British Indian Ocean Territory

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

I find the approach of Opposition Members to this subject to be very confusing. [Hon. Members: “Shocking.”] Some say shocking—I say confusing. Some Opposition Members have said that they cannot speak about those 11 rounds of negotiations. A moment ago, we heard an intervention stating that those negotiations must have been completely different in content, without spelling out why they were different. I find this a peculiar situation. Of course, there are many things that the Conservatives started that Labour did not want to continue—economic chaos and damage to our public services are some—but the Conservatives began those negotiations, and indeed had 11 rounds of them.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

rose—

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

I do not want to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman, but he surely understands the difference with access to spectrum, which is the key issue here. It is critical. I find it strange that he allots that issue so little consideration, when it could be of such strategic importance to our country.

The right hon. Member for Witham talked about remarks from Mauritian Prime Minister Ramgoolam. It appears that she has been spending a lot of time looking him up at length on the internet. I therefore find it rather strange that she did not see what he stated on 5 February, where he set the record straight about the terms of the deal. Perhaps she does know about this, but chose not to refer to it in her remarks. He confirmed what this Government have been saying with clarity and consistency since the announcement of a political agreement in October, so let me spell out what we have said about the duration and terms of the treaty and what Prime Minister Ramgoolam confirmed, which appears to have been missed in previous comments.

The deal will be for 99 years and can be extended if both sides agree. The UK will additionally have a right of first refusal, meaning that the islands cannot be given to any other country at the end of the treaty without us first agreeing, and there are no changes to the rights and authorities that we will have to operate the base. Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the details of the treaty after signature, when it is laid for scrutiny under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process before ratification. We would be delighted to have the right hon. Lady’s scrutiny, as would be usual.

To suggest that there was an acceleration of the negotiations before the Mauritian election flies in the face of the facts, as has been the case with many comments from the Opposition on this matter. When we took office, the negotiations had been ongoing for two years. We continued to engage with the Mauritian Government and to work in lockstep with the United States. While we recognise that it was in the interests of all sides to finalise the deal quickly, we did not put a completion date on the negotiations. We did not do so then and we do not intend to do so now. We are of course engaging with the new US Administration, including discussing the full details of the agreement, just as we engaged with the previous US Administration. I find it rather strange that the Opposition are confused about the nature of modern negotiations.

As we and Mauritius have said repeatedly, including in joint statements on 20 December and 13 January, both sides remain committed to concluding a deal on the future of the Chagos archipelago that protects the long-term effective operation of the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia, continuing the practice of the previous Government. As is usual in these circumstances, negotiations have been led by officials with clear guidance and oversight from Ministers.

[Tom Tugendhat]

rose—

[Dr Luke Evans]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am more than happy to go into the financial question in a few moments, because this too, sadly, is an issue about which the Opposition have been deeply confused.

As for the question regarding the Attorney General, he met his Mauritian counterpart for a courtesy call. As was stated when he was in the UK in January, that meeting did not constitute part of the formal negotiations. I find it strange that the term “formal negotiations” is not understood by the Opposition; again, they are confused. On the broader question, the Attorney General has been clear that, as has been the case with every other Attorney General, whenever a conflict might be identified in any hypothetical circumstance, it would be dealt with as part of the proper process and he would recuse himself, if that were needed.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am happy to do so.

[Hon. Members]

Hurray!

[Tom Tugendhat]

I appreciate that the Minister’s budget has been cut so much that she is now put on suicide watch to defend the indefensible for the Government—[Interruption.] And I appreciate that the howls of outrage from Labour Members will be confected when it comes to this issue, for the simple reason that the Minister has nothing to add on a budgetary question that has gone from $13 billion to $6 billion and is now coming out of her budget. Will she make it absolutely clear to the House that there is no way that she will take hard-earned taxpayers’ money that should be going to support the poorest in the world and instead pay off a Government who actually have no legal claim?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman is honourable, and he may wish to reflect on his opening remark, because that was not his normal style at all. As for his question about finances, it is clear that a financial element was vital to securing a deal to protect the operation of such a vital base over the course of 99 years. If we do not pay—I will say it again—someone else will. Our adversaries would jump at the chance to establish outposts on the outer islands. There has been a lot of inaccurate speculation about the cost of this treaty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Jones]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Those in the armed forces would have liked to have heard about the support they need to do their jobs, the improvements to their accommodation, what we are doing to improve their forces and of course how we are ensuring the future of a very important base that many of them are relying on.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way—not only an hon. Lady but an honourable comrade, as we both formerly were. We both heard the announcements yesterday and today of the extra money going to defence and I think we both welcomed that. The thing that troubles me and my party colleagues, about which I am sure she shares concern, is that if we look at the way the maths seems to be working out, particularly given the comments made by the Prime Minister’s spokesman today, it appears that this is not a rise in defence spending but, once these issues are taken into account, a cut in defence spending. Does she agree that that is a matter of some concern? When we factor in the cost of the Chagos, the single intelligence account and the other elements, this increase actually looks like a decrease.

[Louise Jones]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his opinion and remind him that this is the largest increase in defence spending for a long while. I am sure he is aware of the considerable damage done to the armed forces over the last 15 years, which I and others who served saw at first hand.

We are talking about the Chagos islands again when we could have been discussing antisocial behaviour and other crime in my constituency. In Dronfield we struggle with car theft, gangs exploiting county lines and issues with off-road bikes, as well as mobile phone theft.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

May I start by paying tribute to Henry Smith, a former Member of this House? He did an enormous amount of work over many years to represent the Chagossian voice in our country, ensuring that it was heard in these important debates. I agree with Henry that we, as a country, did a huge wrong to those people in not allowing them to return to their country. Sadly, this deal embeds that wrong in perpetuity. It is a wrong that should have been righted on many occasions; a wrong that should never have been done in the first place. To embed it in this treaty is genuinely shameful. This country, and those people, deserve better than that.

We have heard the debate about security. It is a bizarre argument that to swap a freehold for a leasehold is somehow to guarantee security in the long term. If any Labour Members would like to sell me their house and then rent it back from me, I would be delighted to enter those negotiations. Clearly, that seems to be the way they believe property ownership works.

[Louise Jones]

I am reminded of the Annington Homes deal under a previous Conservative Government, but that is not the point of my intervention. If the right hon. Gentleman believes that there was absolutely no reason to have started the negotiations, would he say that the Conservative Government made a mistake in doing so?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Lady will be aware, because I have been on the record on this, that I was entirely critical of the beginning of those negotiations when I was in government.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to the former Security Minister for giving way. I put this question to him:

“How can the base—which serves as an indispensable naval, air, and intelligence asset—be more secure under the sovereignty of another nation, rather than under our own?”

Not my words, but the words of another former Security Minister, Lord West.

[Tom Tugendhat]

As my right hon. Friend knows, the noble Lord, a former Labour Security Minister—and, of course, a former First Sea Lord—knows well that those bases occupy a crucial part not just in our airbases, with strategic reach into the middle east and south-east Asia, but in the intelligence collection business that sadly we need to engage in to keep our people safe. The idea that we should hand over those bases in order somehow to satisfy an advisory ruling is, I am afraid, wrong.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend touches on the point about the ICJ. Does he agree that the ICJ decision is not only non-binding but perverse? Two of the judges on the court—Kirill Gevorgian, who is a key acolyte of Putin, and Xue Hanqin, a Chinese official—voted against condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and do not represent anything other than the interests of our adversaries.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The point that my hon. Friend makes correctly is that this is a political judgment. It is a rational and reasonable political judgment for Moscow and Beijing to make; the problem is that it is being made in Westminster.

This is an error. It is an error for which we will pay for generations; an error that will haunt us and cost us. On that basis, I urge the Government to do what they know is right, and not to continue with the argument that the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) made in pointing out that the Conservatives should never have started the talks. If that is true, why is Labour finishing them? Drop these talks and end this argument.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Draft International Development Association (Seventeenth Replenishment: Additional Payments) Order 2016

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 General Committees

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee. My hon. Friend the Minister will have seen from his work before joining the House that one of the problems in conflict zones and in fact in pre-conflict zones, which he mentioned, is the possibility of fraud and the abuse of large sums of taxpayers’ money. We are talking about an enormous gift from the British people, so I would be grateful if he would outline some of the areas in which the British people can have confidence that the money is being properly spent in areas that they would see as justified.

Clean Water and Sanitation (Africa)

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Thursday 21st April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hurd]

I am happy to give way to a late arrival, if protocol allows.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Forgive me for my late arrival. I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate and for being kind enough to help me prepare for it. One point that I have not heard in the Minister’s summing up—perhaps it was raised earlier—is about nature of power. I served in Afghanistan and sought to develop civil culture in areas where water was controlled by an individual or a small group. WaterAid should truly be valued for equalising power in communities that have only one source of life. The work being done is not simply about health or the ability to grow a crop or two, but about changing the democratic mandate in any group, whether it be a small tribe or a whole country. The work being done by DFID, which I saw for myself in Helmand in Afghanistan, is about exactly that. It is about empowering communities to take control of their own lives, not just to be free of disease.

[Mr Hurd]

My hon. Friend adds another texture—another layer of relevance that has not yet been mentioned in this debate—so he has added value.

Like the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, I will not go over the statistics again, because they have been given a good airing. However numb we have become in this House to the horror of much of what is happening around the world, it is still staggering that by the end of the day another 1,000 children under five will have died from a lack of clean water and basic sanitation, which is just not acceptable. Such deaths are utterly preventable. The drinking water of at least a quarter of the world’s population is contaminated with faeces, and more than 650 million people do not have access to a water supply close to their home. Those numbers are shaming, given what we take for granted. That ground was well covered in the debate.

I was also extremely encouraged to hear how many Members wanted to emphasise the particularly heavy burden that falls on women and girls, which matters a great deal to the Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire spoke powerfully about the huge physical burden on them. I lifted a water container in Goma, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and I was staggered by how heavy it was. I asked the ladies how far they had walked with it, and their answer was extraordinary. I also asked them about the risks they take in queuing and walking. The situation they face is genuinely shocking and unacceptable.

The human dimension has come through powerfully in the debate, but the economic dimension has not come up. Some clever people have attributed an economic cost to the lack of good water and sanitation at about $1.8 billion a year in Nigeria alone. Whether that is right or wrong, the human and financial cost is massively significant. So this issue matters, and I genuinely congratulate hon. Members on throwing a spotlight on it today. The good news is that we can do something about it. We have done something, but not enough. I will return to that, but it is worth noting that human endeavour has moved the needle in important ways.

The world met the millennium development goal for drinking water in 2010, and although the sanitation target was missed—I will return to that—2 billion more people had a toilet in 2015 than in 1990. Some countries have shown outstanding leadership in that context. For example, Ethiopia has reduced open defecation by 64% over the MDG period.

I am genuinely proud of the role that the UK has played over many years. It predates me and this Government, so I claim no credit for it. Between 2011 and 2015, we helped more than 60 million people to get access to water and sanitation, exceeding the coalition Government target. That has made a real difference to poor people’s lives in countries such as Ethiopia, Tanzania, Mozambique and Nigeria. Many Members have seen that for themselves in their visits and know how powerful and important it is.

In Ethiopia, we are working hard to support the Government to reach 31 million people with sustainable water and sanitation services. That includes ensuring that the services are resilient to future threats from climate change, because as many Members will know, the sustainability of such services is critical.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

I could not agree more with the hon. Lady, and I will say a little more about that.

The focus of the debate has been largely on the role of Governments, with some entirely correct acknowledgment of the role of civil society. We have perhaps not talked enough about the role of the private sector, which has an enormously important role to play in its responsibilities and opportunities to scale up and sustain solutions. I draw Members’ attention to an interesting initiative, the Toilet Board Coalition, which is looking at new ways in which companies are planning investments in water and sanitation. Through our support provided to Water & Sanitation for the Urban Poor, DFID has played a leading role in developing private sector sanitation solutions, including the award-winning Clean Team, which is delivering high quality services in Ghana. That is an example of using a business model for installation and service, which provides an opportunity to scale and sustain work.

So there has been some genuine progress, but, as the tone of the debate has made clear, not enough. There is still a great deal more to do. There have been shortfalls, and it is important to understand why. Meeting the challenge of water supply requires a collective effort of Governments, donors, NGOs and the private sector. On sustainability, at any one time 40% of water supplies do not function because of poor operation and maintenance. On sanitation, there has been a gap, because we are fighting against the reality of political and community priorities, which shift if cholera strikes. Sanitation is the responsibility of the household and community, but households have competing priorities.

On the hon. Lady’s point about sustaining services and building community support, in a lot of the work that we do, our preference is to work through community-led total sanitation solutions, which is about promoting the construction of latrines and also the maintenance and rebuilding of them after the rains come. We have to take time to invest in and engage with the community so that they understand the priority that should be attached to this against other competing priorities. So this work is not easy.

I assure the House, particularly the hon. Member for Strangford, who secured the debate, that the UK remains—there is cross-party support for this; we have heard it today and I am grateful for it—hugely committed to this agenda and wants to stay ambitious. We have to because, as various Members have said, sustainable development goal 6 calls for universal access to water and sanitation by 2030, which is massively ambitious and time marches on, but we are determined to play a key role in achieving the goal.

The UK aid strategy confirmed that, on top of the millions of people we helped to gain access to water and sanitation during the previous Parliament, the Government are committed—it is printed on my table in my ministerial office—to helping a further 60 million people gain access to water and sanitation by 2020. That is the commitment we will be held accountable for and we will meet that through our bilateral aid review and through our centrally managed programmes. Our commitment is hugely ambitious, but we are determined to see it through.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The point that the Minister is making about increasing support is absolutely essential. I am sure I am not alone in having people write to me about concerns over migration to this country. There can be few better ways to encourage people to stay at home than to allow them the opportunity to enjoy the normal areas of sanitation and life that we enjoy here, so the commitment that he is making is extremely welcome and I thank the Department for it.

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has skilfully brought us back to the national interest that we consistently need to focus on. There is a great deal of quite justified concern about migration from Africa. It is principally economic, but also driven by other factors. The drivers for why people move—of course, people have always moved in Africa, since time began—include land, access to water, and natural resources. Therefore, the more we can do to help people feel they can rely on resources and get access to those services in their area, the less risk there is that they will move.

The 60 million people are our additional commitment—they are in addition to the 60 million in the previous Parliament. I reassure the House—because it is the focus of the debate—that we will maintain an extremely strong focus on Africa and on meeting the needs of women and adolescent girls. Building on experience from countries such as South Sudan, Malawi and Tanzania, we will develop programmes that deliver improved nutrition as well as water and sanitation. It is becoming increasingly clear to me and the team I am working with that we must make more linkages across areas. Water and nutrition are an obvious case where work and thinking need to be integrated more.

Through our health programming we will continue to work with our partners to ensure that all healthcare facilities have safe water and adequate toilets and handwashing facilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire has been passionate and eloquent on that point, on the basis of her many visits.

Illegal Immigrants (Criminal Sanctions) Bill

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Friday 4th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

It is very kind of my hon. Friend. I have devoted 30 years of my life to trying to improve relations between our country and France. We are the closest of allies. In two world wars, the blood of hundreds of thousands of British people was spilt, and it drained away in the precious soil of France to save their liberties. I think that is well recognised by French people. It is, in my view, not acceptable for a leader of a foreign country, particularly a friendly country, to say that if the people exercise a democratic right there will be consequences.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me for saying this, but surely that is exactly what he wants. Mr Hollande, the President of France, in announcing that there will be consequences, is merely stating a fact about leaving the European Union. My hon. Friend is seeking consequences, and they are some of the things he is referring to now, but there will be others as well, and that is why he is seeking to leave the EU.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is perfectly okay if these “consequences” are phrased in terms of a friendly question. Although it is not the subject of today’s debate, one friendly debate that we could have is on the question: if a country leaves the EU and wishes to access the single market, to what extent does that country have to take migrants? If the debate takes place under those circumstances, I take back entirely what I said, because that would be a friendly debate. But there is the possibility, especially given what the Prime Minister said a couple of weeks ago, that alarm bells are deliberately being rung, and Downing Street might indeed be orchestrating that. Some people say that it is right to ring these alarm bells, but there is a fear that our border will be thrown open.

We all know this is a toxic issue; it is pointless to deny that. It is far more toxic with the general public than arcane debates about the single market and business regulation, and even the sovereignty of Parliament. This is the important point—the consequences point—and it is desperately important for the referendum. If it is felt that anybody can walk across the continent, as they are in their tens of thousands, from Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan—of course we sympathise individually with the desperate plight of these people—and can arrive in Calais, get on a cross-channel ferry, arrive in Dover and, because of the present state of the law, will not be returned, because apparently neither the Bill nor anything like it will be passed, there are indeed consequences.

I happen to think that the existing law has an entirely wrong-headed point of view on this issue. We have the treaty of Le Touquet. It is nothing to do with the EU. I do not think it would be in the interests of most countries, and it would not surely be in the interests of France, to encourage more people to walk across France in the hope of getting to England. I believe that the treaty of Le Touquet would stand, but certainly it is a debate that we need to have. I believe also that it would stand anyway because, as I understand it—although I defer to the Minister, who deals with these issues every day and is presumably much more expert in the law—it is very difficult to enter the United Kingdom illegally on an aeroplane. Before boarding, your passport and ticket are checked, and if they are not in order you are not allowed to board.

Let us say we were to leave the EU—or even that there was no treaty of Le Touquet. Surely, before anyone was allowed on the channel tunnel train or the cross-channel ferry, the ticket collector would check their ticket and passport, and if they were invalid, would not let them board. I believe that the vague undercurrent of threats of “consequences” in terms of law and practice is complete rubbish.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Absolutely. I think that would be very simple to arrange, and it would be in the interests of both Governments. I do not think for one moment that France would abrogate the treaty of Le Touquet, first for the reason I have given, which is pure self-interest, and secondly because, as President Hollande kindly said—this is where I support what he said—we are close allies, and we would continue to be close allies even if Britain left the EU. It is inconceivable that the very first thing he would do would be the deeply unfriendly act of abrogating the treaty of Le Touquet. My hon. Friend makes the vital point about carrier liability, which seems to work extremely well for aeroplanes, and I cannot see why it should not work entirely properly and conveniently, and in a proper administrative way, for ferries and for the channel tunnel. That has dealt with that point. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) laughs, but if he wishes to question my arguments—

[Tom Tugendhat]

I did not laugh.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The point of these debates is to have a debate. If what I am saying is not right, it is incumbent on the Minister to explain why, because there is enormous public interest in this. It would be really helpful if the Minister, when he responds to the debate, said, “I listened to what my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch and for Gainsborough said about carrier liability, the treaty of Le Touquet and all the other points, and the advice that we have received from Home Office officials is that this would not be a problem if we left the EU.” That would be a marvellous statement. We might not get it, but it is at least something to ask for.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Just for the record, I was not laughing; I was sneezing slightly. I merely want to ask a question on the treaty of Le Touquet and the implications for France. I know that my hon. Friend has done much to support Britain’s relationship with France—the French ambassador speaks very warmly of him—and he certainly recognises the enormous commitment that the French make to guarding Calais on behalf of the United Kingdom population, and how that distorts the work of the gendarmerie, who are effectively forced to take massive overtime over the whole of the nation in order to support that commitment. It creates a major distortion of policing across the whole nation. That burden is borne almost entirely by the French people. Yes, the UK makes a small contribution, but it would not be fair to say that there is no debate in France on this. Were my hon. Friend to read some of the statements in the Assemblée Nationale, or to read some of the commentary in Le Figaro and Le Monde, he would see that there is major pressure on the French Government to look again at the Le Touquet treaty.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is a very fair point. There is enormous concern in France and enormous resentment in Calais. By the way, I pay tribute to the Mayor of Calais, who has done sterling work in this whole area. I sympathise deeply with the people of Calais and with the French Government, who have had to bear the cost. I sympathise with the poor gendarmerie, who this week have been under appalling attacks, not primarily from the migrants, who are decent people seeking a better life, but from anarchists who are there deliberately to provoke aggression. My hon. Friend is quite right about that.

Surely we have to ask why the “jungle” in Calais is there. It is there because those people believe that, in the absence of a Bill such as this, if only they can make it on to a train or hide away in a lorry or car, once they get to the United Kingdom they can cry “Home” and they will never be sent back.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. This debate is about illegal immigration. As Sir Edward pointed out, the intervention of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) was about legal immigration. We need to get back to the relevant point.

[Tom Tugendhat]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I shall give way to my hon. Friend if he wants to ask me about illegal immigration, rather than legal immigration, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale referred.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I do want to ask about illegal immigration. I merely want to state on the record that I do consider this country to be an El Dorado and I do think that it is a sceptred isle set in a sapphire sea. I really do think that this is the best country in the world. We are a light on the hill and a beacon to the peoples of the world. I think there is a good reason why people do not stop on their way here; if I had the choice of coming to the UK rather than anywhere else, here is exactly where I would come and I am very proud that my family are here.

On a separate point, I should briefly say that, sadly, some of those attempting to enter through Calais are the interpreters from Afghanistan and Iraq, with whom I served and who served the United Kingdom armed forces with enormous courage and distinction. When we consider this matter, we should realise that some of the people may have a rightful claim. We should be a little more considerate, as I know my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) is being; some voices, however, are becoming more strident.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is absolutely right. Some have put their lives on the line as interpreters for the British Army in Afghanistan and some, God forbid, may be living in the jungle in a shack. The Minister could make a good point about preventing illegal entry by people who put their lives at risk by trying to jump on a train. I do not know what the procedures are; presumably, the people mentioned in my hon. Friend’s intervention could find a British immigration official and try to enter legally. My hon. Friend makes a good point.

My hon. Friend’s first point was very apposite too. Why are there all these attempts at illegal entry into the UK? It is because getting a job in France is so difficult and joining the benefits system there is so complex. Those things are probably even more difficult in places such as Italy. That is why people will do anything and take any risk to try to jump on the train, put their lives at risk and cause disruption for hundreds of different people. That is why we need the Bill: so that they know that it is simply not worth it.

If the Government took the steps that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch suggests, I hazard a guess that the camp would dissolve. The whole issue would go away and our relations with France would improve immeasurably. People would simply make a perfectly rational and good decision, asking themselves what, if they knew that they were going to be caught, was the point of causing all the anguish in trying to get out of France and putting their lives at risk. Many might think that they would never be caught, but that brings us to the debate about ID cards and all the rest of it; presumably, that is another reason why they want to come here. At least if they knew that they would be sent back if they were caught, that would solve the problem to a certain extent.

Syria: Madaya

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Lady makes her point very well today in the Chamber. I will follow it up with the Ministry of Defence. Indeed, the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who is here today, has said to me that she will follow it up. I pay tribute to the many faith-based charities that are playing a key role in working on the ground with local communities in what is an incredibly challenging situation. We will follow up the points that the hon. Lady has set out.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will know very well that Madaya used to be a holiday resort for the denizens of Damascus. To see it today is heart-breaking. Will she talk a little about the help being offered by our friends and allies in the region to the communities that are so badly affected? I am thinking in particular of Lebanon, which is barely a few kilometres over the mountains from Madaya, and Jordan. Will she also say a little about the requests made for help from our Gulf allies and the support she has received from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), the Minister with responsibility for the middle east, who is in his place? Unless we approach this in a more universal fashion, we will struggle to find a solution.

[Justine Greening]

We are supporting countries such as Lebanon and Jordan, which have been hugely generous in accepting millions of refugees—alongside Turkey, Egypt and Iraq, whose contributions have been perhaps less recognised—by helping refugees with food, shelter, medical support, counselling—in some cases—and, in Lebanon and Jordan, with education. Critically, we have also worked with host communities, many of which have seen their populations double in size. Members can imagine the strain that puts on public services, food prices and labour wages, for example.

On our broader efforts in the region with Gulf partners, it is worth saying that Kuwait has hosted the last three pledging conferences on Syria and is co-hosting the one in London next month. It has played a role in marshalling the overall efforts and humanitarian resources in the region. Needless to say, however, we all need to do more. This is a protracted, ongoing crisis, and not only does it require day-to-day lifesaving support of the nature discussed this afternoon; but we need to see children in school and young people with the ability to find work and support themselves. If we cannot deliver those basics, we should not be surprised if people leave the region to try to build their lives elsewhere.