Hammersmith Bridge

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for that question; I will ask the Minister the same thing. Where is that funding? Has agreement been reached between the three bodies, Transport for London, Hammersmith and Fulham council and the Department for Transport? That was the agreement, but where is the agreement now? I am not sure where it is or what funding is on the table, so I am hoping to hear from the Minister later.

The bus taskforce that I mentioned has had to meet monthly since then and is still meeting. It is really good and we are getting a lot done—we are making changes to try to get the traffic moving—but we still have the constant background of the closure of Hammersmith bridge, which in effect makes transport, particularly on the roads in my constituency and those surrounding, less resilient. When one thing happens, there is a knock-on effect that significantly clogs up the roads.

Seven years on, residents, commuters and businesses in Putney are still paying the price. For many residents in Putney and Roehampton, it is not a minor inconvenience or something we could have just got over in the last seven years; it is a fundamental barrier to daily life. The majority of households in the London borough of Wandsworth do not have a car. They rely on buses to get to work, school and medical appointments, as well as to see family. The loss of these connections has made everyday life significantly harder.

Behind the statistics are real people, real stories and real consequences. Ana is a constituent from west Putney who came along to my recent action event at the bridge. She has a 12-year-old son, Santiago, who has Down’s syndrome and complex needs. He attends a specialist school in Hammersmith on the other side of the bridge, which is the nearest school equipped to support him. Before the closure, their journey was straightforward and manageable. Since then, it has become an exhausting and unpredictable ordeal, often taking well over an hour each way.

On one occasion, Ana allowed two full hours to take Santiago from school in Hammersmith back to a medical appointment at St George’s hospital. The journey took nearly three hours and they missed the appointment entirely. Even when the hospital kindly rescheduled, the same journey the following week still took two and a half hours. It should take nowhere near that and certainly would not if the bridge were reopened to vehicles. That is not just an inconvenience; it is missed healthcare.

Furthermore, the closure has cut Santiago off from important social opportunities. He used to attend weekly football sessions for children with Down’s syndrome in Shepherd’s Bush, which supported his physical health, confidence and social development, but the journey became so long and exhausting that he would fall asleep in the car. Eventually, he had to stop attending altogether, missing out on three years of those vital physical activities. I have spoken about Ana’s experience at length because it highlights something we must not overlook: although the closure affects everyone, disabled children and their families are hardest hit. Public transport is not always a viable option, and the long diversions that currently exist place enormous strain on already complex routines.

I have heard countless more stories from constituents before and since I told them about this debate. Caroline, another resident, drives to visit her 92-year-old mother for dinner on Fridays. What used to be a 40-minute journey before the bridge closure now takes up to two hours. Paula told me that her heart sinks every time she gets into her car to visit her daughter and family in Hammersmith. With only one viable route left via Fulham Palace Road, what was once a straightforward journey now often takes twice as long with no certainty about the delays she will face. These are the quiet, cumulative losses—a loss of time with loved ones, missed moments and added stress—that rarely make the headlines, but define people’s daily lives.

I have also heard from residents whose cancer treatments have been disrupted, from separated parents struggling to maintain contact with their children, and from students cut off from study opportunities. Some of the words my constituents have used to describe the reality of living with the bridge’s continued closure are: “nightmare”, “miserable”, “unsafe”, “disastrous”, “absurd” and “national scandal”. That is the human cost of inaction on the bridge.

The consequences are not just limited to individuals; they extend across the local economy as well. More than 75% of local businesses report moderate or severe negative impacts as a result of the closure. Reduced footfall in shops, delayed deliveries and staff struggling to get to work have all taken their toll. Small businesses in Putney have been hit hard. Customers are deterred by the congestion. Journeys that should take minutes take far longer. Deliveries are delayed and more expensive. The closure has created a drag on economic activity across Putney, Barnes, Hammersmith and beyond. At a time when local high streets are already under pressure, it is an added burden they can ill afford.

There is also a clear environmental cost. Thousands of additional vehicles are now being diverted through already congested roads, especially Putney High Street, because we can only go along to the next bridge—we do not have all the options that there would otherwise be in a different area. This has led to increased air pollution, higher noise levels and more dangerous conditions for road users. Cyclists are put off cycling through Putney because of the higher congestion and heavier traffic, making it feel more unsafe. I really am worried about potential cyclists—the people we want to get out of their cars and on to the roads using more active travel—because many in Putney are put off. Bus journeys, as I have said, are further delayed as well. The overall effect is a transport network that is less efficient, less safe and less sustainable, and that is not good for our environment.

The situation has now become even more acute. On the other side of us, the closure of Albert bridge in February 2026, again due to structural issues, is expected to last up to a year, and we do not know how much longer. That has placed even greater strain on the remaining crossings and has intensified congestion across south-west London. Albert bridge carried 20,000 vehicles a day before the February closure. With two key bridges affected, residents are effectively being cut off from travelling north of the river in a reasonable and reliable way. Of course they can travel, but it is the extra time and the unreliability that people tell me about. For a global city like London, that is not sustainable.

Connectivity is not a luxury. It is essential for economic growth, access to services, and the functioning of daily life. Since being elected in 2019, I have consistently campaigned for the full reopening of Hammersmith bridge to vehicles, including buses. I have raised the issue 26 times in Parliament. I have secured debates and led action days and public meetings in Putney. I have worked closely with residents and with Wandsworth borough council, which is also fully engaged and supportive of the restoring of the bridge. I have also worked with campaigners, including the Putney Action Group and Putney Society. I have raised the matter directly with the Prime Minister and pressed for leadership and urgency, and I have raised it with the Mayor of London.

Since April 2019, Hammersmith and Fulham council has spent nearly £54 million simply to make Hammersmith bridge safe. To put that into perspective, all London councils combined spent just £100 million between 2010 and 2021 on maintaining and repairing every road and river bridge across the capital, and even then much of that cost was ultimately picked up by Transport for London or central Government. The impact on Hammersmith and Fulham council’s budget is disproportionate. Thanks to the council’s action, Hammersmith bridge is no longer in danger of collapsing into the Thames, but it still costs the council around £2 million a year just to maintain its current restricted state. That money does not deliver a permanent solution; it merely postpones failure.

Hammersmith and Fulham council cannot afford to fund further repair works. Continuing to spend millions of pounds on temporary fixes is financially unsustainable and fundamentally unfair. The current approach is not viable and cannot continue. It is wholly unreasonable to expect Hammersmith and Fulham council to shoulder sole responsibility for a nationally significant, grade II listed heritage bridge. The unfair cost share must be addressed. In contrast to the Albert bridge, where funding is shared 75% by Transport for London and 25% by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, responsibility for Hammersmith bridge falls disproportionately on Hammersmith and Fulham council, which is expected to fund around 33% of the enormous cost.

Where are we now? Years of stalemate have produced an internationally embarrassing situation and daily frustration for residents, businesses and commuters. That cannot be allowed to continue. I am glad that the new Government and the Minister have taken a much more active role, as the previous Government were so dismissive. The Minister has brought together key stakeholders for the taskforce. A meeting was held at the Department for Transport in January 2025, which I attended along with the key bodies, including the Department for Transport, Transport for London, Hammersmith and Fulham council, Richmond council, Wandsworth council, the deputy mayor for transport, Historic England and the Port of London Authority.

The taskforce considered six options, which I know really well because I get asked about them all the time on the doorstep; people want to know what the options were, what is happening and what will happen next.

Option zero, which is the one that is kind of on the table, is the Foster and Partners and COWI proposal to deliver a temporary double-deck crossing within the existing structure of Hammersmith bridge, allowing pedestrians, cyclists, buses and cars to use the bridge while the full repair and restoration works are carried out around it using barges.

Option one was bridge closure with no access allowed; the structure would remain a beautiful monument, but no more than that. Option two was bridge repair and restoration sufficient to allow for active travel by pedestrians, cyclists and two single-decker buses. That would restore the bridge to how it was before the closure.

Option three was bridge repair and restoration sufficient for active travel only. Option four was a replacement bridge with a 44-tonne weight limit—to just get rid of the bridge and build a new one. I cannot tell Members how many Putney residents are in favour of that one. Option five was an offline replacement bridge—one somewhere else—with the existing structure remaining in place either around it or next to it.

I really appreciate that the Minister took a back-to-basics approach at the meeting to assess all the options and to see where we are now. In the meeting, option zero—the Foster and Partners and COWI one—remained on the table, and options one, four and five were ruled out on cost grounds. At that meeting, the Minister was also clear that leaving the bridge as it is “is not an option”. Officials were tasked with properly costing the restoration, and Historic England agreed in the meeting to look at revisiting its requirements, which is an important step that could help reduce the previously estimated £240 million cost.

I welcome the confirmation since then that funding may be available through the national structures fund and the Minister’s recent statement that Hammersmith bridge would be a strong candidate for investment from that fund. More broadly, the continuing impasse exposes a deeper structural problem. Now is the time to review the ownership and responsibility for all the bridges in London. These strategic assets should sit under a single authority with responsibility for maintenance, repairs and long-term investment. They should be taken out of the responsibility of local councils and put in the responsibility of one single body.

In conclusion, Minister, what concrete actions have been taken since the last taskforce meeting in January 2025? Is the Foster and Partners and COWI option still being assessed and considered? What is the current estimated cost—the updated figure—of fully restoring Hammersmith bridge? Have there been meetings, with decisions made, between Hammersmith and Fulham council, Transport for London and the Department for Transport, and has a viable agreed plan been reached between those three bodies? Has an application been made under the structures fund? If not, when will it be made? Either way, when will a decision about the structures fund funding be made? When will the taskforce next meet—I hope it will be soon—and will a firm timetable be shared with it? Finally, has any assessment been made in consultation with the Mayor of London on transferring responsibility for all bridges to one London body?

Let me be clear: action must be taken now. Potential funding is not the same as secured funding, discussions are not the same as decisions and processes cannot become excuses for further delays. Residents have waited for seven long years—seven years of severed communities, gridlocked roads, lost bus routes and daily hardship. That is not acceptable for a major transport route in our capital city. It is not acceptable for families trying to get to school or hospital appointments. It is not acceptable for businesses trying to survive. It is not acceptable for the many residents who rely on public transport simply to live their daily lives. The social, economic and environmental costs are too high. The human impact is too great.

What is needed now is clear and urgent: a fully funded plan, a clear and credible timetable, and decisive action to begin—and then end—restoration without further delay. The bridge has stood since 1887; it has served generations of Londoners. Now is the time to restore it and to reconnect the communities who depend on it.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

I see two hon. Members who want to speak. I shall call the Front Benchers at 5.08 pm. I will not be setting a time limit, but I am sure Members will consider each other.

Airport Expansion

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Those tests must be met, including through the development consent order. Just for the record, I voted for the framework in 2018, because I thought that it passed those tests.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

Many of my constituents in Wetherby and Easingwold use Leeds Bradford airport, and the same will be true of the constituents of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood). For years, I have wanted expansion of Heathrow so that morning flights from Yorkshire could come down to Heathrow airport, allowing transatlantic flights to be boarded in Yorkshire. May I urge the Minister, when considering the expansion of Heathrow, to always give firm attention to regional airports, especially Leeds Bradford airport in Yorkshire? It would allow the economy to grow significantly if people could check in at Leeds and get off in New York.

[Mike Kane]

I could not agree more with the right hon. Member, though it pains me to say it. We have five great northern runways stretching from John Lennon to Manchester, Leeds Bradford and Newcastle, and we should be focusing on regional connectivity in particular. On Leeds Bradford, my recollection is that because of the lack of decision making by the last Government, confidence was lost in its development. Let us see if we can get a framework for improving connectivity at Leeds Bradford, including for those in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood).

Zero Emission Vans

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let us continue the Yorkshire love-in with shadow Minister Sir Alex Shelbrooke.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

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?

[Simon Lightwood]

Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that the Conservatives were in government for 14 long years. Now, the hon. Gentleman has the temerity to stand there and ask why we are not getting on with it. This Government are moving quick and fixing things. We are determined to work with Tracy Brabin as the Mayor of West Yorkshire to achieve her objectives.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

I am delighted by the progress that the hon. Lady mentions, and she is right about that third station. I will meet officials, so that I can write to her with the details. I am keen to work with her local authority to see how we can use regeneration moneys to achieve that end. As for building on the 240 Access for All step-free access stations that we have, we will make decisions shortly. We have been through 300 brilliant applications, and we are shortlisting them for delivery. I will happily write to her to ensure that she has the detail about her projects.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Long before I was elected, it had been identified that in the east direction, the Leeds to Selby railway line had only a footbridge, which restricted access for so many people. Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the construction taking place on the Access for All bridge in Garforth? It shows that Conservative MPs working with Conservative Governments improve rail services for all constituents.

[Huw Merriman]

My right hon. Friend is spot on, as always. I thank him for his work, because ultimately that project would not have got off the ground without the campaigning and partnership that he provided. It just shows that a superb MP working in the community, and the Access for All stations fund, which has delivered 240 projects and will deliver more, is a winning partnership.

Zero-emission Vehicles, Drivers and HS2

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I actually can. If the hon. Gentleman goes to the website of Oxfordshire County Council, he will see a very specific proposal for, I think, five roads. That council is proposing to have filters on those roads and to issue permits, enabling local residents to only drive down them a specific number of times a year. That is a Labour-Lib Dem-Green council, or at least it was when the proposal was made. If a resident exceeds that number of permitted journeys, a picture will be taken of their licence plate and they will be issued with a fine. We in the Conservative party do not support those sorts of restrictions being put on motorists by local authorities—clearly the hon. Gentleman does, but we do not, and we will not stand for it.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s statement. Phase 2b to Leeds was cancelled earlier in the year, so does my right hon. Friend know when the safeguarded land through my constituency will be released back? That has had a big impact on constituents who have seen their lives blighted and have been unable to move forward. Any news my right hon. Friend has would be gratefully received; he may want to write to me later so that I can feed it back to my constituents.

[Mr Harper]

To help my right hon. Friend, phase 2a safeguarding will be formally lifted within weeks. Phase 2b safeguarding, which covers the area in which his constituents live, will be amended by next summer to allow for any safeguarding we need for the Northern Powerhouse Rail projects. In the meantime, we will start taking steps to lift the blighting effect of HS2 in areas where safeguarding is going to be lifted. We will obviously set out the details of that in the usual way. There is a proper legal process to be followed, and we will continue working with local authorities in my right hon. Friend’s area and colleagues in the House to keep them fully informed.

HS2: Revised Timetable and Budget

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

The Government are plainly not committed only to delivery between London and Birmingham, because the entire plan is predicated on a two-year rephasing of the parts going up towards Crewe from the midlands. Beyond that, up to Manchester, the indicative timeline does not change at all. The Bill Select Committee remains in place, as does its brief, so that commitment is there. It is not a commitment just to the south-east, and the hon. Member has certainly got that wrong. The £96 billion integrated rail plan is based solely on the midlands and the north, and that shows this Government’s desire to level up across the midlands and the north, as opposed to spending money in the south-east.

Active travel is not part of this urgent question, but £3 billion will be spent by this Government on active travel during this Parliament. There are levelling-up fund bids that go toward active travel. We are absolutely passionate and committed to the delivery of active travel, and that will continue, as will our delivery of HS2.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

So far, the Minister has rightly been talking about phase 1 and phase 2a, but not about phase 2b. My constituents and I are sick to death of waiting for the inevitable announcement that phase 2b is not happening. I have constituents who have been suffering for over a decade while preserved land kept aside has ruined their ability to sell their houses and forced them into compensation schemes. It is not going to happen—Mrs Miggins in the Dog and Duck knows it is not going to happen. So will the Minister stand at the Dispatch Box right now—not to talk to me about the integrated rail plan; I have been hearing that cobblers for three years—and tell me that my constituents will get their land released and stop having their lives blighted?

[Huw Merriman]

When the integrated rail plan was published, it made reference to a Leeds area study that needed to be published, which in itself would unlock money for a mass transit scheme for Leeds. We will shortly bring forward that route study, which will provide the answers on how HS2 trains can go up to Leeds. Until then, the safeguarding will remain in place. I am keen that we get those answers, so that we either find a solution to get HS2 trains up to Leeds—again, that will be down to the study and responses—or, if that is not possible, decisions will need to be made about land and property that is currently blighted. That will occur once the route study has been published and responded to.

Rail Strikes

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend said, billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money was put into the railway industry and it kept almost everybody in employment. In my constituency, many businesses survive by servicing the footfall through the stations. Because these businesses employed staff and they were people’s own companies, they were not capable of getting the loans and grants that were in place, because they had to keep the company alive and keep the people they employed. So what does he think their reaction is to hearing about more public money spent on the railways, on top of the £16 billion, when they are struggling to get their businesses back on track? This strike will make it even worse for them.

[Grant Shapps]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point that out. Just as the railways and the country are recovering—after two years of being locked down, with many of our constituents having lost their jobs and businesses while coronavirus was going on, without the kind of £16 billion of protection that the railways have enjoyed—now is not the time to strike.

P&O Ferries

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

I should point out that the workers involved, many of whom I have been speaking to, frankly do not want to go back and work for P&O Ferries and/or have already accepted jobs elsewhere. I think they will be looking for a change in that company before they rush back.

On the P&O contracts, we have not found any that exist. On the DP World issue that the hon. Gentleman refers to, I have seen figures quoted for the amount of money in a contract, but that is actually money that, by and large, goes to the local authority—I think that is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) was making. It is for the local authority to then set out how the freeport operates. The hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt, however, that we will be keeping a close eye on that and increasing the pressure to ensure that the right thing happens with P&O.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, which has clarified many technical points. It will be important to analyse how the cruise ship industry accesses British waters and to ensure that the critical infrastructure of freight transport is not allowed to be held hostage again, which is what P&O tried to do on its own terms.

On the point of ensuring that seafarers are being paid at least the minimum wage in our waters, how will that technically be done if they are not registered through HMRC in this country?

[Grant Shapps]

I should point out again that P&O Cruises is not in any way, shape or form related to what has happened here. It is the people at P&O Ferries who are very much in the dock. With the ferries, we will ensure that that policing takes place through HMRC and the work of the ports themselves.

Russia’s Grand Strategy

Alec Shelbrooke Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Indeed, and I will be explaining how these apparently disparate events are integrated in Russia’s grand strategy.

Beneath the cloak of this military noise and aggressive disinformation, in recent months—Kazakhstan is another example—Russia has been testing the west’s response with a succession of lower-level provocations, and I am afraid that we have signally failed to convince the Russians that we mind very much or are going to do very much about them. They have rigged the elections in Belarus, continued cyber-attacks on NATO allies, particularly in the Baltic states, and demonstrated the ability to destroy a satellite in orbit with a missile, bringing space into the arms race. They continue to develop whole new ranges of military equipment, including tanks with intelligent armour, fleets of ice breakers, new generations of submarines, including a new class of ballistic missile submarine, and the first hypersonic missiles.

They have carried out targeted assassinations and attempted assassinations in NATO countries using illegal chemical weapons, provoked a migration crisis in Belarus to destabilise Ukraine, and brought Armenia back under Russian control, snuffing out the democratic movement there. They have claimed sovereignty over 1.2 million square miles of Arctic seabed, including the north pole, which together contain huge oil and gas and mineral reserves. This followed the reopening of the northern sea route, with Chinese co-operation and support from France and Germany, which also hope to benefit. Meanwhile, the UK has expressed no intention of getting involved.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. He has just outlined some weapons that Russia has developed, but does he agree that the recklessness with which it has done so makes them even worse? The nuclear-powered Poseidon torpedo is cooled by seawater, and they feel that some of their hypersonic missiles are cooled by the air, so they have no concerns whatsoever about radioactive contamination from the delivery systems, let alone the payloads.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

My right hon. Friend is completely right. They are ruthless about pursuing what they regard as their own interests and disregard any other risk. Indeed, they are very far from being risk-averse, and the west has been far too risk-averse to compete with that. I will come to that later, but I thank my right hon. Friend for reminding us about the Poseidon torpedo, which is a nuclear-tipped torpedo—another escalation in the arms race.

Russia has also been rearming the Serbs in the western Balkans, including the Serb armed forces and the police in the Serb enclave of Bosnia, with the intention of destabilising the fragile peace that NATO achieved 30 years ago. Russia has stepped up its activity and influence in north and central Africa and has even started giving support to Catalan separatists in Spain. Russia uses its diaspora of super-rich Russian kleptocrats to influence western leaders and exploit centres such as the City of London to launder vast wealth for its expatriate clients.

Following the shaming chairmanship of Gazprom assumed by the former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, so Russia has now recruited former French Prime Minister François Fillon to become a board director of the massive Russian petrochemicals company Sibur, with its headquarters in Moscow. The Russians must have contempt for us for being so gullible and corruptible. Our unilateral withdrawal from Kabul also vindicates their narrative that the west is weak, pointing out that we failed to stand by our moral principles or our friends.

Closer to home, look at how Gazprom has gradually and quietly reduced the gas supply to Europe, running down Europe’s gas reserves and causing prices to spike, leading to quadrupling gas and electricity prices in the UK. If Putin now chokes off the supply, it would take time and investment to put in place the necessary alternatives, which the Russians will seek to frustrate, as they already have in Algeria. Algeria was in a position to increase its supply of gas to EU, depending on the existing pipeline being upgraded, but a successful Russian influence campaign aimed at Germany and France prevented that from happening. Gazprom is enjoying its best ever year, so Putin can not only threaten western Europe’s energy supplies, but get the west to fund his war against the west.

Moreover, as gas supplies to Germany through Ukraine seem less reliable, so Germany continues to support Nord Stream 2, the pipeline that will bypass Ukraine, strengthening Russia’s hold over both countries immeasurably. At least we have the option of re-exploiting our gas reserves in the North sea. For as long as we require gas in our energy mix, we should be generating our own, not relying on imported gas from Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Following on from my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), it is worth saying that the Kiev International Institute of Sociology did a poll in eastern Ukraine and found that support for Russia had halved from 80% to 40% since Donbass was effectively invaded by Russia.

Nobody in today’s debate has stood up and said that Ukraine should join NATO. I accept my right hon. Friend’s argument that others have suggested it. NATO is one argument—my right hon. Friend says that is music to President Putin’s ears and he can exploit that—but this country is also a signatory to the 1994 Budapest agreement, which allowed Ukraine to give up its nuclear arsenal and have its borders protected by Russia, by us and by other countries, so I argue that we have a responsibility to Ukraine that falls outside our membership of NATO.

It is also worth putting on the record in the House that there are many reports of the ethnic cleansing of Tatars in Crimea. There are reports that 25,000 people have disappeared. There is a complete lockdown on the verification by outside international media of what is taking place in Crimea. To follow the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) about the population of Crimea, I do not think we can simply dismiss the matter by saying that the people of Crimea want to remain in Russia, because there are many aspects to it.

One thing that has been overlooked in today’s debate so far is that we have talked about the geopolitical consequences of the grand strategy but we have not spoken about the consequences of the murder that is happening on the ground in various areas where Russia has a malign influence, whether that is Crimea, the Donbass, Georgia, Armenia or other regions. We should be careful not to soften how we describe the situation today.

[Bob Stewart]

This is just a quick point: the 1994 Budapest accord referred not just to Ukraine but to Kazakhstan, and today Russians have gone into Kazakhstan. If we look at the accord, we see that we have guaranteed the sovereign integrity of Kazakhstan.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, because he reinforces the point that I am trying to make: this is not just about whether Ukraine should join NATO and whether we should support Ukraine. We have committed ourselves to other countries, but today’s debate seems to be saying, “Well, tough luck. There’s nothing we can do about it.”

On the grand strategy, if we try to summarise what Russia is trying to achieve overall, let us look at the EAEC—the Eurasian Economic Community—which was formed in 2000 and is now known as the Eurasian Economic Union, which Putin holds dear. The analysis is that it needs 250 million people to work as a viable internal trading bloc that could then challenge other areas. To achieve that, the union needs the 43 million Ukrainians and their powerful agricultural output to succeed. When we look at the countries Moscow wants to bring into that pact, we see that it is in effect a neo-USSR. As has been said many times today, we have to stand up to the idea that Russia can come to the table saying, in effect, “Troops must be withdrawn from all the east European NATO countries; otherwise, we are going to invade.”

My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) made an important point about the political situation in the USA. Let us not forget that then Vice-President Biden had an enormous fallout with President Obama about the surge into Iraq. He was always opposed to a lot of the interventions that took place. If we in this House know that, we can be damned sure that President Putin, sat in Moscow, knows that and he will be making that analysis.

I come back to where this all started: in the summer of 2013, when President Obama had said, “If you drop chemical weapons in Syria, that is a red line that we will not tolerate.” They dropped chemical weapons in Syria and President Obama pretty much just wrote a stiff letter to The Washington Post. We can track exactly what happened from that point: in less than a year President Putin walked into Crimea. Again, what did we do? Nothing. We did not do anything.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

May I briefly remind my right hon. Friend of what happened with the invasion of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2008? President Bush moved the sixth fleet into the Black sea, ready to confront Russian aggression, and the invasion stopped. We are going to need that kind of response now; of course, the two treaties and the hypersonic weapons are intended to pre-empt any possibility of that kind of response.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who reinforces the point that I was making. This is where we get the Jekyll and Hyde—or the paradox, if you like—of President Trump. In early 2017, there was another chemical weapon attack in Syria and, within a short space of time, the American Administration under President Trump launched 26 Tomahawk missiles on strategic targets in Syria. For the rest of that presidency, nothing else happened in that arena. However, President Trump’s actions exactly a year ago today were manna from heaven in Moscow, because that idea of undermining democracy, destabilising the west and creating divisions in societies is one reason why there is such ambiguity about whether the USA would support its NATO allies in Europe, as it is dealing with such a split society at home. We could say that, over the last 10 to 15 years, Russian objectives in the USA were invited by President Obama, created by President Trump and too much of a concern to tackle for President Biden. The debate should not be about America and its entirely different Government, but I am afraid that it is relevant to the conversation.

We must accept a couple of things. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) often talks about Nord Stream 2, and he is right to do so. I do not believe for one second that it will be switched off or not commissioned. It will be switched on—that will happen—and that will put the Poles and people in eastern Europe in a very difficult position. However, that boat sailed 20 years ago and we are where we are. This country and its leadership have tried to point out the folly of that programme, and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly talks about it all the time, but I do not see how anything will change. That is where we are today.

We must come to some conclusions. As the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) said, the cold war exists again—it started the moment that Putin walked into Crimea. The invasion of Crimea changed the last 25 years of policy at NATO in Brussels. It obviously had a defensive policy up to the end of the cold war and then more of a political one, but that changed everything. It is now both political and defensive. However, the progress made in a very short period—almost, if you will, in a panic about what happened—shows that we are back in a cold war status, and NATO recognises that. As we are in a cold war status, let us not even entertain the argument of people saying, “We don’t want another cold war.” It is there—accept it.

Now, we lived through a cold war for 50 or 60 years—what did we do? Surely everything is about counterbalance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said, when the invasion of Georgia came, President Bush sent the sixth fleet in. That was a counterbalancing, reactive measure. Many of us across the House recognise the importance of renewing Trident, because that is about counterbalances. There are those who say, “Trident will never be used,” but we know that it is used every single day. It would be a failure of policy if we ever fired the weapons—but by then none of us would care because we would be at 10,000° F. The reality is that that weapon works every day, and counterbalance is what we must do.

We come, therefore, to a simple conclusion. Today, our constituents—especially the poorest in our constituencies—are suffering from gas prices that are being manipulated from Moscow. That is a fact. There was a big argument about what the Treasury can do, but the reality is that we are allowing these things to happen because we are not standing up against them. A simple message must go to the Treasury today. In the cold war, we spent 5% of GDP on defence. We cannot carry on with today’s level of defence spending. It must increase, because we are back to where we were 30 years ago. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said that it is realpolitik, and it is. We must realise that we are in a cold war and that we must increase defence spending. Counterbalance is the only way to stop the situation escalating.

[Several hon. Members rose—]