Belfast: Violent Disorder

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his condemnation of the violence and the words he said in praise of those who acted with great courage. I understand his points about PSNI resources. I have discussed those matters twice previously with the Chief Constable in Northern Ireland, and I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be having further conversations with the Chief Constable today and on an ongoing basis. I recognise the concerns that the hon. Member has raised, and the Secretary of State and colleagues across Government will want to reflect on them further in the light of recent events.

The hon. Member also made an important point about the common travel area. As he will know, it is without border controls, and that has been the case for many years. Currently, that data cannot be collected. However, we have immigration enforcement teams who conduct intelligence-led raids, and we have a new data-sharing agreement among the UK Government, local authorities and the PSNI to protect the CTA from abuse. We will look carefully at the points he has raised, and there will be further conversations with ministerial colleagues about them.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

Rioting is utterly wrong, and the scenes we saw in Belfast yesterday deserve our total condemnation, but law-abiding people across the country are rightly furious about the Government’s failure to stop dangerous and violent men entering our country illegally. One reason that they enter is the pull factor of our asylum and welfare system, and another is the open border with the Republic. I stood on that border last week. Nobody wants to see physical infrastructure erected there, but what conversations is the Minister having with the Irish Government to get them to do more to stop illegal migrants travelling north into the UK?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful for the condemnation of the violent behaviour that we saw. It is right that we all do that and do not allow any ambiguity in the words we use in that regard. The hon. Member will understand that I do not share the particular critique that he has offered of the Government in recent times, not least because the number of foreign national offenders who have been deported is up by 36%. That is more than 10,000 people who have been deported since this Government came to office. He raises specific concerns about the common travel area. We work closely with the Irish Government to protect the integrity and security of the common travel area, while at the same time preserving the rights of British and Irish citizens. Where there is a requirement for us to do more, we will have to look at that.

Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

The Prime Minister came to this House only yesterday saying,

“I will now set out the full timeline”,—[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 23.]

and later insisting that he had come to

“give the full account to the House”.—[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 28.]

That followed Downing Street’s acceptance earlier in the day that his previous account had, at the very least, inadvertently misled Members. Yesterday was meant to be the great clean-up—the day of the full facts, full candour and full accountability.

Today, Sir Olly Robbins gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee and published a letter that blows a hole straight through the Prime Minister’s version of events. Many hon. Members have already exposed that. Obviously, the lack of curiosity on behalf of the Prime Minister was inexplicable and reprehensible. We have seen evasion, obfuscation and blame shifting, as well as blatant contradictions, and I want to point out one that has not yet surfaced this afternoon. The Prime Minister said that he was “astonished”, and that it was “incredible”, that information could have been withheld from him, but it is significant that Sir Olly Robbins’s letter says that the position conveyed to the Foreign Affairs Committee in September 2025—that

“Ministers…are not informed of any findings other than the final outcome”—

was “agreed with” the Cabinet Office and No. 10. In other words, the Prime Minister is now trying to dump the entire scandal on one official for acting on a position that Downing Street itself had signed off. That is not accountability; that is a stich-up.

Worse still, we learned today that, before Sir Olly even took over, due diligence on Mandelson’s appointment had been completed, approval had been given by His Majesty, the appointment had been announced, agrément had been secured from the United States, Mandelson had building and IT access, and he was already receiving highly classified briefings on a case-by-case basis. We have even learned that the Cabinet Office itself raised whether developed vetting was necessary, and the FCDO had to insist on it. So let us drop the pretence that this was some neutral, pristine process derailed by one mandarin misconducting himself. The appointment was politically driven from the top and forced through in an atmosphere of pressure.

Of course the Prime Minister’s position is untenable, as many Members have said, but it is possible that the Prime Minister’s honesty or position is not the most important thing about this saga. What matters even more is our system of government, for which the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister is partly responsible. If the Prime Minister has been surprised to find that the civil service acts within processes that screen Ministers from information and from the power to make decisions, no one else is surprised about that. I think the Prime Minister has spent so long as a civil servant and then as a politician behaving like a civil servant that, when he finds that the system does not work, he has a sort of professional breakdown and starts spluttering about process and reviews, and reviews of the processes. Yes, we need process, but the fact is that appointments, like everything else the Government do, are political decisions.

Politics is simply the management of the common life of the community, and the management of trade-offs between different ideas and interests. We in this country have developed over many years a model of doing things—of doing politics—that is or was the best in the world: civil servants accountable to Ministers accountable to Parliament accountable to the public. Break those links of accountability, and instead of a hierarchy with the public at the top, ultimately in charge through the ballot box, and civil servants at the bottom—genuinely the servants of the democratically elected masters—we have unaccountable civil servants at the top, Ministers floundering around as this lot are, Parliament is pointless and the public are outraged.

What has to change is the great restoration of the principle that the civil service serves the public, and it does that by respecting the ultimate responsibility of Ministers as decision makers. It is absurd to have rules that shield the decision makers from the information they need to make a decision, and no other organisation would do that. This is why we need to restore the Armstrong principle set out by Robert Armstrong in 1985:

“The civil service…has no constitutional personality or responsibility separate from the duly elected Government of the day.”—[Official Report, 26 February 1985; Vol. 74, c. 129W.]

Yes, I want to see the back of this Prime Minister, but most of all I want to dismantle the cabal of permanent secretaries who run this country and to restore the proper authority of Parliament.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Security Vetting

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, the process was that the appointment was subject to developed vetting checks being carried out. Had I been made aware of the recommendation of UKSV, I would not have made the appointment. What I did after the event was ask Sir Chris Wormald to look back at the process, which he did according to and by reference to the Simon Case letter, and he assured me that the process had been carried out properly.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

If Olly Robbins could and should have provided this information to the Prime Minister at the first opportunity, as the Prime Minister has said today, surely the same applies to Cat Little, Antonia Romeo and the Cabinet Office officials who sat on this information for nearly a month before bringing it to the Prime Minister when The Guardian started asking questions of No. 10. Why does he accept that they needed legal advice to do what he is saying should have been obvious? He sacked Olly Robbins for not bringing him that information immediately; why are the others still in post?

[The Prime Minister]

They acted entirely appropriately. They came across the information as part of the Humble Address exercise. They took legal advice on who it could be disclosed to, and disclosed it to me as soon as they got that legal advice. That was the right thing to do.

Middle East

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

There are many discussions going on, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, and I understand his level of concern, particularly in relation to religious freedom. We are working with colleagues on those issues and I will update the House accordingly.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

I do not know what is more humiliating for the United Kingdom: the moral weakness of a Government who cannot distinguish between right and wrong, and who cannot even take a sovereign decision without consulting international lawyers; or the material weakness of a country that has just decommissioned its last frigate in the Gulf and, as the Prime Minister has said in his statement, does not have the capability to defend our own citizens in the region. Given this position of neutrality and impotence, will the Prime Minister clarify what exactly he means by defensive versus offensive action? The whole operation is offensive according to the terms that the Prime Minister has set out. Or does he expect that the British will have some sort of operational veto on individual American flights that take off from our bases?

[The Prime Minister]

We are taking action in the sky through our pilots and we have authorised the US to use our bases in order to attack the Iranians’ ability to strike, but I will take no lectures on morality from a member of a party that stood a candidate who said that you cannot be English unless you are white.

Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

The commission for information from Departments that is taking place has not yet resulted in those documents being shared with the Cabinet Office. If issues need to be pursued further once the documents are shared, we reserve the right to do so.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

I wish I had started counting at the beginning of this statement how often the Chief Secretary used the word “process”. The word that I have been listening out for and have not heard him say is “responsibility”. Does he accept that it is the job of the Prime Minister to make all these appointments without reference to backroom bureaucrats and lawyers? Should he not accept that he made a terrible mistake in respect of Peter Mandelson, do the right thing and reveal all the papers immediately?

[Darren Jones]

It is interesting to hear from a Member on the Reform Benches that they do not agree with process or vetting. The Government are committed to both those things, because that is the way in which Government should conduct itself. As the Prime Minister has said at the Dispatch Box, had he had the information that we all have now available to him at the point of appointment, he would not have appointed Peter Mandelson. On that basis, he has apologised for any distress that that has caused for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein.

Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

The terms of reference for the independent ethics adviser are already published, as is the ministerial code; as I have been able to confirm today, the advice that the adviser provides to the Prime Minister will also be published. All those documents will therefore be available to the House. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government support the proposals of the Hillsborough law and are working at pace to be able to complete the legislation to ensure that a duty of candour is on the statute books.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

The Government are hiding behind process as usual, even when the process is so clearly compromised, as in this case. First, we hear that the propriety and ethics team are looking at this matter even though we know that the leader of that team is a former Labour Together staffer who was appointed according to inappropriate process. I would be grateful if the Minister repeated and perhaps explained the extraordinary claim he made earlier from the Dispatch Box that it is necessary for the Minister in question to stay in his role so that the independent inquiry can be carried out. It is an absolutely extraordinary suggestion—could he explain it? Secondly, could he simply confirm to the House that it is for the Prime Minister to appoint and dismiss Ministers without reference to independent inquiries, and that he is perfectly capable of making the right decision now?

[Darren Jones]

The Prime Minister made the ethics adviser independent on coming into government because of the misuse of that process by former Prime Ministers who were trying to cover up for their friends. The independent ethics adviser has not only illustrated his independence but proven that the independent process works, because where Ministers have been in breach of the code, the Prime Minister has sacked them as a consequence.

The hon. Member made a statement that the leader of the propriety and ethics team was a former Labour Together staffer. That is not true, and that should be acknowledged. He asked why Ministers have to remain in post while they are being investigated by the independent ethics adviser. Those are the rules for the system that we inherited. He raises an interesting question, and we should consider that for the future, but for the time being the rules are as established, and they require a Minister to stay in post while they are being investigated.

China and Japan

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend; we are the best in the world. The people from the creative sector and the cultural institutions were with us on the visit because they could see the great advantage in better relations and better engagement, and not only in relation to the cultural aspects but because, of course, they are themselves really important businesses.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

The Prime Minister is very full of the abstract virtue of engaging with China and getting in the room with them. He used to say that Britain should not even sign a trade deal with China because of the persecution of the Uyghur people. Having now got into the room with the Chinese leader, can he tell the House a single thing that he achieved on behalf of the Uyghurs, or indeed on behalf of the security of this country?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes. Engaging is really important for the security of this country. Just for clarity, we did not sign a trade deal on the visit; we simply looked at the ways in which we can open the opportunities for businesses. There were 60 big businesses with us on the visit, and they are absolutely clear about the advantages to them. I would much rather take their view on the advantages than the nonsense that is being spouted on the other side of this House.

Dawn Sturgess Inquiry

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who puts it very well. The greatest legacy, as well as remembering the tragic loss of life in this case, would be to ensure that our collective defences as a country are tightened to the extent that such an attack could never happen again. Of course, the Russian regime will constantly test our defences and we will have to remain incredibly vigilant. It is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that we have the appropriate levels of resource, and that the United Kingdom is the hardest possible operating environment for Russia and its proxies, but he is right to remind us of where responsibility for this heinous act lies: with President Putin.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

I, too, welcome the Minister’s statement, and indeed the additional sanctions that he announced. It is absolutely right that we do everything we can to resist Russia’s attacks on our security and its attempts to suborn our democracy, and I wholeheartedly agree with him. It is obviously right that the traitorous former MEP that the Minister mentioned is now in prison. I speak as the Member representing Amesbury, the town that Dawn Sturgess was in when she took the fatal poison, but it was represented at the time by my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen). I want to acknowledge his leadership throughout these difficult years for Salisbury and Amesbury.

It appears from the report that the NHS did a good job in its immediate response to the medical emergency that Dawn suffered, but it is also apparent that, when it comes to the wider system of support for the community in Salisbury and Amesbury, the response was somewhat messy—perhaps for perfectly understandable reasons. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government are looking generally at our public safety response in the event of such crises, and can he say what more can be done to ensure that in any future event local communities are properly supported?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for the very sensible and constructive nature of his remarks. I recognise his service as a Wiltshire MP and his obvious constituency interest in this matter. I also genuinely welcome his condemnation of the treachery that we have seen recently, and I am glad that he made that point. He raises a sensible and constructive point with regard to the NHS, and I can give him the assurances that he seeks regarding the Government’s attention to these matters. One of the reasons why the Prime Minister took the machinery of Government change back in September to ensure that I, as Security Minister, sit across both the Home Office and the Cabinet Office was to maximise the leverage and co-ordination across Government with regard not only to national security policy, but to our resilience, and we have recently undertaken the largest ever resilience exercise across Government. He is right to raise that point. I give him an assurance of the seriousness with which we take these matters. We will, of course, look very carefully at the report’s recommendations in that regard. I am grateful to him for his comments today.

Middle East

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

This ceasefire is tremendous news, and I sincerely congratulate everybody who was involved in bringing it about, whoever they were, including the British Government. I was in Israel last week, and on the day that the ceasefire was announced, I visited the Nova festival site and spoke to civilians and soldiers on the Gaza border. The Israelis I spoke to were deeply dismayed that the British Government had decided to recognise the state of Palestine before Hamas had released their hostages, let alone disarmed. Does the Prime Minister understand why Israel cannot tolerate the idea of a state on its border that poses a security risk to its citizens, and will he undertake not to move forward to support the establishment of a Palestinian state until there is more than a promise—there is actually the reality of security for Israel?

[The Prime Minister]

The terms on which we recognised Palestine, and those on which all the countries that recently recognised Palestine did so, expressly acknowledged that Hamas can play no part in its governance. That is at the heart of the New York declaration as well, and it is absolutely part of the 20-point plan. It is really important that we assert that and reassert it. That has been the constant position of this Government and my personal position, so I can give the hon. Member that reassurance.

EU-UK Summit

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Richard Tice]

I did not say anything about downplaying; I said that if the Government are going to agree a deal, they should agree the terms of the deal. They should not just say, “We’d like a bit of the action. Please tell us how much it’ll cost us later,” and have no idea how much of the action they will get. That is a terrible deal, and we all know that no deal is better than a bad deal.

The third surrender is about becoming a rule-taker. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) referred to agrifoods and the SPS deal, which all sounds very good, except that we now have to take a load of extra rules from Brussels that we have no input into under a process called dynamic alignment, which might mean that we cannot do any further trade deals with great nations such as the United States. That is instead of arguing for mutual recognition, which can of course exist between nations that have excellent standards of food and products, as we do.

We have gained nothing from those three great surrenders. Indeed, we will probably have to pay more if we want any more rules to be given to us, but why would we pay more when we have given ourselves the freedom not to have to pay? I thought we had done all of that.

If we are not content with that, what about the fourth surrender—the big one? Earlier this year, the Minister said, “Don’t worry, chaps—no plans for any form of youth mobility scheme.” It turns out that he was right, because some clever person rebadged it: “I’ve got an idea. Let’s call it a youth experience scheme.” Well, I am sure it is a lovely experience, but when someone is 30 years old, are they still a youth? Is it a middle age experience scheme? During the negotiation—because it has not been concluded —I can see that it will then become an old age experience scheme. Then, someone will say, “Hang on, if it’s an old age experience scheme, we don’t have the workers to look after the old people from the EU who’ve come over to our glorious care homes.” So then we will have to have more freedom of movement.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

And dependants.

[Richard Tice]

And dependants, because the scheme is still open-ended. We do not know the age or number of people involved in the youth experience scheme, and we have no idea about its duration. I am hoping that I will still qualify at the age of 60.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the Members who secured the debate: the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice). It is a case of singing the greatest hits of the past—singing the old songs—in a beautiful duet, presaging some appalling coalition.

I pay particular tribute to the hon. Lady; I recognise her expertise and her interest in this topic. Speaking of greatest hits, she invoked Elsa in “Frozen”, and I recognise the self-identification. Of all people, her soul is spiralling in frozen fractals, but she has a warm heart underneath. Of course we do know that, at the end of that film, Elsa returned to the castle. That is the ultimate purpose of some Members speaking in this debate; they want to return to the embrace of the EU.

I honour that, and I accept that some people were not happy with the result of the referendum. I would not have been happy if it had gone the other way, and I would not have given up campaigning to leave. Nevertheless, I wish there was more honesty from the Government Benches in recognising that what is being debated here is the first step to rejoining. That is the underlying purpose, because all the arguments that have been made against the previous deal were really arguments against Brexit, and all the arguments that are being made in support of this arrangement are arguments for rejoining. As it was eloquently put by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), the case for co-operation in Europe is really a case for rejoining.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

The point is, if people are prepared to compromise on dynamic alignment for food and agriproducts, what issue of principle will act as a barrier to prevent them extending that co-operation to other products or other fields of European law where they think it is ideologically convenient to do so? The only problem is that, if they think they are currying favour with the European Union by doing so, they will be disappointed, because the EU will simply ask for more concessions without making concessions of its own.

[Danny Kruger]

My hon. Friend is right. I will cite a very good article in The Spectator last week by Oliver Lewis, who was the deputy negotiator for the Brexit deal and the trade agreement. He wrote rather wearily about recognising the terms that had been agreed by the Government, because they were the terms that the previous Government continually resisted in negotiations. His point, which echoes that of my hon. Friend, was that the way the EU works is to force agreement on headline principles, which, over time, are translated into concrete policy. Where a thin end of the wedge can be driven in, as it can be with this agreement, more and more follows. That is what we should anticipate.

It is worth pointing out how thin the terms of the agreement are and how much detail remains to be worked out. We have conceded a set of principles that will allow ever closer alignment and submission to the regime that we painfully left some years ago. We see coming submission to the European Court of Justice, an agreement on rule-taking, a return to the single market in agribusiness, as my hon. Friend mentioned, and paying money into the EU budget.

Those were the explicit things that all parties in this House committed to ending when we agreed the outcome of the referendum. In 2019, both main parties agreed to abide by them, and in 2024, they agreed to abide by them and explicitly ruled out submission to the European Court of Justice, paying money and returning to the single market, all of which has now been agreed in principle by the Government. It is only a set of principles, but they are bad principles; they represent the betrayal of Brexit and of our manifestos. I will not go through the specifics, because other Members have done so very well, but I will quickly point out how thin these agreements are.

On e-gates, there will be some benefit for the Dordogne-visiting community that some of us have in our constituencies, but it is not a great achievement. Indeed, it is not even an achievement for this summer, so although I hope the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is enjoying his holiday in France, I do not think he will have benefited from the deal. He will probably have gone through an e-gate anyway, however, because there are already many e-gates that British citizens can use when going to and fro. That arrangement will still need to be negotiated, with each member state operating its own independent policy.

We have discussed food, and I will not go on about that other than to say that we have agreed to take the EU’s laws but we do not have any detail yet. Because we export so little, any benefit from a reciprocal arrangement will greatly benefit the EU at the expense of our exporters.

[Sir John Hayes]

To illustrate that point, looking at the figures the UK is the EU’s biggest export market. We receive about €51 billion of goods from the EU and return about €15.4 billion, so there is no doubt about where the balance lies. To emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend, the problem is that so much of this is smoke and mirrors. When we hear about realignment being dynamic or about subsidiarity, as we used to hear, those are terms that are used to disguise exactly the kind of pernicious detail that he set out.

[Danny Kruger]

I absolutely agree. I am afraid that the argument against EU membership, which was the trade imbalance, remains and has only grown with time.

I will not talk about our unhappy fish; we hear enough about those poor creatures. On defence, there has been no detail in the plan other than an expectation of that new procurement arrangement and that we will be financially contributing to that. There is also no detail on the carbon trading arrangement other than a clear expectation of higher taxes and rule-taking through the emissions scheme. On free movement, we are still unclear. The statement talks about terms to be mutually agreed. What those terms might be—how many people will be coming, what commitments of support there are for them on housing, public services and benefits, and what happens if they refuse to leave—all remains unclear. I am very worried about the direction of travel.

The good news, to conclude, is that none of that is real. Those are all headline principles. Although the expectation is that the EU, having forced our famously legalistic Prime Minister to sign up to a set of agreements, will then induce him to believe that they are binding commitments and that he will have to honour them in practice, I implore him not to. I also implore the Minister to consider that we do not have to fulfil those terrible terms.

Lastly, on the economy, although people talk about the decline of trade since Brexit, trade was declining substantially long before. The EU is a declining corner of the world’s economy and the direction of travel has not changed much. The fundamental point is that Brexit has economically been largely a non-event. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said, the underlying realities have remained largely untouched by it. Obviously, our economy was badly hit by covid, the Ukraine war and subsequently by the very bad Budget, and I admit, by some economic mistakes made by the last Government—let us be honest—but fundamentally the problems have not been related to Brexit.

To invoke some heroes of the last Parliament—particularly John Redwood, the great economic prophet of recent times—John Redwood shrugs at Brexit but Bill Cash rejoices because, fundamentally, it was not an economic decision that the British people made: it was about the restoration of sovereignty. It restored the possibility of good government to our country. I am afraid we did not get good government immediately after Brexit, and we certainly do not have it now. Many mistakes have been made and continue to be made, particularly by this new Government, but we now have the opportunity to govern ourselves in a way that will bring about the prosperity of the British people.

To quickly acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), we still have not fixed the ongoing saga of Northern Ireland, and I deeply regret that the arrangements there persist in that most unsatisfactory way. The new agreement is clearly a declaration of intent to move back within the orbit of the EU and ultimately to rejoin.

I end by echoing the call from many hon. Members on both sides, and I honour the hon. Member for Walthamstow for her support. It is very important that we restore the European Scrutiny Committee and I hope that the Minister will agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Creasy]

Thank you, Mr Vickers, and Ms McVey for your able chairing of this afternoon’s debate.

I am probably going to show my age and why I am definitely not available for a youth exchange scheme, not by quoting Disney but by making an older reference. Dan Quayle’s words about surrender spring to mind when I hear the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and other Opposition Members talk about Brexit. He said:

“My friends, no matter how rough the road may be, we can and we will, never, never surrender to what is right.”

Dan Quayle’s method of surrender is the approach of Reform and the Opposition making.

Today’s debate has shown why we need a salvage and not a rejoin operation, given the impact of Brexit. We now hear Opposition parties opposing any co-operation at all—moving the goalposts. I am old enough and have been in this place long enough to remember when Opposition Members used to push for some kind of Swiss-style deal. They wanted some form of co-operation; now they seem to want no deal at all. They want to ignore the Shellfish Association of Great Britain, which criticised the impact on Brexit deal shellfish markets. They want to ignore not just the supermarkets—a bad form of reference according to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin)—but the British International Freight Association. I the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness to go and speak to the association, which talks about that deal as eliciting “a sigh of relief” regarding the practical changes for its members.

I understand that we are now no longer to go to Spain, France or even Italy on holiday—only Norfolk. Let me reassure the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) that I will be in Norfolk this summer, but I do not want to deny my constituents the ability to travel all because of the right hon. Gentleman’s obsession with isolation. I do not think we will see no French people go to Skegness. I am sure that if they did come, they would get a very warm welcome. I certainly do not think we want the Henry Ford-approach to arbitration, which says, “Our way or no way at all.” This debate has shown the value of a debate on this issue. I hope that the Minister will take back if not the ideas, then the idea that we can talk about these issues in this place once again.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards), my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock), the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) and the Minister.

[Danny Kruger]

Does the hon. Lady share my regret that the Minister did not recommit the Government to introducing the Scrutiny Committee? Does she agree that we should continue to work to that end?

[Ms Creasy]

Yes, I do, and I know the Minister knows that. It is healthy for us to have these debates and I hope that we can continue to have them.

As I said, I am concerned and interested to see the future possibility of joining the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention and tackling the rules of origin paperwork. Mutual conformity will be an issue. I know there are more concerns about security and defence. This is such a big issue with such a potential impact on our future. The deal that the Minister has done this week shows that, because of the benefits it will bring. It is right that this place has that debate so that we can move on from Opposition Members appearing like Prince Hans and wanting to take us back to Weselton, rather than thinking about the future that we could offer to everybody.

I finish by again urging Opposition Members to let it go. “Frozen III” will offer us many new opportunities to revisit Olaf’s story and to see what happens to Anna and Elsa. Of course, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire will know that Anna saves Elsa through love. Let me offer some love, so as not to go back into the castle, but to move forward together, because things really will look good when we are older.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the EU-UK summit.