcome move. In 2023, the Department for Transport took the welcome step of announcing that the additional five-hour training requirement for drivers would be removed, and that it would make changes to towing allowances for electric vans weighing up to 4.25 tonnes. Again, the hon. Lady touched on some of the very important issues facing the industry. I urge today’s Government to continue this work and to listen to the sector. Specifically, I ask the Minister whether the Government intend to retain the changes that I mentioned and whether she will commit to the renewal of the plug-in van grant, which is set to expire at the end of March 2025. It is critical that this Government continue on the route established by the previous Government and that they do not get too tied-up in any longer-term reviews that may hold things up. I know that the Minister is widely experienced in transport from her previous role and that she will be across these important issues. The industry and drivers would appreciate more certainty about what measures the Government intend to retain and what action they intend to undertake. I hope that the Minister will offer some specificity. I also hope that the Government will commit to engaging with the industry on a range of issues, including MOT testing and drivers’ hours to further understand how the Government can pragmatically remove barriers to aid decarbonisation for fleets. As the hon. Member for Tamworth rightly mentioned, infrastructure is crucial. As of May 2024, the Government, in collaboration with the industry, supported the installation of over 61,000 publicly available charging devices. That included more than 10,000 rapid-charge points. The hon. Lady spoke about being able to charge the vehicles, and the infrastructure involved. That is very important, but we also need to be able to generate the electricity if the infrastructure is in place. Does the Minister intend to have a wider conversation with the Energy Secretary about how quickly the building of new turbine-run power stations will be up and running so that we can try to meet the current demand, as well that of the infrastructure that needs to be put in place? To reach 300,000 chargers by 2030, the number of public charge points installed annually must continue to grow by around 30%. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have plans to maintain that growth year on year? Finally—but of central importance—given that the Government have confirmed it that they are moving the date for new petrol and diesel vehicles back to 2030, can the Minister provide clarity on the timeline for vans? Changes must be pragmatic. I think the hon. Member for Tamworth will not be aware that I sat on the Bill Committee for the Energy Act 2023 in the last Parliament, and that I made the point then that we need a pragmatic approach that takes the public with us. In that spirit, I ask the Minister to reflect on how that can be achieved, communicated and properly undertaken. I ask her to consider how the concerns about the potential costs that might be put on businesses will be addressed through new employment laws, and whether that is one of the unseen consequentials after the Budget that may stop some of the investment. I am requesting that she looks holistically at all the different aspects relating to where small businesses, in particular, may look to invest in this area. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some clarity on the questions I posed, and I again congratulate the hon. Member for Tamworth on a very well thought-out speech.

• 28 Oct 2024 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  It has been a held belief across all Governments that a two-state solution is the only way to break the cycle of violence, but of course after Israel withdrew from Gaza, that pretty much led to what happened on 7 October. Can the Foreign Secretary use his office and the UK Government to lead discussions proactively, as a friend to Israel and a key member of the United Nations, on what security can be put in place in a two-state solution, using allies around, to ensure that Israel can have the confidence such a development will not be used as an attack platform to murder so many people once more?

• 28 Oct 2024 · China: Human Rights and Sanctions · Hansard source

  More

  In the Foreign Secretary’s self-declaredly “robust” conversations with the Chinese Government, did he give a time limit for lifting sanctions on British politicians, including Members of this House, and did he outline the consequences if that were not met? Or were his talks just chat, and not robust?

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend; pragmatism is important when we talk about business. In that spirit, there is a pragmatic reason why the Bill should not be given its Second Reading today—perhaps at some point it should, but I fear it has been rushed through to meet the spin about the first 100 days. I would wager that few Labour Members today had plans to talk about unpaid internships, which is a very important issue. I could talk for a very long time about unpaid internships, as I have for hours in this Chamber previously. To ensure equal opportunities for young people, the issue of internships is vital, but it is one that is sadly lacking from the Bill. That speaks to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton: the Bill has to some extent been rushed.

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to the amendment, especially about the Bill being rushed through without full consultation. On 13 May 2014, I tabled a ten-minute rule Bill on the Prohibition of Unpaid Internships, as Members will see in volume 580 of Hansard , column 593. On 14 November 2016, I tabled a private Member’s Bill, the National Minimum Wage (Workplace Internships)—volume 616 of Hansard , column 1156. On 27 October 2017, Lord Holmes of Richmond tabled the Unpaid Work Experience (Prohibition). And on 5 February 2020, I co-sponsored the Unpaid Work Experience (Prohibition) Bill introduced by Alex Cunningham, the former Member for Stockton North, now retired. Despite unpaid internships being mentioned in the Government’s policy documents on work, they are not in the Bill. The Government have said that they will tighten up the ban, but there is no ban on unpaid internships—they exist, as they did in the last Parliament, not least with many a Member on the opposite side of the House. If there were such a ban, it would not have to be mentioned in policy documents. A ban should have been brought in alongside the Bill. There will be a lot of hubris on the Government Benches about bringing forward a landmark employment Bill, with Labour Members saying the Conservatives did nothing, despite all the evidence laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) in his excellent opening speech. [Interruption.] It is all very well burying one’s head in the sand, but every one of the Bills I brought forward got kicked into the long grass, not least my private Member’s Bill, when the only Labour Member present was the shadow Minister. If Labour MPs had turned up, we might have been able to get a closure motion, but they decided not to. That has been the story throughout. If the Deputy Prime Minister does want the Bill to go through, she needs to fight off whatever it was that stopped it each time; I always started out with the commitment that it would happen, and then somehow people were convinced not to do it. I say that in a constructive way to the Deputy Prime Minister, who I know very well. An intern should be defined as a worker. We were talking about an amendment to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 that says that work experience is important, but after 20 days or four weeks in work, an intern should be treated as an employee. Work should always pay, and if someone is contributing after that period of time, they are adding something to the business.

• 21 Oct 2024 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Who would decide whether a rejection is reasonable or unreasonable?

• 15 Oct 2024 · Gaza and Lebanon · Hansard source

  More

  Some 60,000 people were displaced in northern Israel, which led to the attacks in Lebanon targeting Hezbollah. When Israel responds to Iran’s attack, will we say that Israel should cease fire? If so, why are we not talking to further regional partners to de-escalate from Iran’s provocation in Gaza, Lebanon and directly?

• 14 Oct 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In light of the latest Hezbollah attack on Israel, will the Secretary of State assure the House that we will continue to supply defensive equipment to Israel to help it defend itself against Iranian proxies?

• 10 Oct 2024 · Trams: Leeds and West Yorkshire · Hansard source

  More

  Let me say to my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), that my constituency does not have a train station either. Joining up towns and cities in the north of England is a way to untap this country’s great economic potential. As the first ever shadow Minister for northern transport, and a Yorkshire MP, I am incredibly excited about the mass transit system in Leeds that I have campaigned on for years. Along with the rest of Network North, it will be a transformative endeavour but, unfortunately, Labour has a history of not delivering mass transit projects in Leeds. In fact, it seems the only deliveries it is interested in are boxes of clothes from Lord Alli. What message does that send to the people and businesses of Leeds, whose lives it will improve? Can the Minister put them all out of their misery and confirm that the project is going ahead?

• 8 Oct 2024 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Exemptions · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. The Government are about to realise the reality of governance over manifesto ideology. Fundamentally, this policy will remove the ability of people to send their children to local primary schools as places get filled by those who currently can just about afford to use private schools. As there is limited time, I have a series of questions that I would like to put to the Minister. To be fair to him, this is not his Department—education Ministers are running away from their policy—so I doubt he will be able to answer them today, but perhaps he can take them away. Some of them have been covered, but I think it is important to get them on the record. Will the Minister confirm whether a low-income family whose child is in receipt of a bursary would be liable for VAT on the total school fees? Would a staff member in receipt of an employee discount on fees also be liable? With boarding schools already at 86% capacity and some already withdrawing from the market, will the continuity of education allowance for military families still be able to house the 4,200 who currently use it? Will arts schools be exempt? If so, and we are starting to exempt schools, is this even legal? If we do not exempt art schools, that means people who have the talent to go will have to be in the vicinity of the school or travel. That is going to withdraw a huge amount of opportunity from those in the arts sector. What mitigation is there going to be for the financial planning of international pupils? They have a choice of a global market. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) mentioned, this is a £2.1 billion export market. Again, is it going to be legal to exempt certain schools, such as those involved with SEND provision? What impact will there be on council budgets? There is an issue for those of us who represent vast rural communities: if children are taken out of the private sector and put into the state sector, the state will to have to fund the transport for those children to go to school. Upon whose budget will that fall? Fundamentally —there is evidence of this from every council—if primary schools are already close to capacity, will the state pay to put those children into private places? Will parents then be taxed on that as an in-kind benefit or will the law be retrospectively changed—which, of course, would suit the Prime Minister and a lot of people with free wardrobes?

• 8 Oct 2024 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Exemptions · Hansard source

  More

  This will clearly be open to legal challenge, which stands very little chance of being in the courts within the next three months. As it gets held up, will this policy not cause mass disruption by being introduced in the middle of the academic year?

• 7 Oct 2024 · Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Today we mark that terrible anniversary of the biggest slaughter of Jews since the second world war. We must also note that since that day, more than 60,000 Israelis have been displaced in northern Israel by the actions of Hezbollah. The Israeli Government have had no choice but to mobilise the Israel Defence Forces, and any Israeli citizen can have to be involved in that. I am proud of the fact that yesterday Leeds held a multi-faith remembrance service in Millennium Square, attended by more than 1,000 people. Does the Prime Minister agree that that is in marked contrast to the individual who drove the Jewish chaplain of Leeds into hiding because, as an Israeli citizen, he had to serve as a member of the IDF? Is that not an act of pure hatred and antisemitism?

• 10 Sept 2024 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. He is quite right to outline the threats that Russia now poses to NATO territory. Last week, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly was in Alaska, looking at the missile intercept system, part of which is done through RAF Fylingdales. However, the UK and most of Europe is not protected by the missile intercept system. In relation to the comments he has made on the threat Russia poses, may I ask that, as we move into the strategic defence review, a NATO-led missile intercept system is something that he discusses? It is quite a hole in the defence of Europe at this moment in time.

• 18 Jul 2024 · Foreign Affairs and Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I wish the right hon. Gentleman, who was a committed parliamentarian in his shadow role, all the best in his new role, to which he brings great depth and seriousness. He has just described the strategic review and outlined the ambition to get to 2.5% of GDP. If that strategic review recommends more than 2.5%, will the Government still enact it in full?

• 18 Jul 2024 · Foreign Affairs and Defence · Hansard source

  More

  It is a real pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher). It is also a great pleasure to have another Yorkshire Hammer in the House, but let me give him some friendly advice: he might not want to have my neighbour, the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), sitting behind him next time. If the hon. Gentleman does give him any trouble, he should just ask to compare their teams’ European cabinets. As the current leader of the UK delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I want to say something about defence in an ever-changing world. I hope there is not too much of a pause in the defence reviews that have already taken place, and there has been some debate about that. I understand why a new defence review is taking place under a new Government, but I think it worth noting that we have moved to a 360° view of NATO and the threats that it faces. We may well see a change of Administration in the United States, and with any change of Administration it takes time to work out the direction that the new Administration want to take. I do not feel as fearful as some about President Trump returning to the White House, because during his last tenure he invested heavily in NATO and did not undermine it. We know that while his habit is to create great upset and make big statements, the reality turns out to be somewhat different, and he works towards building on that. Nevertheless, this is something that will have to be considered. What Trump did succeed in doing was getting European allies to build their defence strategies and budgets, and we cannot escape the fact that the demands on the defence of Europe are growing and growing, not just on land but at sea. We know that Russia has mapped the bed of the North sea. It has mapped the fuel pipelines and the data cables, and obviously the surface platforms are at risk. We know that the Royal Navy and our allies spend a great deal of time counteracting that, and I am proud that the Conservative Government established a huge shipbuilding programme the likes of which had not been seen for very many years. It provides long-term contracts that allow the shipyards and the companies to invest, and, crucially, allow the Royal Navy to be the capable force that it needs to be. That must be key not just to the maintaining of a maritime nation, but to where the maritime interests lie in the world. Climate change has already been mentioned today. An undeniable fact in that connection is the opening up of the High North and the north-east passage. Another undeniable fact is that the Russians have been rebuilding and revamping bases along their northern shoreline, and yet another undeniable fact is that the Ukraine war that Vladimir Putin illegally started, thinking he would be able to walk in and dominate that country in a very short space of time, has decimated his economy in the long run. Going to war will always decimate an economy, but this war has decimated Russia’s military, costing it a huge number of military personnel, and has made Putin reliant on other countries, such as China. It is notable that before the Ukraine war Chinese vessels never really went into the High North, but they do now because Russia lets them in. Tension will build in the High North, and we have to be ready for it. I think we are ready for it—we have taken part in vital exercises in the area—but that just goes to show how vital the Royal Navy is. It is, of course, also vital that we have a functioning air force, and that we continue with the procurement of F-35s. Russian jets try to violate our airspace—certainly NATO airspace—on, I think, a daily basis, and they need to be met with confrontation. NATO is a deterrent rather than an aggressive force, but deterrence can only happen if those concerned feel the consequences of the balance of power. I believe that NATO is strong enough at the moment. No other combined maritime force in the world constantly has at least 36 ships patrolling the sea; that is what NATO is able to bring together. However, it is vital that when we carry out the strategic defence review, we analyse not just what we need in maritime terms today, but what will come in the future; not just how we patrol the airspace today, but what will come in the future. We must also address the position of the Army, which has been under discussion for decades. It is all very well to talk about hollowing out the armed forces and going for the lowest number of personnel. This was, in many ways, the post-cold war dividend, and that dividend has gone, as a number of us warned that it would before the conflict in Ukraine, and it will not come back. That leads to some tough choices. There has to be honesty in the conversation about how much of our GDP we should be spending, because it will add up to 100%, and that means that the budget must be cut somewhere else. I am proud that we have the track to get to 2.5%, but, as I was trying to ask in my intervention on the Secretary of State, if this review adds up to more than 2.5%—if it says, “This is what we need to be able to defend a changing arena”—will the Government spend that money? We cannot on one the hand say that we aim to get to 2.5%, rather than giving a specific date, and on the other hand say, “We are going to have a strategic defence review, but what if it costs 3%?” Will this actually be achieved? That is an important question.