Before we come to Northern Ireland Questions, I should remind the House that the case involving Sir Jeffrey Donaldson is sub judice until sentencing. However, I am granting a limited waiver so that Members may discuss wider issues raised in the context of the case. Members should not speculate about sentencing issues.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what measures the Government have put in place to ensure that in the coming holiday season, travellers and business freight are not delayed at our ports, our international railway stations and our airports as a result of the imposition of the European entry and exit system.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his important question. The entry-exit system is an EU scheme and its implementation is the responsibility of the European Commission and participating member states. This Government have been working closely with the EU, member states and industry to understand the impacts, particularly for the juxtaposed border controls at the port of Dover, at Eurotunnel and at St Pancras, and to advocate for the pragmatic use of the flexibilities available within the legislation to minimise disruption for UK citizens.

The Government have supported all three juxtaposed ports to ensure that they have the right technology and processes in place to make sure that EES registration runs as smoothly as possible. That has included providing £3.5 million of funding to each one to help them make changes to their infrastructure and purchase the equipment they need to ready their sites for EES. It is not unusual to see queues at the Kent juxtaposed ports at peak times due to the unique geography, and that has been the case prior to EES. However, we want to minimise its impact.

On the late May bank holiday weekend, both Ministers and officials engaged with French authorities to ensure that arrangements were in place to handle large volumes of traffic. This resulted in assurances from France that it would have adequate staffing levels and clear escalation plans in case of severe disruption. These arrangements were made use of on 23 May, when the French police aux frontières employed flexibilities available within the regulations to alleviate congestion on the road network. I and my officials and ministerial colleagues across Government are actively engaging with France and the EU to make similar arrangements ahead of the summer period. The Department for Transport continues to support the Kent and Medway resilience forum, which has tried and tested plans in place to manage disruption to the road network in Kent.

For passengers travelling to Schengen countries by air, EES registration will take place at their destination. It will not take place in UK airports, and queues in EU member states are for those states to manage. However, this Government continue to engage with the Commission and relevant member states to advocate for the pragmatic use of the EES flexibilities allowed to avoid delays for passengers. We are also engaging with our European partners on the use of technology, such as the EES app, to move elements of registration away from the border. We continue to encourage travellers to check with their travel operator before departing so that they know when to arrive and are aware of any possible impacts on their journey.

As the Minister has indicated, over the spring bank holiday there was chaos at Dover, at St Pancras and at the channel tunnel because of the failure of the EES. The French authorities were quite simply not prepared or able to implement the facilities properly. Based on bookings for the coming season, which starts in 10 days’ time, the authorities are now predicting that there could be 12-hour delays to passengers and therefore to freight, which affects our businesses. That is simply not acceptable. Will the Minister, before it is too late, approach the French authorities again and suggest that a waiver must be put in place before the holiday season starts so that we do not again face the chaos that we faced in May?

I recognise that it is a shared goal for ourselves, for locally affected Members of Parliament and for the French to ensure that we do not see scenes of huge queues. We know the impact that has on individuals and on businesses. The right hon. Gentleman talks about making more efforts, and I can assure him that we will be doing this on a daily basis, as we already are, both with France and with the Commission. We have pushed on this fundamental point. This is a complex scheme in operation, and when volumes peak shortly, the fundamental question will be the prioritisation of flow or of compliance with the scheme. We are pushing heavily, as we will every day between now and then, to ensure that the French use the flexibilities available to prioritise flow. That is what I want, it is what he wants and it is in everybody’s interest.

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

The right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) is quite right to highlight this challenge and the impact on Kent when these queues build up, and of course the impact on British people trying to get out through Dover, Folkestone and other places. I want to ask the Minister what can be done for British holidaymakers coming home who have been stuck at airports for hours and missed their flights because of the airlines needing to get moving under working time directives. I am led to understand that fingerprints are required on entry but not on exit from the Schengen area, yet many of these delays are being caused because airports in different countries are making holidaymakers provide fingerprints again, as well as the much easier face recognition. Could the Minister pick this up, please, and tell me what is happening?

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for that characteristically thoughtful question. As she would expect, a lot of ministerial focus is on juxtaposed ports as they involve things that happen on UK soil and have an impact in UK communities. Nevertheless, we want our travellers to have the best possible experience wherever they are. The checks in Schengen countries are a matter for them, but as I have said, we are engaging with all countries, not just France, to ensure that a proportionate and sensible use within flexibility is made. My hon. Friend and other colleagues will know, too, about the changes that we are making with our own e-gates, including lowering the age involved, so that passengers who have had a difficult journey out have the smoothest arrival back on to UK soil.

I call the shadow Minister.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) for securing this important urgent question. Anyone who has travelled or spoken to those who have tried to use the new European entry-exit system understands why the scale of the challenges over summer is so great, and despite all the problems, it has now been reported that a separate new online system to preauthorise entry to the EU will be delayed until next year. That is a pitiful response, indicative of the problems facing so many UK travellers, and there is nowhere near the urgency needed to address the problems facing the EES as we enter the summer holidays. As the president of Airports Council International Europe recently expressed, politicians should

“stop pretending...that EES is working just fine. It is not.”

That delusional attitude among EU colleagues is not acceptable. With the EU telling representatives of the travel industry that a full suspension of the system is not needed and not possible, the Government must stand behind the interests of British travellers. For instance, there appears to be a ridiculous situation in which a facility built in Dover cannot be activated until the technology for the kiosks, which is the responsibility of the French authorities, is working.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands, who chairs the Home Affairs Committee, is right: it is time to “apply maximum pressure” before chaos arrives at the border at Dover. Will the Minister detail what conversations the Government have had, and what pressure they will apply? Have they asked for a temporary suspension, relaxation or phased use of EES checks at periods of exceptional congestion? Given the increased traffic, what have the Government done to strengthen plans in case queues spill out of Dover or Folkestone? It is in all our interests to ensure that people can get through border checks quickly, and it is time to ensure that that happens.

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his questions. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I share his point about the importance and impact that preauthorisation can have. We want that to become the norm, and as I said, we are engaging with member states to encourage them to take up use of the EES app. He asked about the intent of our colleagues in the European Union, whether in the Commission or in member states, and I do not detect a lack of intent. They are keen to engage with us, and we engage with them frequently. They want this system to work, and it is important that it does. It is a good thing that our neighbour wants good security arrangements, and we benefit from that too—we certainly have that level of engagement.

The hon. Member talks about full suspension, and as I said yesterday to the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands in the Home Affairs Committee, I would not set that as the goal and aspiration because I do not believe it is deliverable. What we delivered in May, and what we will seek, is that when we get to peak times and the system is clearly not managing flow appropriately, we need the right flexibilities in place on the ground for staff to make changes that prioritise flow. That is my priority. The hon. Member talks about the facility, and I say gently that of course that facility cannot be used until the technology that it is based on works. We want that to be the case as soon as possible, but that is not a business for us. We have made the money available so that the infrastructure is there. We have delivered on that element, but the technology is clearly taking time to stand up.

The hon. Member talks about pressure, and we are engaged at all levels of Government. In the Home Office, the Home Secretary has engaged with her counterpart and with the Commission, as have colleagues from the Department for Transport, including the Secretary of State, and the Minister for the Cabinet Office, and we are raising these issues on a daily basis. On contingencies, let me take this opportunity to say what a good job the Kent and Medway Resilience Forum has done on this. I am a big resilience forum enthusiast: those are local people making direct local changes to improve their community under pressure. There is also the Dover traffic assessment protocol and Operation Brock. Those arrangements are in place, and we will work with people so that they make the best operational decisions they can along the way.

Last week I visited the port of Dover with the Home Affairs Committee, to see those operations in action. Given that this is an EU entry-exit system, we must face the fact that this is an inevitable consequence of Brexit, and we have to make it work. The best solution to the challenges facing our constituents this summer is sustained engagement—[Interruption.]

Sorry about this. Can the hon. Members for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) and for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) stop the little argument on the Back Benches?

The best solution to managing those challenges this summer is sustained engagement with the French, at leader level, Cabinet level, ministerial level, and working official level, so that the police aux frontières have a delegated responsibility to let flows through. What discussion will we be having at every level with the French, using the better relationship we have struck, so that our constituents and British holidaymakers trying to get a holiday abroad this summer, do not face the consequences of Brexit, which will be missed flights and long queues?

Sustained engagement with the French is crucial, and it is happening at all levels, be that ministerial, senior official, or operationally, to ensure that prioritisation of flow. This is not something that has just started, and neither is it coming to its end. We are in that constant position and have been for many months, even before the EES started its operations, and that will continue. I say gently that it is not just the French but all EU member states. At some point this summer our constituents will end up in all those different member states. I want them to have the best possible experience, so we are also having those engagements.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

It is now 10 years on from the Brexit referendum, and in the words of the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), where are we? We are here, stuck in queues at the EU border for hours at a time, because he and his acolytes forced a damaging Brexit on this country. It is interesting to note that the Conservatives have come to the Chamber today complaining about the consequences of the Brexit deal that they negotiated. The Brexit plan of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), implemented by the Conservatives and unresolved by this Government, has left British holidaymakers in this position. Indeed, the Government are guilty not just of failing to plan, but of political and diplomatic failures that have let down holidaymakers. We are already seeing reports of queues of up to five hours—what a way to start our holidays.

What immediate steps is the Minister taking to mitigate disruption? Will he seek an immediate meeting with the European Commission so that contingency measures can be put in place to protect passengers as a matter of urgency? Will the Government drop their red lines on Europe, and commit to joining the single market and customs union? Not only would that reverse the damage done by Brexit and get our economy back on track, but it would mean that we—[Interruption.]

Order. Sorry, but you’ve gone way over your one minute. I think your border queue has just gone. I call the Minister.

To address the point about Brexit, we must be clear—for example, the Republic of Ireland, which is outside Schengen, also has these challenges, so the idea that reversing to previous arrangements would change that reality is tricky. There is a fundamental choice here, as real practical measures will affect the hon. Gentleman’s community and those of many right hon. and hon. Members, and lots of British holidaymakers. We can choose to use our efforts and leadership collectively to have conversations about the past, or we can work together to ensure that those people have the best possible experience. That is what we are doing, and why we are engaging with France and the Commission. That is the best approach, rather than having global conversations about things that do not really go anywhere.

I travel on the channel tunnel twice a year, and the carrier knows that, in case of evacuation, one passenger in my vehicle is a wheelchair user. The information that comes from the carrier is poor, and my concern over the summer months ahead is about how that continues. People will have to get out of their vehicle for the first registration check, and for some vulnerable users that will cause a huge disturbance on the journey. The pre-registration service is available, but my concern for many people travelling over the summer is about how much information is currently given to them by the carrier. What are the Government doing to work with carriers so that people have as much information as early as possible to help them on their journey?

My hon. Friend makes an exceptionally important point about vulnerable users. Operation Brock and the Dover traffic assessment project give scope for the KMRF to stand up contingency plans to make movement for domestic travel easier, because the last thing we want is for people, particularly vulnerable people, to be in cars for long periods of time.

On my hon. Friend’s point about communications from the carriers, we work closely with the carriers and they are working hard, as are the ports. My message to travellers would be to check in with the advice they are getting from the carriers, particularly on how long to give themselves. They should not change their travel plans, but they should engage to ensure that they arrive on time. I am a sinner on the Eurostar because I leave things as late as possible, but that is not a prudent approach at the moment. Instead, travellers should check in with their carrier to get the best up-to-date information. I will undertake to have conversations with carriers to ensure that things are as good as possible, in the spirit he suggests.

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

The Minister must think he is having déjà vu after our exchange at the Home Affairs Committee yesterday. I implore him once again to make every endeavour and to use his best offices with the EU Commission and the French to try to get them to understand that we cannot wait for there to be delays; we have to anticipate switching off the system. The Port of Dover, Eurotunnel and others have extraordinarily intelligent and complex ways of forecasting flow. Will they look at those flow forecasts and use them to decide when to put measures in place, not wait for the delays to start?

That is an excellent point. Ahead of the May bank holiday, we demonstrated that we were able to use that rich sense of who is coming—it is not a surprise—and to plan for when the system needs flexibility, particularly for PAF officers. We did that for the May bank holiday and we are doing it again now. We are having conversations to give flexibility in the service of the goal that we all want to see: the prioritisation of flow.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all that he is doing to sort out this mess. Does he agree that the queues and delays facing British travellers under the EU’s entry-exit system were entirely avoidable? Had Britain kept its seat at the table, we would not be subject to these to checks at all, we would have had a voice in the system design and roll-out over the past five years, and we could have made it work better. Instead, just as with steel and electric vehicles, we find ourselves on the receiving end of decisions rather than shaping them. Does he agree that is precisely why we need an ambitious new partnership with the EU, so that Britain can genuinely take back control and British people’s European holidays do not start and end in chaos?

I share some of my hon. Friend’s analysis, but not all of it. If we are dealing in counterfactuals, which I am usually loath to do but this one is quite entertaining, if we were within these arrangements, a Minister—probably me—would be at the Dispatch Box being pressed, quite rightly, by right hon. and hon. Members, who would be saying “Is your system going to work? Is it going to stand up?” The reason I know that is because that conversation is happening in every EU member state. I encourage colleagues away from the idea that a single counterfactual change in our history would mean that we would have no issues with travel at our ports, because the evidence does not bear that out.

However, I agree with my hon. Friend wholescale about having a close relationship with the EU. Whereas our Conservative colleagues spent a lot of time thumbing their noses at our neighbours, which is never in the interest of the British people, we have a close partnership on data sharing and more, as I told the Home Affairs Committee, so that we work as well as possible with our neighbours to ensure flows of travel and to secure borders.

Every holiday period, Kent and my constituency of Faversham and Mid Kent is brought to a standstill, and that has become much worse with the introduction of the EU entry-exit system, despite the fact that our ports and Eurotunnel have invested in the technology. I understand that it is not working because the French have not managed to get it to work. I disagree with the Minister that everything is fine when Operation Brock is on—Operation Brock is terrible for my area. However, I agree with his point that this has nothing to do with Brexit. I hate to break that to the Liberal Democrats and others who have being trying to make that argument, but the problems have nothing to do with Brexit. The situation could be horrific this summer: imagine people, including children and elderly people, and potentially pets, waiting in their cars in this heat for around 12 hours. It is a disaster. I implore the Minister to involve the Prime Minister—and, most likely, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), as this could happen under his watch—in the negotiations with the EU to suspend these checks in advance, not to wait and see, so that we can stop these queues happening?

It is important to recognise, as I did at the start, that these queues are not new, but the entry-exit system risks being a compounding factor. I too look at the weather and think that I would not want people, including vulnerable people, and pets to be stuck in cars for long periods of time, and we absolutely recognise that. I agree that the operations that I talk about are not a panacea—they do not make queues disappear—but they are about pragmatic ways, in challenging circumstances, of trying to make things better for people, which is a good thing. The resilience forum does a good job with that and we will work alongside it to deliver that. On the hon. Lady’s point about engagement, I hope that she has heard that our approach is not to wait and see—it has not been in the past and it is not now. We want to plan ahead of time so that PAF staff can make flexibilities to prioritise flow.

In Scotland, the holiday season has already started. I understand why the Minister has rightly focused on the connection with France, but people in Edinburgh South West are concerned about there being real issues in Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece when it comes to delays at airports. Is the Minister speaking one to one with those countries to ensure that, at the very least, we are aware of what the challenges could be?

It is reasonable for the House and the Government of the day to have a real focus on the juxtaposed ports, because the issues happen on UK soil and have impacts in UK constituencies. My hon. Friend is right that our constituents will go to all EU member states and, I would be willing to venture, they will travel to all ports in all EU member states at some point over the summer period. I do not want to see them delayed there, have their holidays ruined or to have a less enjoyable time. In the spirit that he suggests, we have talked to the European Commission and we have talked to member states individually. We have a rich sense individually of not just where every member state is, but where each port is, so that we can impose on them the clear view from the British people that they want flow prioritised, and that is what we are doing.

Will the Minister point out to the European Union that, because we have a common travel area with the Republic of Ireland, and because the Republic of Ireland is not applying any of these checks on British citizens going to and coming from Northern Ireland or direct from the United Kingdom, there is actually an open border between the European Union and the United Kingdom, so they might as well allow the same access through Dover rather than trying to impose all their rubbish on the United Kingdom? On the suggestion that this is all the fault of Brexit, this did not exist when we left the European Union; this is a result of a decision that the dysfunctional European Union is inflicting on travelling British citizens for its own reasons, not for any practical benefit.

There is a lot in the hon. Gentleman’s question. I would slightly challenge the assertion that the CTA is an open border. If an individual crosses that border into the UK, they have to have a reason for being there. They have to have real leave and they are subject to enforcement activity if they do not. I would not want anybody, whether they are connecting into the EU or anywhere else in the world outside the CTA, to have the idea that any of our ports are an open border. I want to know who is coming and who is going: that is in our nation’s interests. On his final point about there being no practical benefit, it is not for me to make the EU’s arguments for it—it can do that for itself—but given the conversations that we have in the Chamber about the flows of people across the European Union and then to the UK, it is really good thing that the EU wants to have borders where it knows who is coming and going, because that plays an important part in ensuring that we have a safe border. I think that is a good thing.

As an MP who represents a constituency at the heart of the golden triangle, with one in five of my constituents working in logistics, this issue comes up regularly, including most recently with Steve Deveraux from BSI Transport, who explained to me the costs and the red tape that the current entry system creates. Will the Minister set out what assessment his office has made about the economic impact of the new system on HGV drivers and hauliers, and what measures the Department will take to support that sector going forward?

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. On HGVs, there is degree of ease because the majority of HGV drivers are European nationals and are not subject to the same degree of checks, so that makes things flows more easily. That does not help if they are in the queue, but it helps to ensure that they do not cause the queue. On his point about the checks themselves, the good thing about the scheme is that once people have done the check, they supposedly will not need to do it again for three years, so things will get easier over time. We are looking at the impacts on the economy and the ordinary lives of the British people. Our clear message is to prioritise flow, and that is why we are having those conversations in that way.

I thank the Minister for all his efforts in trying to sort out a Tory mess. As a fellow Kent MP, I like and greatly respect the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), but is it not a bit cheeky to ask the Government of the day to sort out the mess that the Conservatives voted for? Will the Minister ask the Conservative party to respond with regard to creating the problem that he is having to sort out?

I have always taken the view that I get to do the answers, but I do not get to do the questions as well—you know that well, Mr Speaker. I will seek to address whatever is put to me to the best of my ability. The hon. Gentleman is right; I spend a lot of my time clearing up the mess made by Tory predecessors, but I am not necessarily sure that this is one of them. However, there are plenty of other messes, including the rampant use of hotels that they allowed, small boat crossings in their entirety, and plenty more.

I thank the Minister for his answers so far. This is a hugely important issue for residents and businesses in my constituency of Harlow, not least because we have an international airport on our doorstep. I am a big believer in co-operation, and I know that when we co-operated with our French allies in the ’60s, the result was supersonic. What is the Minister doing to work with our French allies and other European countries? I do not seek to repeat the arguments of the past, but it is hugely important that we co-operate with our European allies to sort out this situation.

Along with me, my hon. Friend holds that most exalted status of being a Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament. By instinct, I am the same as him; in anything in my life, I have never found that a problem with my neighbour, whatever its nature, got better by shouting rather than by co-operating. That is the spirit of our engagement at the moment. I believe that is the best approach going forward, and that is what we will continue to do.

Haulage, agricultural and fisheries firms in my constituency are heavily reliant on Dover, and delays, particularly to seafood, are disastrous—the value of the cargo disappears practically overnight. I am a member of the Business and Trade Committee, and when we visited Dover I was delighted to see £40 million-worth of infrastructure on our side of the short strait. The reality is that the difficulties lie on the far side of the short strait. Is it not time that, rather than warm words about an EU reset, we had the French ambassador in for an interview sans café?

The hon. Gentleman is testing my GCSE French—maybe I will be found wanting in that regard. On his first point, we absolutely accept that for some products, time is absolutely crucial. That is why the ports have put their money where their mouth is, but we have also put the British people’s money into that, because it is important for his constituency and for all of us to ensure that British seafood thrives. That is the right thing to do. I do not his approach is the most effective way of engaging. Rich conversations are happening on a daily basis, and it is better that we do that, rather than summoning the ambassador or anybody else. Our approach with France and with the Commission is better.

There are clearly significant challenges to work through, and that is not unusual with large-scale technology adoption, as we know. I welcome the fact that the Government are working hard to find the trigger points where measures will be reduced or suspended for periods to try to keep queues to a minimum.

There are two areas that I think the Government could do a bit more with. They could do even more to promote the official “Travel to Europe” app, which might help with some of the delays. Will the Government also ensure that perishable goods have prioritised access at ports? That is particularly important for fish exports and other short-life produce, which is critical to our economy.

The nature of who is driving short-use freight can make that easier, but there is a challenge in terms of prioritisation. As I have said to colleagues, there is a very good reason for the prioritisation of vulnerable individuals in cars for long periods of time, and there is flexibility in KMRF’s plans. There is a real challenge in finding that, because many if not most people have a good reason to move through at the quickest possible pace, and we want everybody’s flow to be as good as possible.

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point about travel information. We need people to avail themselves of that information at early points, particularly the amount of time that they need to leave, in order to plan their travel.

It should not have come as a surprise that the system is a complete disaster. In the previous Parliament, the European Scrutiny Committee, which I served on, was looking at this very issue and at many of the steps that could have been taken. However, on taking office, this Government abolished the Committee, so scrutiny was not carried through to preparations for implementation. One of our suggestions for the transitional period before the three-year rule took effect was to provide off-site units where people could have their fingerprints taken under supervision. That would have cut queues at those juxtaposed ports. Why did that not happen? Why was that suggestion not taken up? Will the Minister put it to the French Government that that could be a solution?

I might contest the idea that we do not do very much European scrutiny in this place. That would be very difficult to say, because I do not recall ever standing at the Dispatch Box without talking about the European Union—it seems there are some colleagues who seek to talk about nothing else. We do have the chance to look at these plans adequately.

On the point about off-site infrastructure and similar matters, the issue is not with the infrastructure available. We can have the best infrastructure available, but if the technology that pulls through to it does not work, the system will not work. My absolute belief, which the hon. Gentleman will get to challenge in due course, is that when that tech is operational, the infrastructure will be in place and in the right parts of the ports, but we need the tech to work before we can properly test that.

Despite the unholy alliance between the Minister and Members on the Tory Front Bench, this issue is clearly a product of Brexit. I visited Dover with the Home Affairs Committee last week. Dover has invested more than £40 million in infrastructure, but the software is not working, and there will be chaos unless the EES is suspended this summer. This is a Brexit dividend, but will the Minister emphasise to the French that, rather than enjoying the schadenfreude, they should know how much their economy will be damaged by the chaos that will ensue?

On the point about alliances, I have always taken the view in this Chamber that if I agree with somebody, I say that I agree with them; if I disagree with them, I say that I disagree with them. It does not really matter which party or what part of the UK they come from. That is in the interests of all our constituents.

The hon. Gentleman has heard my answer to the point about Brexit. Whatever the well-meant and different positions we may hold, I know for certain that if we went tapping on the windows of people in queues to say, “By the way, do you know that this is about Brexit?”, they would not consider that a suitable or sufficient answer from their leaders.

I do not recognise the point about the French and schadenfreude. I have not heard that in this debate, and it is certainly not the view of the Government. We always see these things as shared challenges with our neighbours. We have what we think is a very important way forward, and we are having conversations with our neighbours.

I echo the point made previously about the Scottish holidays having already begun and the need to focus on holiday hotspots, if I can use that expression, such as the Spanish and Greek islands, to ensure that travel is made as easy as possible for Scottish travellers. May I raise the issue of coach travel? Many people travel by coach. What assessment has the Home Office made of the impact of the EES on not just passengers but coach drivers?

The point about Scottish holidays has been well made by colleagues. We can model volumes relatively accurately, because we know who is and is not on holiday and who has and has not booked holidays. We have prepared throughout for different spikes, particularly around different events. I was worried— forlornly, it seems—that Manchester City fans would not be able to get to the champions league final. I am sad to say that, as it turned out, we did not face that particular challenge.

The right hon. Gentleman’s point about coaches is very important in terms of both passengers and drivers. It is a heavily regulated profession, which means that there are hard and fast rules about what drivers can do. Coach companies are well placed, because they routinely travel on these routes—it is their business. We are having conversations with all sorts of transport carriers about preparation and planning.

Yesterday, in a session of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Mr Eddy Montgomery—a senior Home Office official—revealed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) that this Government are focusing purely on the ports. A senior official has confirmed that this Government are concerned only about the ports and about who is coming into Great Britain, not Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree with that, given all that has happened in Northern Ireland with regard to illegal immigration?

The hon. Lady may or may not have had the chance to see from the transcript or, indeed, the video that I was on the subsequent panel for that session. That is not the view of the UK Government; the point being made was that we have significant levels of immigration enforcement for the common travel area. There have been over 2,600 visits since the general election, and more than 1,000 people have been removed from the UK as a result of those visits, 500 of them back to the Republic of Ireland—we take that enforcement very seriously. Of course, for very good reason, we focus on all of our ports as a point of challenge, but that enforcement activity happens across Northern Ireland, not just at the ports. We take an intelligence-led approach to Northern Ireland, and we always will, because we do not want to see the CTA abused.

Further to the excellent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), the Minister will no doubt be aware that Bridlington is the lobster capital of Europe, and therefore any delays at Dover have a serious impact on our vital export market. However, I want to address the wider issue of tourists this summer. Does the Minister agree that other countries—such as France, Spain and Portugal—should follow the lead of Greece and delay the implementation of the EES system until such time as it is fit for purpose?

I commend Bridlington’s lobster industry. I have to say, that was a new one to me, but let me correct that error at the first possible opportunity. Lobster is, of course, the ultimate time-sensitive seafood product—I am stretching my seafood knowledge to some degree—and we are therefore very aware of the impact on Bridlington’s seafood industry.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about member states using their flexibilities. The conversations we are having—with France, but also with the Commission and across EU member states—are about using flexibilities to prioritise flow. I think all colleagues would agree that that is the right thing to do.

Mr Speaker, it is the 10-year anniversary of Brexit, but you would barely know it. There have been absolutely no celebrations whatsoever—no carrying of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) shoulder-high down the mall, no celebrations of how we spent that extra £350 million per week—but here we have it, the Brexit birthday present after 10 years: a miserable start to people’s holidays and our business being disrupted. Scotland did not vote for Brexit. Scotland wanted nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit, so why are Scottish holidaymakers getting caught up in this situation, and what is the Minister doing to alleviate it?

The hon. Gentleman has heard what we are doing—engaging with our partners across member states and the Commission to make sure they prioritise flow over compliance, which is the right thing to do. He raises important points about Brexit, which come up frequently in our discussions. As he may well have heard me say, I deal with challenges on a daily basis that result from the decision the British people took, such as access to data and information that we are doubtlessly missing, which we are seeking to add back as part of the UK-EU summit. I am just not sure that this situation fits into that category, because we would be having this conversation in some form either way.

It is clear that the delay to the UK-EU reset summit—it was initially scheduled for July, but has now been delayed till October—has not cancelled the problems which that summit was, at least in part, designed to address. Might the Minister suggest an interim emergency summit to deal explicitly with this issue, bringing together the French and the European Commission to try to resolve it before we hit peak summer season? If he is willing to organise that summit, could he also raise the case of UK hauliers, who are reporting inconsistent scanning of their exit from the Schengen area and real fears that their 90 in 180-day entitlement will artificially run down as a result? That is going to have a profound effect on our economy.

The hon. Gentleman perhaps ascribes to me greater power than I have with regard to convening international summits. This issue is being considered outside of that process, anyway—these conversations are happening every day. I also know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will meet her European counterparts next week and that the EES is on the agenda for that meeting. That work is going on.

I am concerned to hear about the inconsistent scanning, which I know has a profound impact on businesses and workers. If there are examples, I would be very keen to look at them, to make sure people are not being affected in ways they should not be.

I thank the Minister very much for his positivity in his answers—he always tries to calm us when it comes to these questions, fairly successfully. While the Home Office scrambles to prevent chaos at English ports, what specific, targeted measures is the Minister putting in place at our Northern Ireland seaports—such as Belfast and Larne—and at our airports, to stop this EES loophole turning Northern Ireland into a magnet for illegal, untracked transit into the rest of the United Kingdom?

It is important to say that of course, there will not be EES checks at those ports; the only EES checks taking place on UK soil are at the juxtaposed ports I have talked about. Nevertheless, I am very interested in the travel arrangements and good holiday arrangements of the people of Newtownards and the rest of Strangford. It is really important that when they get to their destination and when they come home, they are able to flow through, and we are having conversations with all member states on that basis. Similarly, the hon. Gentleman will have heard about the changes and flexibilities we are introducing with regard to our domestic e-gates, to make sure that when his residents get home, they can get through their ports more quickly.

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if she will make a statement on the management of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and proposed changes to payments made to coastguard rescue officers.

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for tabling this urgent question on what is an incredibly important matter. I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on the remuneration of coastguard rescue officers, and I want to begin by recognising the extraordinary contribution made by CROs across the United Kingdom. For generations, His Majesty’s Coastguard’s coastal response has depended on people from local communities who choose to serve, often alongside full-time employment and family life. The reason we are here today is that the model had to change.

For years, when people signed up as volunteers, they had their expenses covered and an offer of hourly pay—which they did not need to claim—in recognition of the incredible service they undertook and the impact it had on their personal life. A Court of Appeal judgment has clarified that this payment overwhelmingly shifted what many considered to be a volunteer relationship into a work-wage bargain, and that this in turn conferred worker status. Everything we have done since has been to respect that judgment, understand what we do next, and allow CROs to continue fulfilling their vital public service and retain operational capacity.

There is no perfect solution, but ultimately, the volunteer model was judged at the time to be the better outcome for the service. That was the judgment reached by the MCA, which—as experts in search and rescue—took into account a variety of factors including profiles of incident types, geographies and organisational implications, as well as a survey of CRO sentiment and legal analysis, with which it made a recommendation. That recommendation allowed CROs to retain volunteer status, with the aim of protecting flexibility and the ability of people to serve alongside their primary employment. Careful consideration was given to options, including legal position, the operational implications and the wider organisational impact.

I have heard the concerns of the CRO community about this change. That is why the next stage of the process—the engagement sessions that were due to take place this week—have been postponed while I carry on working with CROs, trade unions and colleagues across the House. I will reflect on what has been raised in these discussions and consider how our coastguard volunteers can be recognised in the long term. Volunteering has been at the heart of His Majesty’s Coastguard’s response for over 200 years. It enables individuals to serve their communities alongside their primary employment, maintaining choice and flexibility. I remain grateful to all members of the Coastguard Rescue Service for their unwavering commitment to their communities and people in distress around the UK coastline.

Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr Speaker for allowing me the opportunity to ask this urgent question today, and I thank the Minister for his answer. As he knows, last week, we had more than 30 Members in Westminster Hall for a debate on these changes. I am pleased to hear that as a result of his intervention, the check-in meetings were postponed, and that the matters are now under full consideration. Is the Department considering the possibility of legislative change to deal with this problem? The House goes into recess at the end of next week, so can the Minister give the House an undertaking that those check-in meetings and this process of change will not be resumed during the recess, and without a statement first being made to this House?

Since last week’s debate, I have been contacted by a number of full-time officers who have described to me a toxic management culture within the agency. I have been told of at least three whistleblowing complaints that were made to the Department in March. Despite the passage of time, the whistleblowers remain unclear about the progress of their complaints. Can the Minister give me some reassurance that those whistleblowing complaints will be properly and speedily investigated, and that a proper and independent investigation will now be initiated into the management culture within the Maritime and Coastguard Agency?

Finally, information obtained under a Freedom of Information Act release indicates that responses to the MCA’s own survey show that almost 40% of CROs would either reduce the number of call-outs to which they respond or leave the service completely. That contradicts what Members of this House were told by the MCA. Can the Minister please explain why this information was not disclosed voluntarily by the agency? Will he now fully disclose the outcome of that survey?

May I begin by thanking the right hon. Member not only for his championing of CROs, but for doing so in such a fair-minded, open and constructive way? I will respond substantively to some of the points he has made. On parliamentary scrutiny of prospective changes or working through options for the future of CROs, I make the commitment to him that Members of Parliament will be updated fully on any changes and on the next steps. During the Westminster Hall debate on this issue, he made the important point that MPs need to be allowed access to CROs to have meaningful conversations about what they think the future of the service should look like.

The right hon. Member asks whether survey data was used to inform the judgment that was made. I can confirm to him that survey data was one constituent part of a package of advice in regard to an operational recommendation by experts at the MCA about what the future model should look like. That was used alongside impact assessments and modelling. He raised this in his contribution to the Westminster Hall debate, but if he has further information about how CROs believe this change will impact them, and about the reality for his rural constituency and the island communities that he represents so fulsomely, I strongly encourage him to share that with me. I reiterate that I want Members of Parliament to be able to play a full role in representing CROs throughout this process.

I declare my chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group for volunteer rescue services. I inform the House that, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) who chairs the all-party parliamentary group for coastal communities, we are holding a joint evidence session for CROs next week, so that they can come and tell their stories to parliamentarians. When I spoke to my CROs in Stornoway and across the Western Isles, their message was one that I hope has been received by the Minister: pause the consultation, listen to CROs and hear about the vital role that they play as a fourth blue light service. The role is about not just coastal rescue, but delivering carers and emergency workers to the elderly in time of need. Can I also have an assurance that he will keep CROs fully informed about the process and come back before Parliament goes into recess to ensure that we are fully informed?

I have already made a commitment to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) to keep the House fully informed about any next steps that are taken, but my hon. Friend raises a broader point about how CROs have been engaged throughout this process. There are some fundamental truths that I keep coming back to. One is that remuneration takes place because it allows CROs to carry out the work that they do. They do not do it for the money, but it allows them to carry out this vital public service. Another truth is that it is not always possible to reflect the scale of the contribution that CROs make. I was in Southampton the other day and spoke to around 15 CROs. They were talking about the system not recognising when they take the van for an MOT or douse down the equipment after somebody has been rescued from mud. Ultimately, it is about fairness and recognition, and that is what I want to do my level best to inject into this process.

I call the shadow Minister.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this urgent question, and Mr Speaker on granting it. There is deep concern across the whole country about the Government’s decision, which particularly affects our coastal communities. That was demonstrated clearly by all Members in the Westminster Hall debate last week, during which the Minister said that he would reflect on what he had heard. He has repeated that today, but from the answers he has given so far, I suggest that he reflects a little harder and with more urgency.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for his tireless work in highlighting these issues. The problem is not speculative; the data revealed by The Times from the MCA survey is clear: this change will decimate the coastguard. The survey showed that across all regions, between 25% and 58% of those who responded said a volunteer model would lead them to quit or reduce their hours, including 56% in the south-east and southern England regions, which cover the busiest stretches of coastline in the UK. A decrease in the number of coastguard officers of this scale would put people’s lives at risk. It is that simple.

Despite knowing that this decision was coming for months, there appears to have been a complete failure by the Department to appreciate and anticipate its impact. Why is that? Why was the impression given that even though it was a tough decision, the coastguard would be able to carry on as normal and there was sufficient support for the changes? Can the Minister explain who within the Department and the MCA knew about the revelations in The Times this week? Why was the MCA allowed to share information with Members in what can only be described as a questionable manner? The data is the data; it is not part of some sort of package.

The first responsibility of Government is to protect the public, but in this matter I fear that they have failed. As we look ahead and approach the height of summer, protecting our waterways is critical, so will the Minister answer a simple question: what will he do urgently and immediately to solve the problem?

On what I am doing personally to solve the problem, the reason that those consultation sessions are not going ahead this week is that I am honouring the commitment I made to the House last week in the Westminster Hall debate in responding to the number of concerns expressed by Members of Parliament about the operational implications of the decision that was taken. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) raised serious concerns and questions were asked about parliamentary engagement with CROs. Allegations were made that MPs were not granted proper access to engage with CROs prior to the decision being taken. Those things are all of serious concern to me, and that is why this pause has gone ahead.

I question what the shadow Minister says about the data standing alone in the operational judgment that was made. I reiterate that a package of measures enables us to make a decision. It is based on impact assessments, operational evidence and the surveys that he references. The surveys only form a constituent part of that process. The salient point remains that it is right to reflect on the concerns that have been raised across this House and to consider long-term options that will ensure that CROs feel valued and that operational capacity is retained in every part of the United Kingdom, including our rural areas. That is what I am committed to doing.

I declare my interest as co-chair of the APPG for coastal communities. I recently met coastguard rescue officers from Ravenscar who are seriously concerned about the future of the service. These CROs bring decades-long experience and routinely respond to complex call-outs in my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby, including, sadly, those involving suicide. As my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) has mentioned, we are holding an evidence session next week in Parliament. May I invite the Minister to attend and hear at first hand from CROs about their fears for the future?

I thank my hon. Friend for her doggedly determined support for her CROs. She is absolutely right to do what she is doing. I would be pleased to engage with the evidence sessions that are taking place next week, and I look forward to seeing the findings from them. She is right to point to the fact that CROs have decades of experience. I spoke to a CRO in Southampton just the other day who had served, including through the MCA, for the best part of 50 years. We cannot afford for that experience to slip through the cracks. She also mentions that CROs often have to respond to the most tragic of circumstances, when unfortunately it has not been possible to save people. Remuneration does not obscure that fact or make it better, but it is a way of recognising the enormous contribution that CROs make. That point about fairness and due regard for the contribution that CROs make has to run through the centre of what comes next.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I sincerely thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for asking the urgent question. Highly skilled, experienced coastguard volunteers are being badly let down by the Government, and I cannot imagine other rescue service personnel being treated in the same way. No one could argue that £11 an hour was enriching these volunteers; it was merely enabling them to do their vital work. As one coastguard volunteer from my constituency put it,

“I make significant personal and financial sacrifices to be available for emergency callouts—and I didn’t join the service to get paid.”

Sadly, we did not need to get to this point.

Did the Minister even speak to any of the CROs to hear what impact the changes would have on them before this rushed decision was made? Will he commit himself to a full risk assessment of these damaging changes? Finally, will he confirm that the Government are considering viable alternatives, such as a statutory stipend system, passing legislation to exempt CROs from worker status, or even just embracing their worker status?

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson was right to say that CROs do not do it for the money, but it is the money that makes what they do possible. He also said that £11 an hour does not constitute remuneration in the way that it might, given that we would all hope that CROs can be respected. What it does do is go some small way towards compensating for the Christmas dinners and birthdays missed, the call-outs in the middle of the night, and the disruption to family life. That is a part of the CRO experience that I think needs to flow into our decision making and that was certainly reflected to me when I spoke to the 15 CROs in Southampton the other day and learned about their lived experience of processing these changes.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about risk, about mitigating risk, and about operational certainty. I can confirm to him that operational impacts were carefully considered in the advice that was put to me, and that that modelling has been done and has informed this part of a package of data, alongside the survey information. That informs the experts in the MCA, who are there to advise on what the operational impacts would be, of the reality of the situation.

I thank the Minister for his continued engagement with me and with other Members, but given the unique nature of the role of coastguard rescue officers and their extraordinary commitment to responding at all hours in areas including my own constituency, will he ensure that the Department undertakes a comprehensive assessment of all viable options so that the Government can reach a fully informed decision that is right for both CROs and the communities, such as mine, that they serve with such dedication?

My hon. Friend has given me an opportunity to reiterate that CROs, their lived experience and their views on these changes must be at the heart of what happens next, which is why the meetings that were scheduled to take place this week are not taking place this week. I want to take the time to reflect on what hon. Members have told me, and also what CROs have had the opportunity to tell me about how these changes will affect them. Nowhere is that more important than in rural communities like the one that my hon. Friend represents. Let me build on that point. As the local Member of Parliament, she should be able to engage with her CROs on this matter where it is most convenient to do so—perhaps at the station itself—so that she can represent them. It is also important for trade union representation to be factored into ongoing engagement with CROs, so that we can make sure we get the details right.

The boss of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency told MPs in person that 93% of CROs surveyed were happy with moving to an unpaid volunteer model. That was false: the survey data shows that in many areas across the UK, nearly half would reduce their hours or quit. I am amazed that the Minister has any confidence in the boss of the MCA. Will he now confirm that the decision will not take effect in September and that he will consult properly himself, and will he say if he does have confidence in the boss of the MCA?

We need to ensure that the CROs who are affected by these changes have an opportunity to carry on raising their concerns, but also to raise other instances. The hon. Gentleman has argued forcefully that the worker model is an appropriate way in which to continue, and that could be true in a great number of cases, but it is not true in every case. Indeed, I spoke to a CRO in Southampton for whom it is not the case.

We need to tease out the detail of all these matters. We need to listen carefully to CROs, and we need to create the space to allow that to happen. I am not going to say specifically what options I may or may not take in the coming days, but by pausing the sessions that were meant to happen this week I am creating the space that will make it possible to weigh up those options dispassionately and ensure that we can get them right, so that CROs can continue to share their views and we can make decisions that reflect the incredible contribution they make.

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB trade union.

I am sorry to say that it beggars belief that the response of a Labour Government to a court judgment confirming workers’ rights should be to run in the opposite direction, in some perverse form of fire and rehire. I hope the Minister will make it clear that that is not what we stand for, and that he will do his utmost to address the situation. However, there is a wider point, isn’t there? Too often we see ambiguities in employment status dealt with by the courts on an ad hoc basis. Is that not a reason for us to get on with our manifesto commitment to move to a single status of worker?

My hon. Friend has a great deal of experience in the House of making sure that workers and their rights are protected, but his characterisation of the situation at the start of his question was one that I could not reject more strongly. Changes in the coastguard rescue service operating model are the result of a legal judgment which meant that the current model could not legally continue. What we are attempting to do is maintain a system whereby CROs feel valued in their work and feel motivated to turn up and carry out their shifts, and ensure that the fairness that is inherent to that is respected and implemented. That is exactly why I have postponed those meetings this week, and created the space in which to hear from CROs directly about their concerns and to get the detail of this right.

The MCA has told MPs that it has data to back its claim that CROs would rather be volunteers than employees. Can the Minister confirm that those findings can be shared? This has a massive bearing on the MCA’s decision, and may greatly undermine the essential lifeline that CROs provide to coastal communities like mine in North Devon.

I understand that for the hon. Gentleman it is not an option to have a coastguard service that works effectively; it is an absolute necessity to protect people in his coastal community. What I can say to him is that we will continue to engage with CROs. When one of his colleagues in the Westminster Hall debate asked me what information could be shared, I made a commitment that I would go back to my officials and ask that question, and that is something that I am currently working through. However, what I have derived from this process is the need to ensure—this has been my enduring objective throughout the process—that CROs feel heard and are able to share their concerns, including through their MPs, and the hon. Gentleman has rightly allowed that to happen.

I, too, refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in respect of the GMB, and also declare that I am a supporter of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution.

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for asking the urgent question, and pay tribute to the lifesaving work done by our local coastguard officers, as well as the brilliant volunteer RNLI officers and those in independent lifeboats, like the one at Pett in my constituency. I also thank the Minister for stepping in and pausing this process. I agree with him that it is vital for us to review the process fully and reflect on the MCA’s handling of the issue—which, in the experience of my local coastguard officers, has been pretty shocking—and to pause and take enough time to get this right for our coastal communities. Given the increase in extreme weather events owing to climate change—we are experiencing a heat wave now, we know that there will be more storms, and there might even be more sharks coming to our waters—the work of the coastguard officers is more important than ever before.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising those points, and for enabling me to reflect on a question that has been raised by a number of Members: the question of about how engagement is to take place from now on. Let me make it absolutely clear that my expectation is for all engagement with CROs, whether through the MCA or meetings with Members of Parliament, to be conducted as openly and transparently as possible. I want CROs to feel able to share their views openly in all their complexity—and I found some of the allegations made last week by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about CROs being made to feel uncomfortable about sharing their views deeply concerning.

Let me reiterate that I will be making it clear to the MCA’s leadership that that is how I want them to approach this engagement. It includes ensuring that MPs and trade unions play their full role, and I hope that my hon. Friend can do so.

This House has the capacity to criticise, but it also has the capacity to be fair. The Minister probably finds himself between a rock and a cliff face in a situation that he did not make himself. That does not absolve the MCA from the criticism that has rightly been levelled at it earlier today.

Mine is one of those peculiar constituencies that have both a north coast and a south coast. Those two coastlines are served by dedicated volunteers who go out in all weathers to save lives, and I have heard from some of them. It is quite clear that unless this situation is resolved swiftly, those people will be lost—and if they are lost, they will not come back. Obviously I cannot speak for others on these Benches, but I will back whatever measure the Minister seeks to take in order to ensure that there is a timely resolution to this issue, so that we do not lose good people.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I share his view that we cannot afford to lose the level of experience that we have within the MCA and the CRO community. I, too, heard the scale of concern that he so ably references and has experienced among his own coastguard volunteers. It is critical to recognise all the work that CROs undertake that lies outside the call-outs they receive. They do an enormous amount of work, which is not fully recognised and needs to be. On treating them with due respect and esteem, it is essential that we figure out a way forward that allows us to do so. The right hon. Gentleman has picked up the necessity to do that, and it is certainly my intention that that will inform whatever comes next in this process.

I am very grateful to hear that the Minister has engaged with coastguard rescue officers in Southampton, which is typical of his diligent manner and his approach to difficult issues like this. I invite him to interact with my constituents who are part of the Plymouth coastguard rescue team, who tell me harrowing stories of supporting the ambulance service and the police—sadly, too often with suicide-related issues. It is an unbelievable service and, yes, CROs deserve remuneration, but they also deserve a lot more recognition. Will the Minister agree to speak to those constituents of mine?

I would be glad to speak to my hon. Friend’s constituents, and he raises an incredibly important point: very often, CROs are not only discharging the responsibilities that we would expect of coastguard rescue officers; they are increasingly filling in the gaps for other emergency blue light services that, for whatever reason, are not able to get to people in time, or are thinly stretched and require CROs to step up. That requires them to go beyond the operational requirements that we would expect of them. This process is not just about recognising the incredible service that they contribute within the envelope of what is expected of them; they go beyond that every single day. My hon. Friend explains the issue well, and I would be happy to engage with his constituents.

In my discussions with coastguards in Torbay, they have shared the full spectrum of their activities. One of the most disturbing and harrowing is the recovery of dead bodies—not only where humans or pets may have gone over the edge of a cliff, but where people have died from drowning. That may be an accident or a suicide, and it will leave emotional scars on the officers. Does the Minister agree that choosing not to financially compensate people who undertake work that many of us would find really difficult is nothing short of an insult?

The hon. Gentleman speaks powerfully about the contributions that CROs make in the most tragic and emotionally traumatic circumstances. We need to do a number of things, including building a system that allows us to retain operational capacity so that we can keep people safe in our water, and granting CROs, and the MCA more broadly, the resilience to be able to carry out their meaningful work. We also need to treat CROs with the fairness, dignity and respect that they require. He is right to say that remuneration allowed us to do that. We are now dealing with the consequences of the Court of Appeal judgment to process how we move forward, to make sure that fairness and due respect continue into the future. I hope that he can continue to hold me to account as we do so.