Humble Address: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Debate between Chris Bryant and Mark Pritchard

Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, there was a long version but, to be honest, I would basically have been reading out the written ministerial statement that we laid at 10.30 am. Much as I love the sound of my own voice, I am not sure that the House does—I think I have united the House on that—so I thought I would go for the shorter version. The papers speak for themselves.

The hon. Lady asked whether there will be more. I suspect that there will not. I think that this is nearly everything—certainly, this is everything that we have come across so far. Of course, we will keep on looking, notwithstanding the complexity around searching in paper-based systems in multiple Departments. I give the House a guarantee that if there is more to publish, I will come back with more, but I suspect that this may be our last tranche.

The hon. Lady asked whether Ministers raised questions at the time. I have published everything that relates to that period. There is nothing else, I think, to be found. The statements that say Ministers were content is the sum total of the response. I suppose, to some degree, that is understandable, bearing in mind that the palace had made it very clear that Her late Majesty was very keen that Andrew be given a job, that Andrew was keen to take on the job, and that the job had previously been done by another member of the royal family in broadly the same terms.

I am afraid that I cannot answer the question about the Lord Mandelson papers for the simple reason that I have been trying very much to keep this Humble Address separate from the other one. We had a different set of procedures to go through. I briefed Members on the Conservative Front Bench, as I did Members on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, earlier this week, when they indicated that they would be perfectly happy if we did not make a statement or respond to an urgent question of any kind, because the papers speak for themselves.

On trade envoys, the hon. Lady makes a perfectly legitimate point. I made the point the last time around that although I understand the connection people make between the role that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor played and that of modern trade envoys, they are actually very different, partly because of the royal nature of Andrew’s role in the past, but also because all trade envoys whom we appoint at the moment are Members of either this House or the House of Lords. They are not only bound by the code of conduct of this House or the other, but bound in exactly the same way as any Minister would be in terms of the code that is expected of them. We make all that extremely clear to trade envoys. Since I have been appointed, I have gathered the trade envoys together on two or three occasions, and whenever a new one is appointed, I sit with them and go through the details.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

They’re Labour.

[Chris Bryant]

I hear the right hon. Member’s chuntering, in his regular application process to be made a trade envoy. I am still considering his proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

If I am honest, I am bit miffed by the attitude of Liberal Democrat Front Benchers, because I have regularly updated them ever since the Humble Address was passed. I have been as open as possible with them, and they have privately indicated to me, regularly, that they were perfectly happy with the progress we were making.

I thought there would be some difficulties for us to overcome, in particular the connection between the Humble Address and the police investigation—obviously, we do not want to do anything that might imperil the investigation. I think all hon. Members would agree that, if the police were to find evidence and felt that the Crown Prosecution Service should take forward charges of misconduct in public office, we would all support the prosecuting authorities in doing their duty. I explained all that to the hon. Lady’s hon. Friends, who indicated that they were perfectly happy with that process. I had thought that the police might ask us not to publish some of the material; in fact, they have been very co-operative and have allowed us to publish everything.

We have made some minor redactions, as I have said. Some of those relate to material that has absolutely nothing to do with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. For instance, where there is talk about the Royal Visits Committee or visits by other members of the royal family, we have redacted that material, as we have material where there are possibilities that we might upset our international allies.

The hon. Lady asked whether any more papers will be coming along. At this point, I am not aware of any. As I said earlier, I suspect that this is the sum total of what we have. She quite rightly makes the point— I think a lot of people are surprised—that, as I think we have known for some time, no vetting was done. It has been standard not to vet members of the royal family. She asked me whether we would vet anybody else who was appointed to such a role. We have no intention of appointing anybody to such a role in the future, but of course we are grateful for the support that the royal family regularly provides with international visits around the world. I think everybody, including those who disagreed with it, has accepted that His Majesty’s visit to the United States of America was a great success. I do not think we should be vetting His Majesty the King, and I do not think the hon. Lady is suggesting that either; I think she was just trying to get grumpy with me.

I have tried to answer all the hon. Lady’s questions. I reassure her that, honestly, we have moved at pace, as fast as we can. It is difficult to find some of the paperwork because it is literally paperwork, and the Government Departments have changed multiple times in the intervening years, but we have moved as fast as we can.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May I just say for the record that I have not made any formal application to be a trade and investment envoy? I previously was a trade and investment envoy under Prime Minister Theresa May, who is now in another place. What I am concerned about is the fact that this particular programme is not cross-party. It was set up by David Cameron, now Lord Cameron, and its strength, I felt, was in the fact that it was cross-party rather than full of mostly Labour Members and Labour peers. I just wanted to put that on the record.

The Minister references the amount of paper-based documentation, but of course, we have not all gone to the cloud overnight. If he goes down to the National Archives at Kew, he will find a lot of paper records going back quite a long time, not just from the last 20 or so years.

On a more substantive point, I want to ask the Minister about the role of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. He will know, as a former Foreign Office Minister, that diplomatic telegrams are sent by embassies—often by ambassadors—back to London, and possibly even to the royal household. I wonder whether any of those have been disclosed in the papers, which I have not had time to read today because they have only just been laid.

Finally, have any of those diptels, or responses to them, made their way to the office of senior officials in the royal household? Did they know anything about the activities of the former Prince Andrew? Who did they speak to about it, and what action, if any, was taken?

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman says he has not applied for a post as a trade envoy. I do not want to show the House the text messages he sent me, but anyway, he makes a fair point. I want to make sure that the trade envoy programme is really effective and delivers around the world. I was with Lord Alderdice the other day, who is not a member of the Labour party, at the London stock exchange when the Uzbek national investment fund was being listed in the UK. His intervention in Uzbekistan has been enormously important in taking forward some of these investments into the UK and listings at the LSE. Indeed, we could see a further investment at the LSE, which would be the biggest ever listing here. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who is a Conservative Member, is also a trade envoy and does a good job.

I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman’s question about diptels. As I said earlier, we are trawling through everything we can to see whether there is anything else that is of relevance under the Humble Address terms. So far, we have published everything we have that is relevant. I can guarantee the House that if there is anything more, we will of course come forward.

I was also asked by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) whether there was any monitoring of the relationship between Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein. I did not answer that question; I apologise. I have seen absolutely nothing to that effect. If I had, I would have published it.

Processed Russian Oil Products: Sanctions

Debate between Chris Bryant and Mark Pritchard

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend makes an immensely important point on energy security, which is one reason why we are passionately committed to trying to make sure we are not reliant on oil or oil products from anywhere else in the world, and that we are able to not only meet our net zero targets, but be energy resilient for ourselves. She is also right that we need to work alongside our allies, not only—I would argue—on energy security but in relation to imposing sanctions. We must co-operate with other countries. As I say, our set of processes is remarkably similar to those of Australia, Canada—I think—and several other countries. We need to move forward together if we are to defeat Putin and to ensure we have energy security for our own households and our own businesses.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the Minister, who has been tough on Russia for many, many years. He is sanctioned in Russia, as am I, and we have both previously chaired the all-party parliamentary group on Russia, so I know today’s announcement will sit uncomfortably with him. I welcome the new sanctions through third countries, but I am very concerned—there will be more concern in Kyiv, quite frankly—about what he calls temporary licences. How long is “temporary”? Unfortunately, this money, through these imports, will continue to fund Putin’s illegal war machine against Kyiv. It will kill women, children and men. While the Government are denying a licence to drill in the North sea, they are, unfortunately, giving Putin a licence to kill.

[Chris Bryant]

As it happens I am not on the Russian sanctions list, although when I raised this with the Russian—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Lady knows that I am very fond of her—

[Mark Pritchard]

The right hon. Lady.

[Chris Bryant]

I am terribly sorry; I am so fond of the right hon. Lady that I think of her in a commonplace way, or should I say a common-sense way? She was, of course, the Minister for common sense—although, despite that, she never took any measures to stop the import of Russian oil into the UK when she was a Minister. Oh dear.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and Mark Pritchard

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

First, it was great that my hon. Friend and other MPs brought individual constituency businesses along, because one of the things I want to do as Minister for Trade is try to persuade all 650 colleagues to come along with individual businesses so we can work out where there are barriers to export and try to encourage export growth. If we could release all the MPs, who probably know the businesses in their constituencies far better than the Department does, we would drive forward export growth. She is absolutely right that there are issues with visas and business mobility that we need to address. It is one of the things that the Home Office and the Department are discussing with our European allies. We need to do better on this, and we also need to get to a place where we have mutual recognition of professional qualifications so that people can simply transact their business more effectively.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

With reference to what the Minister said earlier about trade and investment envoys, I remind him that I was a trade and investment envoy to Georgia and Armenia some years ago. The problem is that the trade and investment envoys are now pretty much all Labour, whereas previously, under all Prime Ministers, they were cross-party. Can I suggest that the Government revisit the strength of having a cross-party approach? That might help business exports. I think he publicly offered—unless I misheard—for me to become a trade envoy again; if I was approached, I might do that. On a serious point, on UK Export Finance in high-risk investment areas, such as rebuilding Syria by getting jobs and investment into that country quickly, can I ask that UK Export Finance underwrites with insurance those high-risk investments?

[Chris Bryant]

I noted that there was another application, but just because the right hon. Gentleman has applied for the job, it does not necessarily mean that he will get it. He makes a good point about UK Export Finance, particularly in war-torn and other difficult areas. It is why we set aside a specific amount of money for Ukraine. I was delighted to be in Kyiv the best part of 10 days ago, where the Russian Government are, I would argue, engaging in war crimes by deliberately targeting the heating systems in the city—many elderly and vulnerable people have no heating, electricity or access to water. I was very proud to see Scottish steel and British architects designing the bridges that are helping Ukrainians to get to work again after the original bridges were blown up when the Russians tried to invade as part of their full-scale invasion. He makes a good point about export finance. I have also had discussions about how we can roll that out in relation to Syria.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend; it is great that she is a Member of this House because we hear her unambiguous support for small businesses up and down her constituency—not just in the big towns, but in the small villages, as she says. She is right that Wales is a good place for high tech. I am delighted that £1.4 billion of additional investment was announced at the Welsh investment summit in December, taking the total linked investment since the summit was launched to £16 billion. I am sure that that is going to deliver more jobs across south Wales in precisely the way that my hon. Friend asks for.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

While I always enjoy the soliloquies of the Minister of State, it might be an opportunity for the Minister who has responsibility for Royal Mail and postal services to answer this question, given that I wrote to his office about the catastrophic failure of the letter delivery service throughout Shropshire. Would he agree to meet with me and my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) to discuss resolving that issue?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and Mark Pritchard

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I think my hon. Friend also has a problem at one of her universities, which we are going to try to deal with as well. She has written to me, and I will write back as soon as possible, but perhaps we could short-cut that with a meeting. I am conscious that, for medical conditions, the resilience of someone’s connectivity is just as important as the day-to-day coverage.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his candour and honesty. He is one of the most effective, experienced and able Ministers in the Government. Having paid those compliments, can I encourage him to visit Shropshire, where there are still too many notspots? Perhaps one of the reasons is that this country has only four mobile network operators. Is it not time that we had more competition? Finally, is the shared rural network agreement likely to hit its targets by the end of this year?

[Chris Bryant]

The shared rural network will reach its targets. The right hon. Member makes a very good point, which is that, frankly, the connectivity that people think they are getting from Ofcom is simply not what they are actually getting. Their phone looks as though it has lots of bars and is saying 4G, but they cannot even download an app to park their car. We have to transform that across the whole of the UK. In the end, most of that is down to the industry, and I want to make sure that we remove some of the barriers to further investment in the industry to improve mobile connectivity for every single Member of the House.

Coronavirus Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Mark Pritchard

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 23rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I have to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has been very gracious in his apology and I thank him very much indeed for that. He says he does not want a Division tonight, which is welcome, and he says that the Government’s amendment is, in his view, defective. However, in principle, does he accept the Government conceding a six-month break?

[Chris Bryant]

Personally, I would prefer the time period to be shorter. I would prefer Government Ministers not to be switching powers on and off, because that will lead to them being more queried by the nation at large. I prefer something more like a three-month period when they have these powers, with regular review by the House, but I am not going to die in a ditch. There are no ditches here. I laud the Government for the movement that they have made, but they may still need to move some way further. It may be that they need to amend their own amendment when it goes to the House of Lords.

China’s Policy on its Uighur Population

Debate between Chris Bryant and Mark Pritchard

Wednesday 11th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It always changes just before I start, Mr Sharma. I do not take it personally, of course.

I want to start off on a slightly different tack. In March 1936, the Conservative MP for Chelmsford was a man called Jack Macnamara. He travelled to Germany to celebrate the remilitarisation of the Rhineland. Perhaps we might think that unusual today, but many people at the time thought that Germany should be allowed to stand on its own two feet again, after the Versailles treaty.

What changed his mind about Germany was visiting Dachau. The Germans showed it off. Most of the people in there at the time were political prisoners. They were members of the Communist and Social Democratic parties, or freemasons. Some were dissident clergy of various different Churches, and some were Jews. A significant number of them were homosexuals. The Nazi regime said they were there for their own protective custody—their re-education. They were kept in camps where they had to work hard every day. They were told what they had to do. They were told what they had to listen to. They were shown antisemitic magazines and horrible material that they had to inwardly digest. If they ever told anyone what was going on there, whether they told the truth or not, they were subjected to even harsher punishment. On top of that, it was felt that many of those people were being deliberately driven towards suicide.

Every one of those elements is present in what is going on in Xinjiang province in China at the moment. I want to say to Chinese friends that, just as that British MP in 1936 went to the new Germany as its friend and came back a harsh critic of Hitler’s regime—he ended up fighting and losing his life in the second world war to protect the freedoms of the kinds of people who were in Dachau—there is a danger that so too will China completely alienate the whole world community because of its actions in Xinjiang province and its treatment of the Uighurs. In many ways, some of what is happening to the Uighurs is even worse. There is the religious oppression, the refusal to allow people to have their own thoughts, the re-education, the deliberate reculturation and the attempt to destroy a whole community, but it is also applied to children. At least there were not children in Dachau.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and happy to give him an extra minute by intervening on him. He mentioned alienating the whole world, but does he agree that it is not just about that—whether it happens or not—because, clearly, if China is breeding a counter-terrorism problem for itself, that will also be a counter-terrorism problem for the whole world, including the United Kingdom? Terrorists do not abide by national borders, so that is another incentive for the British Government to be slightly more robust on the issue than they probably have been to date.

[Chris Bryant]

There is a patent injustice, and injustice tends to lead to people taking some form of action. We would always want it to be legitimate and peaceful. The danger is, as the hon. Gentleman says, that the action being taken will be entirely counterproductive. China says that what is happening is meant to prevent terrorism, but it is far more likely to create it, in China and other parts of the world. Many people see their brothers and sisters on the other side of the world and feel that they are being hard done by, and want to do something about it.

What angers me is that the situation is all of a piece with the creation of a security state. I thought that the whole point of communism was to create a welfare state, but a security state is being created—exactly the opposite. I would also make the point to China that it has done extraordinarily well in the last 20, 30 or 40 years out of the international rule of law. It has served it well and China has managed to make enormous advances economically and culturally. Now it stands, having previously tended to sit to the side in the international community, wanting to take a much more central part in the world—hence all the various initiatives it has come up with around the world. It will not be able to do that if it does not abide by the international rule of law in its own country. On those two points its actions are utterly counterproductive—even if one were to accept the moral outrage that is what is happening to the Uighurs.

I want to end with a point about the Magnitsky Act. It is about time we had such legislation on the statute book. It has been promised repeatedly by the Foreign Secretary and I hope that the Minister will update us on when it will be published, when it will be able to go through, and when we will be able to use it.

Superfast Broadband

Debate between Chris Bryant and Mark Pritchard

Wednesday 24th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

As you know, Mr Pritchard, some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them. I have never quite worked out which it is with you. [Interruption.] I missed that, I am glad to say.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I think the shadow Minister has said enough. I call the Minister—[Laughter.] No, I’m kidding.

[Chris Bryant]

Fortunately, Mr Pritchard, you cannot call a Division in this Chamber, so we cannot put that to the test.

It is a great delight to take part in this debate, and it is also a great delight to see the Chamber so full, which is unusual. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) has chosen the right subject, on which I congratulate him. I look forward to hearing a great deal more from him. I hope he will be a little less opaque about BT and Openreach in future. He is no longer a journalist, and he is allowed to say what he thinks, even if Whips are listening in. An awful lot of Members now have significant concerns and will be carefully watching Ofcom’s inquiry into the roll-out and the relationship between BT and Openreach. We want to ensure fair and open competition, but we do not want to dismantle a company for the sake of some kind of prejudice.

The hon. Gentleman referred to this being the most important infrastructure roll-out in his lifetime. I hope he will have a long and fruitful life, and who knows what the future may bring? In my constituency, the roll-out of mobile has been complicated and difficult. I know that because when I wrote a letter demanding that Tony Blair stand down as Prime Minister, fortunately I had no mobile coverage in my house, so no journalists were able to get me for at least four days.

The point has been well made by many hon. Members that peripheral economies come in many different shapes and sizes. All too often, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) has said, the infrastructure problems with broadband also relate to physical access, roads, buses, transport and everything else. [Interruption.] I cannot hear what the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) is saying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Since the Rhondda is often described as semi-rural or semi-urban, I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman and—sitting next to him—the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, which is having one’s cake and eating it. However, the points are well made. In the end, universality is what we are trying to achieve, which is what we are not achieving as yet.

The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) made a worrying point about BT’s aggressive bidding process. I hope that BT will have heard it. I am sure it will: there is probably someone from BT sitting in the Public Gallery, or watching on TV or via broadband. Who knows—perhaps they have superfast. But the hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to talk about filling in the gap.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) has one of the worst sets of problems of all 646 constituencies. His points are well made and I hope the Minister will be able to answer them. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) is a new colleague who, like many others, is already raising matters of significant concern to her constituents. I am sure she will continue to do so, and we hope to hear from the Minister on them. The hon. Member for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani) made important points about the access network. Since we politicians are not necessarily experts in every aspect of technology, we sometimes get focused on broadband speeds to the detriment of other aspects of competition that also affect the subject.

I was slightly nervous about an SNP Member sitting behind me—at my back, as it were: the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). I kept thinking of Andrew Marvell and “always at my back I hear the SNP horribly near”. However, the hon. Gentleman made some important points. If he can act as my PPS, that will be very helpful in these debates.

We all agree on the centrality of superfast broadband. That is absolutely clear. For home entertainment, many people now watch television via broadband, including—ironically enough, since much of this is being funded out of the licence fee—the BBC iPlayer. Also, children might be upstairs watching television programmes, playing audio-visual games on tablets, using Spotify and so on. The NHS relies on broadband not only for the booking of appointments, but for passing notes from doctors to hospitals and for the examination of X-rays, often in other parts of the world. Schools and children being able to do their homework have already been referred to. Of course, increasingly, the Department for Work and Pensions wants to move to a model where everything is done on the internet, which will require superfast broadband and reliable connections.

The creative industries now represent one in 12 jobs in this country. We can add value and guarantee our economic future by supporting our creative industries. Superfast broadband with speeds of at least 24 megabits per second, and I suspect considerably more in future, is going to be important to our economic future. It is in a sense a utility as important and as essential as electricity.

We all agree that some significant progress has been made, but the symbolic fact that so many Members from all political parties are here on behalf of our constituents is an indication to the Minister that not enough progress has been made. Phase one and phase two of the project aim to get to 95% of all premises by 2017. I originally thought that it would be the beginning of 2017. Since the Government had originally said it would be by May 2015, that was a legitimate expectation, but the Government are now talking about the end of 2017 for that target to be met.

The hon. Member for Eddisbury referred to the fact that some people still cannot even get the 2 megabits per second. That is a dramatic problem for people running the most basic of businesses that have to relate to the wider world, because everybody has at least a website and some means of getting in touch with a business online.

Our original target of 2012 has not been met, and the Government bear a measure of responsibility for that. I notice that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness referred to Prime Minister’s questions. I have heard the Prime Minister referring to the mobile infrastructure project many times. Some £150 million is devoted to it. It is meant to get to 60,000 properties, but, so far, it has got to just 1% of those in three years. so I think that the hands-off approach has not been suitable.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. The Standing Orders for Westminster Hall debates have changed. If Members have not seen them, I encourage them to read them. Matt Warman is entitled to wind up the debate, subject to the Minister allowing time.

Immigration (Bulgaria and Romania)

Debate between Chris Bryant and Mark Pritchard

Monday 22nd April 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, because he prematurely comes on to points that I will raise later, when I will be happy to address his specific question.

The Deputy Prime Minister rightly pointed out in a recent speech that

“in order to remain an open and tolerant Britain, we need an immigration system that is zero-tolerant towards abuse.”

He is right—the British are tolerant, but they are also intolerant of abuse of all kinds. That is one of the great hybrid virtues of Britishness. That said, I reject our junior partner’s idea for a security bond. It is neither practical nor—probably—administratively workable, and it may also discriminate against those who are genuinely seeking to stay a short time in Britain, but who do not have access to support funding. There should be no penalising of legitimate visa applicants.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman understands the Liberal Democrat policy better than I do, because it was not clear exactly what the bond was meant to relate to—to family visit visas or to spouse migration into this country, similar to the situation in Australia, where anybody, such as a church, an organisation, or somebody else, can put down a financial assurance that somebody who is coming as the spouse of an Australian citizen will not be claiming on the taxpayer. Does the hon. Gentleman see the two in the same or a different light?

[Mark Pritchard]

We will have to wait and see the detail. In general, I do not support the policy, but in terms of the specifics and details of particular categories, it may well apply. There may be a case for a bond relating to higher risk work visas, where either the employee or the employer puts up the bond, but that does not make the case for a general catch-all policy. I hope that that, in part, answers the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Mark Pritchard]

That is right, but I take the Deputy Prime Minister’s words on bonds seriously. Clearly, I would not want to break the bond in the coalition, and I welcome his abandonment of the Liberal Democrat policy of an amnesty for illegal overstayers who have been in Britain illegally for more than 10 years. That would have given the green light for even more abuse—perhaps it is a welcome case of the dog wagging the tail.

As the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs will know—I understand that he is on his way to this debate—the sheer number of overstayers is a real challenge. According to his Committee, the backlog could take a quarter of a century to clear. It is a shame that he is not here yet, because I suspect that he will be Lord Speaker, the Speaker in the House of Lords, by then; he will have to check Hansard. That is why new and innovative thinking is needed.

My own view is that new immigration enforcement will never have the level of information, resource or manpower to clear that backlog sufficiently. That is why I think that the Government should consider new policies and perhaps even the following suggestion. Anyone who is an overstayer on any visa—work, tourist, student, family and so on—who does not declare themselves to authorities by 1 April 2014, or a date to be agreed, and regularise their visa status, and is subsequently caught, will be banned from re-entering the United Kingdom for 20 years or an agreed tenure. Those who do declare themselves will be asked to leave, but could reapply to return to the UK on a future visa after a period of 12 months, or a similar period to be agreed. Those who regularise their status will be rewarded; those who continue to abuse the system will receive a sanction.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman did not say, but I presume that he means non-EU nationals, because if he means, and includes, EU nationals, he has to make the same deal for British citizens.

[Mark Pritchard]

In my preamble, I said that I would be speaking about non-EU immigrants before coming on to the particular—[Interruption.] Giving contextualisation I called it—giving context. If the hon. Gentleman will just be a little more patient, the narrative of the debate will become a little clearer. I have answered the point: it is non-EU specifically.

The system that I have set out incentivises people to declare themselves to the authorities and, I believe, would reduce the number of overstayers and the challenge that the authorities face to apprehend them. This is not an amnesty. These are hard-headed sanctions for those who abuse the system and for whom the system is inadequately equipped, given the huge—mountainous—legacy left by the last Labour Administration.

Similarly, UK Visas and Immigration as it is now called should ensure that all new applicants applying for visas are aware of the penalties for overstaying. Those could be financial and, similarly, the visa sanctions that I have just outlined. The Government might also consider further financial penalties for sponsors of visas who knowingly mislead authorities. As the Deputy Prime Minister has rightly said:

“The challenge isn’t just stopping people coming into Britain illegally, it’s about dealing with individuals who come…legitimately but then become illegal once they’re already here.”

However, there is good news: things are, finally, being turned around. This Government have cut net migration by one third. In real terms, that means that over the last three years 250,000 fewer immigrants have come into the UK than would have been the case under the last Government. This Government deserve much credit for their record, not least for rooting out 600-plus bogus language schools and colleges and for doubling fines for unscrupulous employers—a subject that was touched on earlier—for hiring illegal workers. Often, they are hired for less than the minimum wage and exploited, with their rights suspended. I hope that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) will welcome the doubling of those fines.

I would now like to narrow the debate, answering the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard]

My hon. Friend makes a very helpful contribution to the debate, as he always does. I am grateful for his analysis, which he has obviously done over the last few hours since the poll came out. I come back to the point that it is a significant amount. Whether it is 1%, 1.5% or 4%, it is a significant amount of people for communities to absorb and public services to serve.

We hear that Germany is toughening up its rules, finding ways around EU strictures. Coupled with Spain’s high unemployment rate and comparatively low benefits, that makes the UK an increasingly attractive option for many where poverty is still widespread and the minimum wage is one third of what it is in the UK. I do not question the integrity of the BBC poll, but I do question its interpretation.

EU migration affects schools as well. I am sure that colleagues know examples of how demand for school places has meant that some parents cannot send their children to their school of choice because of the influx of EU migrants. Some families have had to place siblings in different schools as a result. Of course, that can also happen because of other, unrelated demographic changes, but it is certainly the case that a lot of this is happening because of demands from immigration.

There is also the impact from teachers and classroom assistants giving special attention to children who do not speak English. That can be disruptive to the rest of the classroom. It is disruptive to school life and a distraction for other pupils. There is also the cost to local education authorities and school budgets of translation and interpretation.

Similarly, EU migration has an impact on local GP services, acute hospital trusts and wider primary care demand, which is why the Government are right to try to recoup millions from other European economic area Governments when their citizens use the NHS. It should have been happening for years, but it has not been. Hospitals might be required, through statute, to do their bit, perhaps with financial incentives for trusts to co-operate with the Government on the legal status of the patients they look after. Surely NHS trust boards should have a duty to ensure that those they treat, save in emergencies, are those who have the first right to be treated. That is not lacking compassion, but recognising that the NHS, even with record funding under the Conservative-led Government, has finite and scarce resources—it is the national health service, not the international health service. Britain must remain an open and tolerant society, but we cannot be the hospital for the world. Health tourism must end, and health trusts, not only the Government, have a major role to play in delivering fairness in treatment.

[Chris Bryant]

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s point about people from other countries using the NHS, though we have always had bilateral agreements with many countries, so there is a process of recompense. A lot of British people, many of whom are older, are based in Spain and have a problem getting NHS treatment there, so many of them come back to the UK to use the service here. The real issue is that the NHS here, unlike everywhere else, is non-contributory, but he would not want to change that, would he?

[Mark Pritchard]

No, not at all, but the hon. Gentleman’s point is a bit of a red herring. He is right: 1.4 million UK citizens live in the other 27—26 plus one—EU states, several hundred thousand of whom live in Spain, as he points out. But I think he knows full well that my point is that the previous Labour Government, over 13 years, failed to recoup any funds, which, as he alluded to, they could have done and which this Government are doing. I hope he will support that policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

All that would allow Britain to do would be to enforce the rules we currently have because we do not subscribe to the whole of Schengen. Furthermore, the situations in which it has been used in other countries, such as in the discussions about the borders with Greece, show that it is used in truly exceptional circumstances and expressly forbids merely migratory transition.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am not saying that there is a legal route, but as a politician I do not subscribe to the view that “We have always done it this way” is the best way to answer every question. I take the view: “This is the challenge; this is where we are. Let us explore every avenue to get over the challenge.” It is incumbent on me, albeit as a minor legislator and a Back Bencher, to represent my constituents and to try to find a way, and I believe that where there is political will, a way will always be found.

On the control of our borders, I would like to see Britain ultimately take back full control. As more countries from the Balkans accede to the European Union, EU migration will become more, not less, of a political, social and economic challenge. I hope that taking back sovereign control of our borders, while avoiding pulling up the drawbridge, will be integral to the Government’s review of EU competences, on which my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) has done a huge amount of work. It is in our national economic and security interests to ensure that our borders are secure and that we regain the sovereign right to close them or, when necessary, to limit the numbers of those transiting them.

[Chris Bryant]

Based on our existing treaty obligations, the only way in which the hon. Gentleman could do that would be to leave the European Union. Is that not true?

[Mark Pritchard]

No, not at all, but on the issue of leaving the EU, thank goodness that at last, because of the Conservative-led coalition Government, the British people will have a say with an in-or-out referendum in 2017-18. The hon. Gentleman is falling into the trap of saying “We have always done it this way. There can be no change because we know no other way.” What I am calling for today is for border controls to be within the review of EU competences. Is it now the policy of Her Majesty’s Opposition to wish not even to discuss regaining some sovereignty over British borders? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to answer that.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman is being absolutely preposterous in his argument. He knows perfectly well that if he wants to completely and utterly “have the right to close our borders”—his words, I think—to anyone from other European Union countries, we either force those countries to leave the union, or we leave it ourselves. We have treaty obligations to those people and, in fact, there was not even a vote in the House on the question of whether Bulgaria and Romania should join the European Union, because there was unanimity that they should do so, under the terms of the treaty as was provided.

[Mark Pritchard]

We will wait and see—we do not know whether what I have said will happen in the short term—but, as a highly intelligent man, the hon. Gentleman knows that all treaties can, at least in principle, be subject to amendment and change. I rest my case on that point of fact.

In conclusion, Britain has benefited much from EU migration and immigration, but there have also been disbenefits. Figures from the previous Government, following the last influx of European migrants in 2004, showed that their estimates had been spectacularly wrong. I pay credit to Migration Watch UK, which arguably has the best and most consistent record on immigration data. It estimates that 250,000 Bulgarians and Romanians will move to the UK between 2014 and 2019 and, as we heard earlier, the figure could be higher. Such an influx will reshape communities, affect public services and strain social cohesion.

We need to bear down on racism and xenophobia, but one of the best ways of doing that, as policy makers, is not through reactive policies but through preventive and proactive ones that make a difference to people’s lives, and a balanced immigration system that works. The British people are tolerant people, but they want an immigration system they can trust, that is fair and that helps the most vulnerable, not one that takes advantage of British generosity of heart and British hospitality. The Government are making genuine progress in achieving that, but there is still much to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Exactly, and Bulgarians and Romanians will be grateful to have heard precisely that point.

Just because someone is concerned about the levels of or the pace of migration, does not make them a racist. There might be some people who want to engage in the debate who have prejudiced views, but the vast majority of ordinary decent people in this country who have expressed concern do so from a position of no prejudice at all but simply because they are worried about the society in which they live. Let us face it, because of the now different travelling opportunities around the world, many countries have had to face a complete change. Italy was always a country that sent people abroad, and now it has had Bulgarians and Romanians coming in in significant numbers. Greece is exactly the same. It invented the word diaspora for all the Greeks who had gone all around the world, but in the past 10 years it has been a country of immigration, not emigration, completely changing the concept of what it is to be Greek.

I used to be a curate in High Wycombe, and there was a very large community of Poles there, who had arrived during and after the second world war and had become an integral part of the community. Similarly, there are more people from St Vincent living in High Wycombe than there are in St Vincent itself. They were deliberately brought to the United Kingdom after the second world war because we did not have enough people to make the chairs and keep the economy growing in such places. I believe, therefore, that a hermetically sealed country would be a mistake, leaving aside the fact that many British people have always wanted to go elsewhere in the world to make their fortunes. One thing that extending the European Union should have done is give British business and British individuals a greater opportunity to make their way in the world, in other countries, and many of them have done so in Spain, France and Italy, and also in Bulgaria and Romania. I hope that British industry will seize the opportunity of Bulgaria and Romania as a means of making money and advancing British business.

I note that there was unanimous support for enlargement when the proposal came to the House of Commons in 2004. The right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) is not in his place at the moment, but the one thing I would say to him is that he could have made the point in 2004 if he had really believed that the Government had completely and utterly got their figures on migration from eastern bloc countries wrong. He could have tabled an amendment to the Act that implemented the treaty to say that there should be further transitional controls. He could have made a speech about it. He could have argued that Bulgaria and Romania should not be allowed to join the European Union and he could have forced a vote on the treaty. But he did not—no one did. We have to bear in mind sometimes that hindsight is a political sin and not a political virtue.

I agree with the hon. Members who said that migration must be controlled and sustainable, because otherwise local communities simply cannot cope. It is about infrastructure, schools, the health service and so many different things. I willingly accept that Labour was wrong not to have put in place the transitional controls for the maximum period that was allowed under the treaty when the A8 countries joined the European Union. As probably one of the most ludicrously pro-European Members of the House, I would say that we were not pro-European enough. The irony was that while France, Germany, Italy and Spain were saying, “Polish people, Estonians and Latvians, you can come here to live but not to work until seven years are over,” we decided to go it alone, and that made the problem infinitely worse because there was only one place where people could go. Talk about a pull issue! That was almost a push issue. I willingly accept, therefore, that we got some things wrong.

It is worth bearing in mind what has happened in relation to Bulgarians and Romanians in member states that have removed transitional controls ahead of us. For instance, in Germany, the numbers went from 158,000 in 2009 to 272,000 in 2012. It is worth pointing out, of course, that Germany is now actively promoting immigration, because it believes it needs it. One of its Ministers recently said:

“While our population is ageing, we have a low birth rate. Currently, of the total population of 80 million in Germany, 41 million are employed. Over the next 15 years, we could lose about six million workers just for demographic reasons”.

The Germans therefore want to encourage more people to come to their country.

[Mark Pritchard]

The hon. Gentleman is usually well informed, and I am sure this was an oversight, but Germany, although not sealing its borders, is looking at reducing the pull factors for the new accession countries. He may not have heard about that yet.

[Chris Bryant]

It is actively campaigning at the moment to encourage inward migration, and particularly skilled migrants. [Interruption.] I see the civil servant shaking his head, but we will doubtless hear from the Minister when he is inspired by his civil servant to correct me.