debates/debates2025-05-13d conversation_21
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-05-13)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-05-13d conversation_21

Alistair Carmichael:I apologise, Mr Speaker; I had not realised that my name was on the Order Paper. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call Matthew Patrick. \p Matthew Patrick: On Sunday, I had the honour of meeting Emily Damari. She told me about her good friends, Ziv and Gali Berman, who remain in captivity. It is so clear to me that no hostage will be free until all hostages are free. Hamas footage at the weekend serves only to deliver more torment to the  families. Will the Minister set out, before the 600 day-anniversary later this month of the 7 October attacks, the steps he will be taking to ensure humanitarian access for those hostages? \p David Lammy: I welcome the release of Edan Alexander after an agonising 583 days in captivity, and I thank Qatar and Egypt for their support. We urge all parties to seize this opportunity to re-engage with negotiations and return to a ceasefire. That is what will see the return of those hostages. When I discussed this with Secretary of State Rubio and, indeed, with partners in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, I urged them to raise those issues with the President this week. \p Julian Lewis: Is a pattern emerging where the Trump Administration take initially extreme positions on international trade and foreign policy and then quickly re-adjust to more realistic and sensible policies? What opportunities does that give for British diplomacy? \p David Lammy: In many ways, that question is better put to President Trump and I do not want to speak for him. None the less, I am pleased that the United Kingdom was the first country to strike a trade agreement with the United States. Many international partners are now ringing us up to ask us how we did it. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. \p Emily Thornberry: I know that a lot is going on, but the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction treaty is important. It is about our blue planet and our oceans, in which we used to have a leadership position. When we were leading it, 115 countries signed that treaty, but it needs to be ratified as well, and very few countries are ratifying it, including Britain. When we asked the Government about it, they said that it was because they did not have enough time. Have they dropped the ball, is there a Bill, will we ratify it, and will we ratify it before the UN Oceans Conference? \p Catherine West: We will redouble our efforts to get into the legislative queue and do all that is necessary to maintain our leadership in this important area. \p Carla Lockhart: Today we welcome the release of Edan Alexander, the latest hostage freed by Hamas, after over 500 days in captivity. The fact that they still have people in captivity is disgraceful and barbaric and puts into perspective the fact that the group Kneecap are being platformed in Croydon, after they shouted support for Hamas from a stage. What pressure are the Government putting on the Palestinian authorities to ensure that the remaining hostages are returned to their families as they should be? They should never have been taken in the first place. \p Hamish Falconer: We continue, with all our partners, to call for the immediate release of all hostages. I think particularly of Avinatan Or, who has a British mother and who is still in captivity under who knows what conditions. We will continue to press for the release of all hostages. \p Debbie Abrahams: On 15 May we will commemorate the 77th anniversary of the 1948 Nakba, which saw hundreds of thousands of Palestinians displaced from their homes and dispossessed, and it still continues today. I pay tribute to Ministers for the diplomacy they are engaged in and for the recent memorandum of understanding that was agreed with Palestine, but the children of Gaza cannot wait weeks and months. They need food and water now. What more can we do? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for continuing to raise these issues. We have a meeting of the UN Security Council this afternoon. It was important that I spoke to colleagues in Saudi Arabia and the UAE the weekend before last about these issues and with partners in the region, particularly as President Trump visits. I am very concerned following a meeting with my German counterpart about Israeli decisions to reduce the number of distribution points, and we will be making these representations very actively over the coming days. \p Lindsay Hoyle: It is not often in this House that we recognise a former civil servant, but before we proceed to the next business I would like to pay tribute to Sir Roy Stone, who died yesterday. It feels far too soon, given that he only retired from his role as principal private secretary to the Government Chief Whip in 2021 —a role he held for more than 20 years, serving 13 Chief Whips, and in turn this office, with great distinction. Working in No. 10 before he joined the Whips Office, Roy served every Prime Minister from Margaret Thatcher to Boris Johnson. He was virtually invisible outside this place, but those who were involved in this tricky business of keeping the parliamentary machinery running smoothly all knew him well.

Roy was, despite the sometimes fearsome reputation of the Whips Office, a kind and generous man, loyal to his principles as well as to his political masters. He was highly respected and held in great affection by those in the civil service and with whom he worked closely. There are many Members and staff in all parts of both Houses who worked with him and benefited from his advice and guidance. I know that they will be deeply saddened by this news. As we know, the usual channels is not something we ever discuss. That just shows the great man we are talking about. I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in sending our condolences to Roy’s family: his wife Dawn, daughter Hannah and son Elliott. \p Alan Campbell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is by convention unusual for the Government Chief Whip to address the House. It is also by convention forbidden to refer by name to those who hold the office of principal private secretary to the Government Chief Whip. It is a measure of Sir Roy’s service that today we lay those conventions aside.

Sir Roy was the literal embodiment of the usual channels for more than two decades, ensuring each day that while the Government got their business, the Opposition were able to scrutinise their work. As I look back on what were, on occasions, tumultuous times in this place, Sir Roy was, with skill and integrity, the constant that held things together. Trust was placed in him and his wise counsel was sought over many years.

I send my deep condolences on behalf of the Government to his family, friends and the many staff who worked with him. Such was Sir Roy Stone’s diligence and long service that one could be forgiven for thinking that work was his main concern, but I know from speaking to him that his main priority was always his family, of whom he was tremendously proud. They should be equally proud of him. My thoughts are with them at this difficult time. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Leader of the House. \p Jesse Norman: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You have said much that was true and good, and it is hard to improve on what you said as well as the Chief Whip, but may I add a few words? Roy Stone went into the civil  service at the age of 16 and served his entire life there and in this House. Twelve Chief Whips across extraordinary moments were the beneficiaries of his sage counsel and advice.

I think the House will be aware that there were several occasions on which I was able to benefit from his advice in somewhat tumultuous times, having offended various senior politicians. I did not always get a meeting with the Chief Whip with coffee—as hon. Members know, that is the key test—but Sir Roy and his team were the models of professional expertise, diligence, discretion, care and candid advice throughout. The fact that he has been taken from us so quickly, so prematurely and so early into his long-deserved retirement is, I am sure, a source of the utmost sadness for every Member of this House. I am sure that I speak for all members of His Majesty’s Opposition. We will remember him with great fondness for a very long time. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Wendy Chamberlain: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I have to admit to shedding a tear last night when I heard the news of Sir Roy’s passing. Within nine months of joining the House in 2019, I became the Chief Whip of a small group of 11, and he treated me and my party with the utmost respect. He was the first person to refer to me as “chief”—sadly, my family have not picked up that term—which showed the respect he had for the House, MPs and the parties they represent.

I valued his counsel. We sometimes take the daily business for granted, but it is testament to the work of the usual channels and the Government Whips Office that we end up with the business and debates we have in this place.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) is sitting with me. When Sir Roy left his role and the House in 2021, we took him for dinner at the Liberal Club. I will just say that the club’s standards of service were exactly what my right hon. Friend and I expected them to be; I will say no more  on that.

Sir Roy was the epitome of the best of the civil service. We had good conversations, but it is fair to say that no confidences were betrayed. I am very saddened to hear of his loss. My thoughts and my party’s thoughts are with his family. \p Julian Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. In his role in the usual channels, Sir Roy Stone had a unique influence in this place, as we have heard, working for decades for the Government Chief Whip and the Leader of the Opposition, providing advice to both and protecting the confidences of both, but answering honestly to each. Those in the usual channels hold the only role in government that means working for both the Government and the Opposition; Roy managed the Whips Offices for both. The British public see adversarial politics and parties in this Chamber, but for decades, Roy and his teams organised and co-ordinated legislation, debates, recesses, statements and urgent questions and managed the relationship between the parties. Woe betide any Chief Whip who tried to change Roy’s recess schedule, which was almost always in tandem with the Kent school holiday breaks.

Every political science course in the country should have dedicated modules on the usual channels and Sir Roy Stone. Roy’s dominance of this behind-the-scenes role made him one of the most impactful and consequential civil servants of his time. Despite being fair to all sides, he was political to his core, not least during the hung Parliament and Brexit. During that time, he was passionate about and focused on supporting the Government to deliver on the referendum, and was increasingly frustrated with us politicians, and in particular me, for failing to deliver a meaningful vote.

Roy loved his central role in this place, and had the respect, if not always the agreement, of everyone, politician and civil servant alike. Despite all the stresses and strains in that most demanding period of parliamentary history, which is when I worked with him, what shone out was the love for and commitment to his family: his brother, who was ill with cancer during the Brexit years; and his wife Dawn and children Hannah and Elliott. In particular, there was pride in Elliott’s commitment to the RAF, in which he was a cadet, and of which he is now a full-time member. A patriot at work, a patriot at home. Rest in peace, Sir Roy Stone. \p Gavin Williamson: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Roy was political to his core. He loved this place more than anyone could possibly imagine. He regularly got quite frustrated with Governments and Prime Ministers. I will always remember arriving at the office on my first day as Chief Whip, and seeing his look of frustration and irritation, which said, “Who on earth have they sent me now? He’s never been in the Whips Office.”

I remember Roy sitting me down and explaining that he worked for me 51% of the time and for the Opposition the other 49%. I wanted him to shift the dial a little more in my favour, but he was never going to do that. I asked him, rather naively, what I should read, and whether it was worth picking up “Erskine May”. He looked at me and said, “Chief, only strange people and Clerks read ‘Erskine May’.” Yet there was a not a page in “Erskine May” that he did not know.

Roy started as an apprentice in the Ministry of Defence, worked his way through to No. 10 Downing Street and got briefings ready for Prime Ministers, and then went into the Whips Office. All that equipped him to understand raw politics. As anyone who has been Chief Whip will know, it is deputies, not Chief Whips, who whip their party; Chief Whips have to manage the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. They are there to save the Government from doing incredibly stupid things to themselves every single day—or that was the case in my day. I have a feeling that might not have changed that much.

I would sometimes come into the office and Roy’s eyes would roll; he had heard the news about the latest decision emanating from No. 10. Yet he would always sit down, talk through the problem and give solutions—a potential way out of the awful mess that you found yourself in. I particularly recall the day after the 2017 general election. For those who were not here, it had not gone quite as well as we had hoped. I arrived at the beautiful Chief Whips Office in Downing Street and Roy, who was as good with his Anglo-Saxon words as any man—I will not say the word he used, but it rhymed with “clucking”—said, “Well, you clucking screwed  that one up, didn’t you? What are you going to do?” At the time, the Prime Minister was in shock and not really doing an awful lot, and it fell to the Whips Office to work out how we took things forward. Sitting down with Roy to work things out was essential to our putting together a deal with the Democratic Unionist party—a deal that made sure that the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) did not have the opportunity to form a Government in 2017, or since.

Roy lived and breathed politics, but also cared about nothing more than his family. I would hear him talk with such pride about his daughter at university, and about his son, whom he took to countless events related to swimming, and then to the RAF. Altogether, Roy was a good friend. Just a few weeks ago, I was sitting down with him, having a cup of coffee and talking about his family. We talked about the difficult times, but also the amazing times. He will be so missed. \p Pete Wishart: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to pass on the sincere condolences of the Scottish National party to the family and friends of Roy Stone, and I really hope that they take comfort from today’s proceedings. We speak of Roy in such terms not just because we respected him, but because we liked him. He was a likeable guy who was great company and such fun to be with.

I will never forget the kindness that Roy showed me as a new Member of this House, and as a recently installed Chief Whip who did not have a clue about House business or procedure. He patiently ran through how the House worked; getting a lesson from Roy Stone on parliamentary procedure is something that I will never forget. I was representing a group of five, and Roy had time for us all. The SNP finally got access to the usual channels when we became the third party in the House, and I was able to observe how effectively he did his work. I will never be in government, unlike others who are paying tribute today, but I saw how seamlessly Roy was able to serve Governments of different hues, and how the ship of state sailed on under his stewardship and command. Roy was the absolute epitome of public service and commitment to this House, which he loved, and we will all miss him dearly. \p Alistair Carmichael: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for allowing this quite exceptional but fitting tribute, which I am sure will give some comfort to Sir Roy’s wife Dawn and his children, Hannah and Elliott. It was my privilege to work with Sir Roy during the first three and a half years of the coalition Government. Coalition government had never been done in this country in modern peacetime. The coalition required service to not one party but two in government, and for Sir Roy, it was a time of change and challenges, but they were all challenges that he took impeccably in his stride. There are many anecdotes that I could tell you, Mr Speaker, but unfortunately, too many of those who were involved are still alive, and there are limits to how far one can push parliamentary privilege.

The genius of Sir Roy Stone was that he never betrayed any personal political view. That was how he was able to serve Governments of all stripes. The dignity of Parliament and of the business of government really mattered to him. There was only one occasion when I  saw Sir Roy’s mask slip. It was the early days of the coalition Government. The Liberal Democrat Whips Office was in the business of babysitting, and on this occasion it involved an actual baby; it was not the normal babysitting that the Whips Office is called on to do. Inevitably, as happens with babies, there was a need for a nappy to be changed. I took the baby—I think it was Jenny Willott’s son, Toby—into my office, and I had laid him on the sofa and was changing his nappy when Sir Roy Stone appeared in the doorway. One glimpse at his face told me that this scene realised his worst fears about having Liberal Democrats in government.

Sir Roy cared about both Government and Parliament, and being able to serve both requires very distinctive and particular talents. It was a privilege to work with him and to have the benefit of those talents. For those who mourn him, especially his family, the recognition of those talents should be an enduring comfort. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I first knew Sir Roy Stone when I became leader of my group after the 2017 general election. He did, in fact, pass views on the Chief Whips of the time, but I think they are probably best kept to myself for now, because some of them are in the Chamber. He was immensely supportive, and as the leader of a very small group, I learned so much from him. It was the first time that the group had had meetings with the Chief Whip. I speak on behalf of a small party, and Sir Roy’s respect for Parliament, and for the presence of small parties in it, was evident. He felt that we had a role to play, and he enabled us to play that role very effectively.

My lasting memory of Sir Roy was from just after he left. A member of staff, Fflur Elin, could play the harp. Sir Roy found that out, and nothing would do but for Fflur to bring in said harp to play for him. It has been an honour to know him, and people’s recollections of him today tell me that he had immense influence on all of us here. \p Jim Shannon: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, I want to convey to the family of Sir Roy Stone our deepest condolences at this time of tragedy and grief. To serve under a number of Prime Ministers and Chief Whips is no easy task, but he was always fair and impartial. He contributed loyally and with great wisdom. I would not like to say anything against any of the Chief Whips in my party, but I have probably challenged them all, and to be perfectly honest, I probably still do. Sir Roy’s advice was much sought after and liberally given. He set a standard for others to follow, and to admire from a distance. It is always good to cite the Bible at these times; he has run the race, he has fought the good fight and there are many crowns laid up for him in heaven. Thank you, Sir Roy, and God bless all the family at this time. \p Lindsay Hoyle: These really have been fitting tributes to Sir Roy Stone. He will always be in our thoughts and memories because of what he did for this House. I know that the Clerks feel the same way. \p Mel Stride: (Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if she will make a statement on the Mansion House accord. \p Torsten Bell: Mr Speaker, I would like to associate myself with your tribute and those of other Members to Sir Roy Stone, who was a true public servant, and a servant of this House.

Pensions matter. They underpin not just the retirement that we all look forward to, but the investment on which our future prosperity depends. This morning, 17 workplace pension scheme providers, between them managing about 90% of active savers’ defined contribution pensions, signed the Mansion House accord. The accord was proposed and developed by the industry, specifically by the Lord Mayor, the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association and the Association of British Insurers, and builds on the work of the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), who is in his place.

Signatories to the accord have pledged to invest 10% of their main default funds in private assets by 2030. These are productive assets that boost the economy, such as infrastructure. At least 5% will be for UK assets. This investment could support better outcomes for savers and deliver growth finance to Britain’s world-leading science and technology businesses. It could also support clean energy developments across the country, delivering greater energy security and jobs.

The shift towards greater investment in private assets is a journey that the sector is already on, because everyone recognises that UK defined contribution schemes stand out relative to their international peers for how little they invest in those areas. This is right for savers because it is in their interests for pension funds to hold a diverse range of assets, and it is in Britain’s interests. This Government want to see higher investment levels in the UK. We cannot continue with the lowest business investment in the G7, as we managed under the previous Administration. Supply of capital is part of that—and today’s agreement is expected to release £25 billion of additional investment into the UK economy by 2030—but so is the supply of projects to invest in: the pipeline. Our job as a Government is to support the depth and visibility of that pipeline, and that is why we are getting this country building once again.

The accord is an industry-led agreement—nevertheless, I hugely welcome it. The pensions industry’s decision to invest in more productive assets, from growing companies to infrastructure, will support better outcomes for savers and faster growth for Britain. In the coming weeks, the Government will publish the conclusions of the pensions investment review to support the move to bigger and better pension schemes. We will implement the review’s reforms, and others to improve returns for savers, in the forthcoming pension schemes Bill, which I look forward to presenting to the House. \p Mel Stride: May I start by associating myself with the very fine tributes made to Sir Roy Stone? My condolences go to his family.

No response from the Chancellor, we see, but I thank the Minister for his statement. The retirement incomes of millions of UK savers rely on the careful management of pension funds. Those pension providers have a fiduciary duty to act in the best financial interests of their members. We on the Conservative Benches support efforts to ensure pension funds are investing in assets that can both increase UK productivity and growth, and deliver stronger, stable returns for investors and savers. Indeed, that was the purpose of the first Mansion House compact, which was brokered by the last Conservative Government.

As we well know, Labour Ministers have a habit of thinking they know best what to do with other people’s money, but it should ultimately be the responsibility of the providers, which have been entrusted by savers with their money, to make investment decisions. Reports that the Government intend to take new powers to mandate pension funds to allocate minimum amounts to specific classes of assets should be a matter of great concern to this House. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government intend to take such legislative powers in the pensions Bill later this year? If he cannot rule out making such a move, can he explain what it would mean for the existing fiduciary duties set out in legislation?

Major players in the industry, including Scottish Widows, have reportedly refused to take part in the latest iteration of the Mansion House compact. Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why that is, what discussions he and other Ministers have had with Scottish Widows and others that have chosen not to take part, and what concerns they have raised?

Let me be clear: we on the Conservative Benches want a pensions industry that is investing in growing UK businesses, infrastructure, housing and all those elements that drive a healthier economy, but it also has to be for the benefit of savers. Of course, the risks in this case would be borne entirely by private sector workers, while public sector workers would be protected. Finally, we are clear that pension savings should never be there to dig a Chancellor out of the economic hole that she has made. \p Torsten Bell: I will directly address two questions and then come to the overall tone of the shadow Chancellor’s remarks. There has been a debate across this House and in the wider industry about mandation, including on UK equities. It has been led by Conservative peers in the House of Lords—Baroness Altmann has called for exactly that—and by some Members in this House, including the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on the Conservative Benches. What we are setting out a voluntary agreement led by the industry. On the industry consensus behind the accord, 90% of the defined contribution industry, by active savers, have signed up this morning—and all providers, including those that did not sign up today, are committed to the idea of more investment in private assets.

More generally, the shadow Chancellor’s tone is disappointing. The truth is that he is a lonely figure. There is a wide consensus about the direction of travel to invest more in private assets, as Canadian and Australian pension funds do, and today’s accord is industry led; it sets benchmarks agreed by the industry, and in fact many industry players want to go further. There should be cross-party consensus. At the event this morning, the Chancellor spelt out that this work builds on the work  of her predecessor in supporting the 2023 Mansion House compact. The shadow Chancellor will remember that compact because it was signed under a Conservative Government when he was the Work and Pensions Secretary—he was in the press release, championing it. He was right then, and he is letting himself down now.

I have some news: a response to the accord has just come in from Guy Opperman. Hon. Members will remember him, because he was the Conservative former Member for Hexham and the only Pensions Minister in the last Government to last more than five minutes; he was in post for five years. What did he say about this morning’s accord? He said that it is a “good thing” and “should be welcomed”—he is not wrong. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Select Committee. \p Meg Hillier: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a trustee of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. The points about fiduciary duty have been made. Given that fund managers will need time to pool together funds that reflect the Government’s wishes and the voluntary accord, when does the Minister expect it to kick in? At that point, might he consider mandation? \p Torsten Bell: The decision by the industry, reflecting the question that the Chair of the Select Committee raises about pace of change, is that the targets for asset allocation are for 2030. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Steve Darling: Liberal Democrats cautiously welcome the response from the Minister. Clearly, ensuring that people have a good return on their investments is essential, but we welcome this step change where we are looking at investment within the United Kingdom within the appropriate parameters. Would the Minister unpick for us what core lessons he has learned from Australia and Canada, which have already embarked on this path? Also, it has long been a long-term investment opportunity for many in the pensions industry to invest in rental opportunities. How can we drive the opportunities in the social rented sector through the accord?

Finally, the Minister rightly talks about a pipeline of opportunity. Our fear is that these might only be large opportunities, such as the redevelopment of an airport, when many of our communities are worried by the collapse of our town centres; there could be buckets of opportunity highlighted there, which could be driven by appropriate investment through sources like this. \p Torsten Bell: It is characteristically bold of the Liberal Democrats to cautiously welcome these measures. However, the hon. Member is right to raise the question of Australia and Canada. We look across at places with similar pension schemes to those in the UK, and the levels of private asset allocation in those schemes is far higher than we see here in the UK, so he is absolutely right on that front.

On the two specific points the hon. Member raises, I agree on investment in the social rented sector. Many of our pension funds are already doing that, and I know  that other major ones will be making announcements in that area in the months ahead. He also raises the breadth of investment opportunity. He is absolutely right that there are large, national-level projects, but there are also many more local projects. Where those are financed by the private sector, pension schemes may want to look at them as well. \p Richard Quigley: Will the Minister spell out how this deal provides real change for constituents across the country, and what it means for infrastructure projects, especially housing? \p Torsten Bell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no way that Britain can return to growth unless it starts investing in its future again, rather than living in its past, which is, if we are honest, what we have been doing in recent years. This is part of a much wider story. I hope that there is cross-party consensus—there is certainly consensus across the pensions industry, and among most economists who look at the UK economy—that we need to move to a higher investment level. The finance for that is one thing; some comes from abroad and some comes in domestically, but it also needs to come from our pension schemes.

Obviously, it is for the public sector to play its part, but we should be careful in distinguishing this. The Government are doing our bit on public investment levels, with £113 billion extra of public investment compared with the plans inherited from the Conservative Government. That is doing a lot of the work to move us to the higher investment equilibrium, but there are lots of projects, and in the end most investment happens in the private sector. That is where I welcome the progress made by the pensions industry today. \p Jeremy Hunt: I thank the Minister for building on the work of the Mansion House reforms that I introduced two years ago. Westminster works best when Governments do not automatically tear up the work of their predecessors. Who knows, with this constructive attitude, we may see some tax cuts in the autumn Budget.

Does the Minister agree that there is a circularity in the argument that the reason pension funds do not invest in the UK is because returns are lower here? In Australia and America, the stock markets can depend on more than 40% of pension fund assets investing domestically to create bigger returns, compared with just 4% in the UK. Does he agree that if we are really to make these reforms fly, we will need to involve the 28,000 defined benefit schemes as well as the 4,000 defined contribution schemes? \p Torsten Bell: That is more like it! That is what we want to hear from the Conservatives. The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that progress was made under the previous Administration. I have made that clear, and the Chancellor made that very clear this morning, as I said. I have discussed with many leading members of the pensions industry the fact that we are explicitly building on the progress that the right hon. Gentleman made, rather than throwing any babies out with the bathwater—even after they have had their nappies changed by the previous Lib Dem Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael).

I very grateful to the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) for the tone of his question. He is also right to highlight the lack of UK bias in some of our pension schemes. We see that right across asset classes, and it is not in the interests of the country in the longer term. As he knows, the focus today is on private assets, but we do need to think more broadly. What are we all after? We are after well-functioning capital markets, both public and private, and these reforms will make a big difference in that regard. I am not saying that there is not more to be done; I am sure that there is, and that he will continue to play an active part in those debates. \p Chi Onwurah: The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee inquiry into the innovation and growth of the regions has repeatedly heard evidence that the lack of access to investment, particularly outside London and the south-east, is a barrier to scaling up our fantastic science and tech start-ups, so I welcome the commitments to put more of our pensions and savings into the productive economy—and I am rather surprised by the response of the shadow Chancellor. Will the Minister say a little more about how these commitments will support growth through innovation? \p Torsten Bell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She has long talked about both the issues that she raises: the regional balance of investment and the ability of growing firms to get hold of growth finance. The latter is a long-standing problem in the UK economy, and today’s accord will help to address it. Although we talk about private assets and investment helping with infrastructure, it is also about providing growth capital to a wider range of firms. Obviously, the onus is on us and private asset managers to provide ways for pension funds to direct capital. Those are often small-ticket items, and pension funds will need them to be aggregated up to a higher level. That is exactly the work of the British Business Bank, which I know she has engaged with through the Select Committee. On both points, she is 100% right. \p John Glen: Undoubtedly, the City of London is not in the best possible place when it comes to where it is investing and the amount invested in UK equities. When I was a Minister, we had the Hill review, the Kent review, the Austin review and the capital markets review. Everything was done to seek to open up the City to more initial public offerings and more momentum. This systemic undervaluing of UK equities, and therefore the lack of investment in them, needs to be set alongside the fact that billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is used to enrich the size of pension schemes through tax reliefs. I urge the Minister to continue engaging with the City. I welcome the voluntary commitments given, but we must come to the point where the risk-aversion of DB schemes is called out, considering the amount of taxpayers’ money that is effectively going into them. Will the Minister continue to look carefully at the options available, given that the previous Government sought—and his Government will no doubt continue to seek—to meet them wherever possible? \p Torsten Bell: I always enjoy discussing these things with the right hon. Member, as we have done over recent months. He offers a recognition of the challenge  facing the country, and in focusing on what we can do to start changing things, he takes a much better position than that adopted by his Front Benchers.

I recognise the right hon. Member’s point about risk-aversion. There is a need for more innovation in our pension landscape more generally—that is one of the areas in which I am glad to see progress. I take a slightly more positive view than he does on the consensus that things need to change. We are seeing that in the pensions industry more generally, partly in relation to investing in a wider range of assets, as well as in embracing the agenda that we are setting out for a smaller number of bigger pension funds that are able to take different kinds of risks.

The right hon. Member asks specifically about public equities. My view is that the accord from the industry today will support that by funding a pipeline of companies that can grow to the level at which they can list publicly. Also, private assets will include private shares, including the alternative investment market and others. I think the picture is slightly more positive than the one he paints, but I am not hiding from the wider question he raises about capital markets. The UK Government, the Chancellor and my colleague the City Minister are focused on that—he will have heard their words on ISA reform and the rest of it. I look forward to further conversations on that. \p Shaun Davies: How will my hon. Friend bring together UK pension schemes and local and regional governments in order to invest in local infrastructure projects, given that European and global pension schemes invest when UK pensions schemes too often do not? \p Torsten Bell: My hon. Friend asks a great and important question. We will have more to say on this in the months ahead as we come forward with the final report of the pensions investment review and the pension schemes Bill. Some local government pension schemes have a track record of investing locally, but we need to see that at scale, and we need to see it crowding in private investment, including perhaps from private pension funds. That is exactly what our package of reforms, combined with the industry’s work with the accord today, will help us to deliver. He is absolutely right to push us on that, as I am sure he will continue to do in the months ahead given his record in previous roles. We want higher investment levels, not just in some parts but in all parts of the country. \p Dave Doogan: Over the past 10 years, the Dow Jones has grown by 133%, the German DAX by 115% and the Nikkei by 87%, while the FTSE 100 has grown by 23%. It is against that backdrop that there is concern about investment in the United Kingdom. As other Members have said, given the fiduciary duty on asset managers, would they not be investing in the UK anyway if they thought that they were going to get the best return for their policyholders? If they were not already doing so, what has changed to ensure that that fiduciary duty is upheld as asset managers are coerced by the Chancellor to invest in markets that they would not otherwise have invested in? \p Torsten Bell: Clearly, the hon. Member has not even read the accord. It talks about private assets. [Interruption.] No, the accord is about private assets while he mentions public assets. He also adopts the very market fundamentalist  view that there is no role for Government at all, which is odd given what I hear him talk about in the Chamber day in, day out. Lastly, he also adopts extreme pessimism about the future of the country. I am much more positive about Britain than he is; that is not surprising, because his job is to pull it apart. \p Katie White: In its first six months, the National Wealth Fund, based in Leeds, has fuelled almost 10,000 jobs and unlocked £1.8 billion of private investment. Can the Minister confirm that this deal will equal more investment in British businesses? \p Torsten Bell: My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for Leeds and for Britain every single week in this Chamber, and everything she said is completely right. The job of the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank is to work with our nations and regions to ensure that projects can be de-risked and supported and that a wide range of private investors can come in behind that and make sure change actually happens, so that this becomes a country that invests in its future once again. \p Julian Lewis: At a time when we have been commemorating a significant anniversary of VE Day, does the Minister share my concern that certain large pension firms are refusing to invest in profitable defence industries on spurious ethical grounds? Is that something that his pensions investment review might care to investigate? \p Torsten Bell: I hear the point the right hon. Gentleman raises, and we have had those debates in this Chamber in recent months. The UK Government are doing what they need to do to invest in our security and defence and to support our defence industry more generally. We have made it very clear that private investment in those sectors is the right thing to do for our national security and our national economic growth. So far today, there have been calls for mandation and calls to oppose any mandation. There are choices available within pension funds for savers. The vast majority of funds—I think it is 99% within the National Employment Savings Trust, for example—invest in the broad defaults and do invest in the likes of defence companies. \p Andrew Pakes: I warmly welcome the statement. One of the most woeful things about our national story has been the lack of investment in infrastructure, but that story is not just about GDP and productivity at a national level; it is also about places. In Peterborough, the lack of investment over the last decade has been woeful. I know that the public sector cannot do it all itself. While I put on record my thanks to the Department for Transport for this week announcing business case approval and funding for our station regeneration project, can the Minister explain how this policy will help investment in places like mine? Does it truly meet the definition of “further and faster”? \p Torsten Bell: I am sure that Ministers in the Department for Transport will have heard my hon. Friend’s words and that his buttering up will have the desired effect over the years to come. He is right to highlight the synergies between public and private investment. We need to see higher levels of public investment, which is why this Government are putting in place £113 billion  over these five years. That is being done because it will deliver real, tangible progress that people can see in their streets. Why do people think Britain went backward over the last 15 years? There are lots of reasons, but high up the list is visible potholes on every single road in Britain. We are turning that around as we speak. That wider investment also gives confidence to the private sector, and we see that across the piece—wherever we are delivering regeneration projects with public sector investment supporting them, it crowds in private investment in exactly the way my hon. Friend sets out. \p Lisa Smart: Before I was elected to this place, I was a trustee of one of the large public pension funds, and a lot of the correspondence I received was from retired social workers who were quite grumpy about their funds being invested in extractive industry companies listed in London. We know that more young people will opt in to invest if they are comfortable with what their pension fund is investing in. What more can the Government do to engage with the industry but also with young savers to ensure there are pension options that reflect their investment preferences? \p Torsten Bell: The hon. Lady is right to say that we see higher engagement levels among young people today in investing more broadly. Whenever I go into a school sixth form, a surprising volume of the questions are not, unfortunately for me, on what the Government are doing and how we will bring inequality down and get growth up, but are instead, “How do we make a lot of money quite quickly?” We should support that level of engagement and active investment.

On the hon. Lady’s specific point, schemes are required to set out their policy and approach, and many pension schemes provide members with options for how they wish their funds to be invested. Nothing that has been set out today on the accord gets in the way of those approaches that are already in place. \p Matt Rodda: I warmly welcome the Mansion House accord and the Minister’s statement. During the last Parliament, I had the pleasure of taking part in a cross-party visit with the then hon. Member for Hexham to see a solar farm that was funded by pension investment. It is a wonderful scheme close to the M4 and my constituency. Could the Minister say a little more about how this announcement will support much broader investment in the green transition, both in the south of England and across the country? \p Torsten Bell: I have benefited from conversations with my hon. Friend about this topic, given his previous experience. He is completely right to set out that one of the large reasons—although not the only one—why we need to move to being a higher investment country is that our energy infrastructure has to be upgraded, and fast, if we are going to give this country the energy security it needs. He mentioned solar. This Government signed off in a matter of days and weeks a string of solar farms that needed to be invested in and that had been sitting on Ministers’ desks for year after year. More broadly, when the Leader of the Opposition stands up and says, “We don’t want to see this progress on net zero,” what she is really doing is putting up a sign across Britain saying, “Closed for business.” \p Lincoln Jopp: Some 5,500 defined-benefit schemes have £1.6 trillion-worth of assets. The trouble is that the regulatory environment is skewed toward buying an insurance policy at the end of that journey. In order to change the way in which trustees and fund managers invest, the Minister has to change the end state. What discussions has he had with the Pensions Regulator and the Association of British Insurers about changing that particular game? \p Torsten Bell: We have discussed some of these issues in the past, and I look forward to the conversations that I am sure we will have in future, not least around the pension schemes Bill. It is true that for many in the industry, buy-out of their defined-benefit scheme is the end point they are looking to reach, and the number that can reach that point has risen significantly in the recent past as more schemes have moved into surplus. Our job is to provide a range of options for those DB schemes. We have discussed the superfund regime that we will bring forward regulations on through the pension schemes Bill. We have also talked in the last few months about the role of surplus release, which can benefit both employers who want to make investments but also scheme members. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that there are a range of options available to schemes, and they can take the one that is in the best interests of their members. \p Callum Anderson: The Mansion House accord is clearly a welcome step in aligning the UK’s pool of domestic pension capital with long-term growth, greater economic sovereignty and financial security in retirement. For this to succeed, we need greater clarity in who is stepping up, so can the Minister update the House on what discussions he is having with the industry about how firms intend to report progress under the accord in a clear and transparent way? \p Torsten Bell: My hon. Friend is completely right, but I would use a slightly more optimistic tone. It is now the settled consensus of the entire defined-contribution industry that this is the direction we need to move in. Almost every single scheme is moving to thinking about how they will invest in a wider range of private assets. Many of them are looking to go further than the benchmark set out in the accord today. They want to do that because it is in their savers’ interests. It diversifies their assets and, over the longer term, leads to higher returns on average. The exact amount of those returns will obviously depend, but studies show that it ranges from 2% to 12% higher returns. It is absolutely in savers’ interests, and I think there is a broad consensus about doing that.

My hon. Friend is also right to say that we need to make sure that change happens. We will come forward in the pension schemes Bill with more details about how these developments will be monitored to make sure that change is delivered, because in the end, what the British people want to see is less talking about this and more actual investment. \p Richard Tice: Pension funds are, by definition, long-term capital and are therefore particularly well suited to being invested in long-term infrastructure. British pension funds investing in British  infrastructure should be welcomed by us all, but I would caution against any specific mandating within sectors, which I fear may lead to lower performance. The thing about private markets is that they have almost no transparency in terms of valuation and liquidity. I urge the Government to encourage the pension funds voluntarily to be more open about how they value these private investments, to ensure greater confidence. \p Torsten Bell: I thank the hon. Member for what I think is his support for the accord— \p Richard Tice: indicated assent. \p Torsten Bell: He is nodding, so I will take that as support. He will worry that he sounds dangerously like a Liberal Democrat when he sits on the fence as much as he just did. At least the shadow Chancellor has the guts to say he opposes it, because he thinks that that is simple politics to get him through the day. I am glad to see that the hon. Member has not learned enough, and I hope he enjoys the fence sitting while it lasts.

The hon. Member is right to say that schemes will want to be transparent about their asset allocation, partly so that savers can see what is going on, but also, to refer back to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson), so that the country as a whole can see that progress is being made. \p Alan Gemmell: It was a disappointing but unsurprising response from the Conservative Front Bench, and similarly from the SNP, to talk our country down. I congratulate those in the City on this announcement, which will mean new funding for companies across the UK, driving growth. Will the Minister set out what this means for constituents such as mine in Central Ayrshire and across Scotland? \p Torsten Bell: That was a characteristically punchy and accurate contribution by my hon. Friend, and that is the difference between this Government and some of the Opposition parties: we want to see Britain succeed. We are investing in Britain’s success, and in the long run it will be higher investment, higher growth and higher wages that will turn round the long 15 years of stagnation. \p John Cooper: The Daily Mail has said in its coverage of the accord today that industry leaders have warned that the Government must deliver a pipeline of investment opportunities to meet the new targets. What faith can savers have that this Government can deliver on that given that they touted GB Energy as a fantastic investment vehicle when in fact it is a damp squib? \p Torsten Bell: Savers can have lots of confidence, because the pipeline is already being delivered: solar farms approved; onshore wind happening after being banned for years under the Conservatives; the national grid actually being built out for once; homes being built right across this country, and being opposed by Conservative MPs right across this country. The pipeline is happening, because this country is building once again. \p Johanna Baxter: I welcome the agreement that has been reached today. Does the Minister agree that the pension funds are able to make those ambitious commitments only  because of the improved investment environment that this Labour Government are nurturing through economic stability—economic stability that is vital to protect working people, including those in Paisley and Renfrewshire South? \p Torsten Bell: Exactly; that is what is going on. I speak to pension funds every week who say they are looking to increase their allocation of UK assets because political stability has been delivered—because Liz Truss has been exited from this building. I speak to Australian and Canadian pension funds as well who are saying that they want to open an office in the UK because political and economic stability has arrived. \p Ashley Fox: Increased investment in the United Kingdom is always welcome. Will the Minister confirm that this Government will never interfere in the fiduciary duty of pension trustees to get the best return for their members? \p Torsten Bell: The job of pension trustees is absolutely to deliver for their savers and the accord today is delivering exactly that, making sure that we have diversity of asset allocations in our pension schemes. So the answer to the hon. Member’s question is yes. \p Jayne Kirkham: The shadow Chancellor spoke about public sector workers benefiting from this kind of investment. Before I came to the House, I was the chair of the Cornwall local government pension scheme, which very successfully invested 7.5% in local and social impact investments—in local renewables and local affordable housing. Will the Minister ensure that more of that happens in the future? \p Torsten Bell: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We should focus on the accord today, but the LGPS is a very important part of our pensions landscape; there are £400 billion-worth of assets under management, rising to £1 trillion-worth over the next two decades. It is right that we build on the LGPS track record of local investment to make sure that we get the absolute best value for that investment both for taxpayers in local areas and for local communities. That is exactly what our reforms will do—we will be coming forward with the final details in the pension investment review final report in the coming weeks—to make sure that we have bigger, professional, well-governed and locally investing pension pools. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his positive answers to the questions that have been posed from all parts of the Chamber today. While it is encouraging to see 17 workplace pension providers investing 10% in private assets, it is disappointing that Scottish Widows, for example, is refusing to sign up. What further can be done to ensure that investment will be focused not simply on London firms, as others have referred to, but throughout the United Kingdom, including the tremendous potential in Northern Ireland? \p Torsten Bell: Some 90% of the industry, by active saver numbers, have signed up to the accord today, and the small number of large providers who have not signed up are supportive of the move towards greater private investment. There is a very broad consensus  across the industry that this is the right way to go. Unrelated to that, but much more importantly, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to see that investment right across the country, including in Northern Ireland and in his own constituency. \p Jim Dickson: I welcome the accord and the Minister’s words. People in Dartford are awaiting further news of a funding package for the lower Thames crossing, which the Government consented recently and is incredibly welcome to residents there. Does the Minister agree that this is just the sort of shovel-ready infrastructure project which pension funds could invest in both for the benefit of their savers and to drive economic growth for constituents including my residents? \p Torsten Bell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The lower Thames crossing has been consented, and it is another example of this Government getting on with getting the country building again, and when we come to the spending review—[Interruption.] If I were in the Conservative party, I would not be talking about the lower Thames crossing; I really would not be. The regime for planning that the Conservatives put in place meant that hundreds of millions of pounds have been taken to build precisely diddly squat. This Government have given consent, and we will be setting out in the coming months the provision for that scheme to go ahead. \p David Pinto-Duschinsky: I congratulate my hon. Friend and Treasury colleagues on helping to deliver such an important agreement. The accord will unlock up to £25 billion of additional capital. It is a huge vote of confidence in the Government’s demand-side reform agenda to get Britain building and in our economic strategy, providing stability. What steps will the Government take to help make sure that investment is ramped up as quickly as possible, and to ensure that regulators help encourage investment of pension funds directly in real economic assets, for instance by looking at changes to the matching adjustment? \p Torsten Bell: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. It is nice to hear the positivity coming from him and other Members in this House who believe that Britain can do better than the last 15 absolutely terrible years. The investments we will be making, delivering on the supply of capital with the likes of the reforms today, while allowing building for housing, transport projects and the rest, are exactly what will make the difference in the longer term. \p Gregor Poynton: Innovation is one of Britain’s great strengths, with fast-growing firms driving over £1 trillion into the UK economy and supporting 3.2 million jobs. However, many of those firms, many of which are based in my constituency, still face stubborn barriers to scaling up, particularly around accessing long-term finance. How will the Mansion House accord help channel greater investment from pension funds into those scale-ups to help them grow? \p Torsten Bell: Innovation is one of the ways in which we drive higher productivity, which is the only lasting way, alongside higher levels of investment, that we will see higher wages for all of our constituents, which is what everyone on both sides of this House wants. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there is a long-lasting barrier to scaling up for our innovative companies right across sectors. That point was raised earlier by the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier). Specifically, we need our pension funds to invest in a wider range of private assets, and that will include through venture capital, which is how we make sure that we provide that growth financing that we all need to see. That is for the private sector to do, as has been mentioned, but it is our job to support that, and that is what the British Business Bank, drawing on some of the work put in place by the previous Government but now being scaled up, is seeking to do. \p UNKNOWN: 1.38 pm \p Brendan O'Hara: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 20 March the Foreign Secretary said in relation to the conflict in Gaza:

“There are atrocities on both sides”.—[Official Report, 20 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 529.]

On 24 March, I wrote to the Attorney General asking how and when His Majesty’s Government arrived at that determination. I further asked the Attorney General about the legal implications of the UK selling weapons to Israel directly or indirectly, and whether he believed it legal to supply those weapons when the Government had decreed that Israel was guilty of atrocity crime. On 8 April I received a letter from the Attorney General’s Office saying that he did not consider this to be his responsibility and that my letter had been passed to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. It is now 13 May, seven weeks after I first wrote to the Attorney General, and I still have had no reply.

This is not new, Madam Deputy Speaker. The record will show that I had to raise a similar point of order in November, when neither the FCDO nor the Attorney General’s Office responded to my letter about the Foreign Secretary’s interpretation of the genocide convention. Can you advise me on how I can get a reply to my questions, and how we as Back Benchers can have confidence that the Government will answer Members’ questions, even those that they wish had not been asked? \p Nusrat Ghani: Due to the hon. Member’s experience, I think he will know that the matter is not down to the Chair. He will appreciate that Mr Speaker respects timely responses to correspondence and requests for answers to questions from Back Benchers. There is no doubt that not only has the hon. Member put his point on the record, but those on the Treasury Front Bench will relay that swiftly to the appropriate Department. \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Olivia Bailey: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a review of the safety of the A34 slip roads at East Ilsley and Beedon; and to require the publication of plans to address any deficiencies in safety identified by that review.

My constituency is home to some beautiful rural villages, and East Ilsley and Beedon, nestled in the North Wessex downs, are prime examples. Both villages are named in the Domesday Book of 1086, and for centuries they have been home to west Berkshire families. Both have beautiful grade I listed churches, rich agricultural traditions and a vibrant community. Many residents of these idyllic villages use the A34 every day to get to work, take their children to school and travel to Reading, Oxford, Swindon and beyond. However, to get on to the A34, they first have to make a perilous journey down what must be some of England’s most dangerous slip roads.

The slip roads, especially southbound at East Ilsley and northbound at Beedon, are intimidating and dangerous even for experienced drivers. National Highways data shows that in the five years up to 2023, tragically there were multiple fatalities and many serious accidents at these slip roads, and my constituents tell me of many more near misses. In fact, 91% of the nearly 500 people who filled out my survey on the slip roads had personally experienced issues on them, and 96% agreed that they were dangerous.

In the words of my constituent Jenny, the

“lack of visibility is treacherous and the slip roads are way too short.”

My constituent Coreen told me that using the slip roads feels like “dicing with death”, especially in the winter months when it is dark and raining. Jo and Steve told me that they often have to brake to a stop on the slip road, as there are no spaces in the near side lane to enter the flow of traffic. Even as an experienced driver, Paul finds the slip roads to be the most stressful part of any journey. Helena feels concerned for her children’s safety, as they use the slip roads to commute to work. Nicola’s son sadly experienced a four-car pile-up due to the lack of visibility.

My constituents should not feel afraid when commuting to work or every time that their child drives into town, and residents feel that the situation is only worsening. My constituent Arabella told me that the roads are getting more dangerous as the traffic on the A34 increases. That volume of traffic, including HGVs, is rerouted through the narrow rural lanes of small villages when accidents lead to road closures. Instead of “dicing with death”, in the words of my constituent, many residents are choosing to avoid the slip roads at East Ilsley and Beedon and instead join the A34 at Chieveley or West Ilsley, adding significant amounts of time to their journeys and increasing traffic on our rural lanes. Others are thinking about leaving the villages altogether. My constituent Nick is one of those people; he is too concerned about the risk to his young family.

The human impact of these slip roads is my primary concern, but there is also a knock-on effect on economic growth. The A34 is an economically significant road, connecting the major ports of the south-east with industrial heartlands in the midlands. Every time there is an accident, the knock-on disruption not only prevents people from getting to work on time, but impacts the businesses relying on those deliveries. The situation is clearly unsustainable, and something must be done.

After raising the issue in Parliament in February with the Roads Minister, who I am delighted to see in her place today, and meeting the National Highways regional director to discuss my survey findings, I took the National Highways route manager on a site visit to East Ilsley and Beedon to experience the issue at first hand. We spent the morning having to accelerate along the slip roads, grappling with short bends and blind spots and dodging HGVs. It was patently obvious to everyone in the car that my constituents are right to be alarmed.

I am proud that this Labour Government are committed to improving the safety of England’s roads. We are delivering the first road safety strategy in over a decade and have provided £4.8 billion of funding for National Highways for the next year. I welcome the fact that National Highways will invest in safety measures in the short term.

I know that this Government’s commitment to road safety can deliver tangible change for the people of west Berkshire’s villages, and the slip roads at East Ilsley and Beedon urgently need significant safety improvements. That is why I am delighted to present this Bill to urge the Government to provide for a comprehensive review of the safety of these dangerous slip roads and ensure that the necessary improvements are made as soon as possible. National Highways has already recommended a review, known as the “A34 Improvements North and South of Oxford” study. I want to see this delivered quickly, alongside any necessary improvements. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made it clear that her Department is focused on improving safety for road users, and I look forward to working with her to make that a reality for my constituents.

Before I finish, I must note that I am not the only person who has taken on this issue. I pay tribute to all those who have made the case for change. They include, but are not limited to, local residents; the A34 Action Group; my neighbouring MPs and the sponsors of this Bill, the hon. Members for Newbury (Mr Dillon) and for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover); and our predecessors, including Laura Farris and Lord Benyon. This has been a truly cross-party endeavour, and I am grateful for the support of colleagues from across the political spectrum. We all want the same thing—a safer A34—and by taking on this campaign, I am building on their excellent work.

When my constituent Barbora’s car broke down in Southampton, she called the AA. Once she told them that she was from East Ilsley, they immediately knew and said, “That’s the village with the dangerous slip roads, isn’t it?” I want East Ilsley and Beedon to be known for their tight-knit communities, beautiful scenery and unique heritage, not for how dangerous their slip roads are. By securing a comprehensive review and delivering the right safety measures, we can make these slip roads safe for local people and make a big difference for our community.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Mr Lee Dillon, Olly Glover and Olivia Bailey present the Bill.

Olivia Bailey accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 June, and to be printed (Bill 236). \p Nusrat Ghani: I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected amendment (a) in the name of the Prime Minister. \p Alex Burghart: I beg to move,

That this House recognises that the Conservative Party stands by the result of the 2016 referendum to leave the European Union (EU); calls on the Government to stand by that decision at the summit with the EU on 19 May 2025, to put the national interest first and not to row back on Brexit, for example by re-introducing free movement through a EU youth mobility scheme, accepting compulsory asylum transfers, creating dynamic alignment between the UK and the EU, by submitting the UK to further oversight from the European Court of Justice or by joining the EU’s carbon tax scheme which will lead to higher energy bills; further calls on the Government to stand by the will of the British people by ensuring that no new money is paid to the EU, that there is no reduction in UK fishing rights, that NATO remains the foundation of European security and that the UK can continue to undertake strategic and defence agreements with non-EU partners; and also calls on the Government to put the negotiated outcome to a vote in the House of Commons.

It gives me enormous pleasure to open this debate on one of the subjects that has been central to this House since I was first elected in 2017. It is a debate that is necessary this week, because we know that next week, the EU and this Government are going to meet in London to discuss the next steps in our arrangements. Before that agreement is reached, it is important that this House receives some clarity on what this Government are fighting for, what they stand for and what their red lines are, because even at this late stage, this House is unaware of the Government’s intentions.

I do not know whether you remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, but there was a very good TV programme in the 1980s called “Quantum Leap”. In it, an American scientist, Dr Samuel Butler—[Hon. Members: “Beckett!”] I stand corrected, and I apologise to the House. Dr Beckett stepped into the quantum leap accelerator and vanished, and awoke to find himself in strange new forms that were not his own. Every time the Prime Minister speaks, I think, “Which body has he leapt into now?” Is it the Prime Minister who spent his early life chastising all immigration law on the grounds that it was racist, or the Prime Minister who has a new-found love of strict immigration rules? Is it the Prime Minister who promised to protect winter fuel payments, or the one who immediately cast them away? Is it the Prime Minister who promised to protect farmers, but immediately did the opposite; the Prime Minister who said he knew what a woman was, but then changed his mind; or the Prime Minister who said he would not put taxes on working people, but then promptly did?

The Prime Minister does not know what he stands for or which way he looks, and that is a very difficult thing in negotiations. Our position is simple: there can be no going back. The Conservative party fought long and hard to take control of our laws, our borders and our  money, and with those powers, we succeeded in securing 70 new trade deals and the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe. The naysayers, gloomsters and dismal voices on the Opposition Benches said that it would come to nothing, but in 2015, UK trade—[Interruption.] I look forward to correcting the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), who chunters from a sedentary position. \p Max Wilkinson: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Alex Burghart: No.

In 2015, UK international trade stood at just over £1 trillion a year, but by 2023, it stood at £1.6 trillion a year—all in spite of Brexit. Our concern is that this Government have proven themselves to be really terrible negotiators. We have previously heard the Administration talk about the need for ruthless pragmatism; one can only wonder whether that is the same ruthless pragmatism that gave us the Chagos deal. When I was a history teacher, we used to say that the worst deal in history was the one that the Lenape people of north-east America did with the Dutch settlers. As the House will recall, they gave away Manhattan island for 60 guilders and a handful of beads, but at least they got 60 guilders and a handful of beads—they did not spend £18 billion of their own money on giving away their territory, as this Government have.

I wonder whether it is the same ruthless pragmatism that immediately gave out £9.4 billion in above-inflation pay rises to the unionised sectors in return for nothing at all—no agreements on productivity or reform. Is it the same ruthless pragmatism that gave us the collapse of the £450 million AstraZeneca deal, the botched steel mess that we all had to return during recess for, or the missed opportunities of the US tariff arrangement the other day? Our concern, of course, is that this will happen again. \p Pete Wishart: I wish I could say that I was enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech, but that would be stretching it a bit too far. I do not know why he is presenting all these faux disagreements; does he not appreciate that the Government are as hard Brexiteers as he is? How much damage does this Brexit have to do before both parties decide that it is far too much, and start to look at it seriously? \p Alex Burghart: I always have respect and time for the hon. Gentleman’s wisdom, but I feel I must correct him. The Government are not hard Brexiteers—they are just Brexiteers today. Tomorrow, who knows? What we know is that they were against leaving the EU, and then they changed their minds. Those people who change their minds on such fundamental issues may well change them back—they may well turn on a sixpence and do it again.

The fact of the matter is that the Government have entered these negotiations with no clear objectives, and with red lines so thin and washed-out that they can be quickly discarded. However, today is an opportunity for the Labour party to come clean about what it wants and what it is doing, because Labour Members will have to vote on our motion, which sets out our red lines. Those red lines are very clear and precise, and in keeping with the will of the British people. \p Phil Brickell: The hon. Member talks about the official Opposition’s motion being precise, but that is factually incorrect, in that the motion conflates freedom of movement with youth mobility. If youth mobility is good enough for Australia, Canada and Uruguay, it does not run against the red lines regarding freedom of movement. Does the hon. Member not understand that? \p Alex Burghart: It is freedom of movement for young people, is it not? What we are asking for today is for the Labour party to set out what its clear position is. In a moment, I will explain why that is very important.

The fact is that up until this point, we have seen chaos in these negotiations. That will be easy for the Labour party to understand, because on 24 February, we heard the Home Secretary rule out a youth mobility deal—the Government were not going to do it and were not looking into it. At the beginning of March, though, the Postmaster General suggested in a Westminster Hall debate that he was open to such a deal, but then on 24 April, the Postmaster General ruled it out again. [Interruption.] I mean the Paymaster General—would the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) like to be Postmaster General? Okay, Paymaster General it is. He ruled it out on 24 April, but then at the beginning of May, he once again ruled it in.

This does not end with the youth mobility scheme. On 23 January, Labour Ministers ruled out joining the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean area. Three days later, the Chancellor said that the Government were looking at it, and then on 3 February, the Government ruled it out again. The Government do not know what they are doing; they do not know what they want to achieve, have no objectives, and have very blurred red lines. There is an emerging sense that this will be a good deal—a good deal for the EU, in which the balance of benefits will run against the UK. Despite the fact that the Government do not wish to give a running commentary —they are content to give a running commentary to the press—it seems that the EU’s demands are being met in this negotiation, but because the UK has no demands, its demands cannot be met. \p Stella Creasy: The hon. Gentleman has referred to “Quantum Leap”. The point about Sam Beckett is that he kept leaping back into the past, because he could not cope with the future—that does seem rather apposite. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees with many Labour Members that one of the important things about next Monday is that we will be able to move forward on the security and defence partnership. Given the threat posed by President Putin, can the hon. Gentleman put aside his blindness to the benefits to this country of co-operating with Europe and at least agree that that partnership would be a good thing to secure? \p Alex Burghart: I am glad to be the one to break it to the hon. Lady that we already co-operate with Europe on defence, and have done so for a very long time. She will know that the cornerstone of our defence is—and always has been, since the second world war—NATO. Now is an apt moment to remember that, because today is the 85th anniversary of the first speech that Sir Winston Churchill made as Prime Minister, given from  that Dispatch Box, or, rather, from the Dispatch Box that was there before the Chamber was bombed. It was his “blood, toil, tears and sweat” speech.

It is obviously incredibly important that we co-operate with our European partners on defence, but that is why we do. We spend 2.5% of GDP on defence—and the Opposition would like to spend 3%, and more—largely to help defend Europe, and we know of no reason, because the Government have not given one, why NATO is insufficient for that task. \p Kevin Bonavia: British firms are calling for co-operation with our European allies so that there is investment in increased defence spending across Europe, including in my constituency. What would the shadow Minister say to them? The Government are calling for a security deal. Does he not agree that we need one with the EU? \p Alex Burghart: I would say that if the terms of the deal are that the UK must pay to have access to that fund, we must ask very serious questions of our European allies about why we should have to contribute when we are already committed to their security. If the Government choose to go down that route, it is for the Government to explain why that should be the case.

The truth is that NATO must continue to be the cornerstone of our defence, but over the weekend there were reports in The Sunday Times that the EU might be inserted into our chain of command, which would be a very significant change. \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: Absolute nonsense. \p Alex Burghart: From a sedentary position, the Paymaster General says that that is absolute nonsense. I am pleased to hear it, but the right hon. Gentleman has not yet had an opportunity to tell the House that. It was clear that someone in the Government, or within the EU, was briefing journalists over the weekend that this might be true. [Interruption.] I think the right hon. Gentleman needs to take responsibility for his special advisers. If there is to be a defence pact, it is for the Government to explain why it would make us safer. \p Iain Duncan Smith: One thing puzzles me slightly about the position taken by the Government, which is a bit like that on the Chagos islands: we already owned them, but we entered a negotiation to give them away and rent them back. In this instance, Europe threatens us that we cannot talk about other matters until we sign up to this defence deal, but we already have a defence deal and we already co-operate: we have built weapons with France, Sweden and various other countries. Rather than what they would lose, what is it that we gain? \p Alex Burghart: My right hon. Friend has a great deal of experience of these matters, and he has made a series of very important points, but it is for the Government to explain why this would be in the interests of the UK. The summit is taking place next week, and so far the Government have not done so. \p Alex Ballinger: Given that the last Government reduced our Army to a size not seen since the Napoleonic era, we should take no lectures on defence from Opposition Members. The people who will benefit from this are the defence contractors in my constituency who have been struggling to sell their components to the EU since Brexit and have had to cancel contracts, which has been affecting jobs all over the west midlands. \p Alex Burghart: When I first arrived in the House, the leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party was advocating leaving NATO and giving up Trident, so I will take no lectures from those on his side of the House. My party is committed to 3% defence spending, and I think that those defence contractors in his constituency would very much like to see a Conservative Government spend some of that money in his patch. \p Bernard Jenkin: Would my hon. Friend care to disabuse Labour Members who seem to be under the impression that whatever amount we put in, somehow our defence contractors in the UK will get more out of the fund than we are contributing? The history of defence procurement in Europe is that France and Germany invariably make sure that they get more out of it than they put in, and we are always the losers. I do not think we will suddenly become winners when we are not a member of the EU. \p Alex Burghart: My hon. Friend’s experience in these matters speaks volumes. The truth is that we must be absolutely certain that this will not be just another scheme for funnelling money into French defence companies while keeping it away from defence companies in other jurisdictions. \p Andrew Murrison: Does my hon. Friend share my hope that in next week’s negotiations the Government will make it abundantly clear to our European partners that for decades this country’s contribution to our collective defence has been well above the level that our economy, our population or our size would dictate, and that Europe has benefited from that? While I am in no way recommending a Trumpian approach to these matters, it is nevertheless important for the Government to make clear to our interlocutors the scale of our contribution to collective defence. \p Alex Burghart: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. The fact is that the UK has made a disproportionate, but necessary, contribution to European defence for many decades. I think that we were right to do so, and I would support our doing so into the future, but it is only right for our friends to recognise that contribution and to treat us not as an external power coming to parlay, but rather as a close and long-term friend whose loyalty has already been proved many times over.

It would also be good today to have clarification from the Government of their position on EU lawmaking. I was lucky enough to have a call with my friend Sir William Cash this morning. It was an unusually brief call, lasting only 20 minutes. [Laughter.] Sir Bill put it very clearly to me: he said that in any new arrangement with the EU it was important for us to see no EU lawmaking, no jurisdiction for the European  Court of Justice and no attempt to reapply the principles of EU law in our courts, because one principle of our departure from the EU was that we would take back control of our money, our borders and our laws. \p Jim Allister: The hon. Member is right to say that there must be no further surrender to EU law, but, in the same vein, is there not a need to recover the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom? I represent a part of the United Kingdom where in 300 areas of law it is not this House but a foreign Parliament that makes the laws. Should the starting point of a reset not be recovering the integrity of this Parliament in the territory of this United Kingdom? \p Alex Burghart: The hon. Gentleman has made a very good point. It is one that he has made often in the House, and I look forward to his making it to the Minister in a few moments’ time.

On the subject of fish, we are clear about the fact that there should be no multi-year deal, because that would reduce the UK’s leverage in future negotiations with the EU. We should have 12 nautical miles of exclusive access. That is what our fishermen want, and it is what the Conservative party supports. There should also be fair distribution of quota schemes, and no trade barriers during disputes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has made the position very clear. This is an opportunity to defend the UK’s fishermen, and to build on the deal that we had previously from the Brexit negotiations. We should not be giving up the freedom of our fishermen. \p Desmond Swayne: It is important to remember the history here. There was no common fisheries policy until the prospect of Britain’s joining the common market arose, and then those countries created one simply so that they could rip us off. \p Alex Burghart: Ain’t that the truth! Here is an opportunity for the Government to give guarantees and securities to our fishermen. \p David Pinto-Duschinsky: The hon. Member is talking about fishing rights. Under his Government, the UK catch suddenly dropped by 80%. Will he now apologise for the damage that he and his party did to the UK fishing industry? \p Alex Burghart: We are the party that took fishermen out of the common fisheries policy, which is something that fishing communities wanted. We very much hope that this Government will not concede the rights that were hard won in those negotiations. \p Max Wilkinson: I wonder whether the shadow Minister has quantum leapt into a body in which Brexit has been a huge success. Could he say either way? \p Alex Burghart: If the hon. Gentleman had heard my opening remarks, he would have heard that in 2015, the volume of UK trade was just over £1 trillion. By 2023, despite Brexit, that had gone up to £1.6 trillion. Sometimes the people who were on the other side of the argument,  many of whom had understandable concerns—we were making a big constitutional change that had not been made in over 40 years—seem trapped in the past, like Dr Samuel Beckett, and unable to realise that there have been significant improvements in the UK’s trading position because of the freedoms that we acquired, and because of the 70 trade deals that the previous Government brought in. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to change his altered reality, there will be an audience for it in this House.

On the emissions trading scheme, we know that carbon prices are higher in the EU than they are in the UK. There is great concern among certain industries that if, as has been trailed in the press, the Government are planning to sign us up to the EU’s emissions trading system, there will be a heavy price to pay, particularly in the ceramics industry. Two weeks ago, we saw a ceramics factory in Stoke-on-Trent close, citing high energy prices under this Labour Government. \p Gareth Snell: Sadly, high energy prices are a result of the policy of the hon. Gentleman’s Government, who had four industrial strategies, all of which promised significant help for the ceramics sector and it never materialised. One of the biggest problems for the ceramics sector is ensuring that the European Union’s food contact regulations, which it has to comply with to sell its wares, match the British system. If he were in power today, what would he do to ensure that our trading arrangements allow for free trade of the goods that my city makes and sells into Europe? \p Alex Burghart: Well, it will be irrelevant if all the businesses shut down because of high energy prices. The hon. Gentleman can talk about the previous Administration, but it was his party that promised to cut energy bills by £300. Instead, they continue to go up, and the market expectation is that energy prices will continue to rise under this Government. That would be very bad for ceramics factories, such as the ones in his constituency.

There are a range of other things that we could go into. If there are going to be negotiations with the EU, there are plenty of things that might be raised, but we do not know whether the Government have raised them. They include the arrangements with France on illegal migration, mutual recognition of food standards, conformity certification, touring musicians, rules of origin and so on. The point is that the Government have not told us whether they want these things, whether they are pursuing them and whether it is negotiating them on our behalf.

We on this side of the House are clear: following the referendum, this country turned a page, and it is very important that the Labour party does not turn it back. The fact is that we are on the brink of witnessing yet another disastrous Labour deal. We know that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses. To leave the House in no doubt, if and when my party is back in power, we will reverse any handover of power, any imposition of EU law, any new rights for the ECJ and any new budgetary commitments. It is my party that took the country out of the EU, and it is my party that will keep it out. I commend this motion to the House. \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to end and insert:

“notes the overwhelming mandate on which the Government was elected, which included resetting the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union to deepen ties with its European friends, neighbours and allies; welcomes the Government’s commitment only to agree a deal that is in the UK’s national interest and is in line with the manifesto on which the Government was elected; supports the Government’s commitment to agree a new and ambitious security agreement between the UK and the EU to help tackle common threats, whilst noting that NATO is the cornerstone of the UK’s defence; recognises the Government’s ambition to negotiate a sanitary and phytosanitary and veterinary agreement to address the cost of food and to tackle a range of other issues to reduce barriers to trade; and further supports improvements to the UK-EU relationship that are aimed at making the UK safer, more secure and more prosperous, in line with the Prime Minister’s Plan for Change.”

First of all, I should say what a pleasure it always is to debate with the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), who is across the Dispatch Box from me. Discussions with the EU are ongoing, and I am sure that Members from across the House will understand that I cannot, this afternoon, pre-empt what will be unveiled at next week’s summit. We will not provide a running commentary on negotiations, nor would this House expect us to. However, after the summit has concluded, we will take the earliest possible opportunity to update Parliament on what has been delivered, and on the impact that any measures will have.

I will focus my remarks on how this Government are improving the lives of working people and making the people of the UK safer, more secure and more prosperous, and I am grateful to the Opposition for giving us the opportunity to talk about that. We have heard from the Opposition today, and from the Leader of the Opposition in recent days, that the only thing that has been surrendered is the credibility of the Conservative party as a party of opposition, let alone a party of government. The only quantum leap made is by the Conservative party, which has gone from government to irrelevance.

2025 started so well, didn’t it? The Leader of the Opposition was turning over a new leaf and taking responsibility for her mistakes. She said of the previous Government:

“We were making announcements without proper plans. We announced that we would leave the European Union before we had a plan for growth outside the EU.”

However, with negotiations ongoing, today the Conservatives are rehashing the arguments of the past. There is no analysis of where the United Kingdom’s interest lies in the mid-2020s. The Conservatives simply do not believe in Britain’s ability to win. Perhaps that is no surprise, given the 14 years of failure that they delivered for our country.

This Government were elected in July 2024 on a mandate to deliver change for working people, and we are delivering on the promises of our manifesto. If the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar does not know about the objectives of the negotiation, I suggest that he read the manifesto—a manifesto that delivered 411 Labour Members of Parliament, as the public overwhelmingly rejected the Conservative party. \p Bernard Jenkin: May I point out that the Conservative motion says that the Conservatives stand by the result of the 2016 referendum, but the Labour amendment does not say the same of the Labour party? Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that a one-term mandate in one election trumps a referendum result, or does he respect the referendum result of 2016? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I absolutely respect the referendum result. If the hon. Gentleman bothered to read our manifesto, he would discover that there are red lines: we will not go back to the single market, the customs union, or freedom of movement. Let me say to the Conservative party that delivering on our manifesto promises will unlock huge benefits for the United Kingdom, reduce barriers to trade and accelerate economic growth. In an uncertain world, it will keep us safer, more secure and more prosperous. That is what this Government are working towards. \p Mark Francois: The Minister has referred to the Labour manifesto several times in a few minutes. Did it say anything at all about accepting dynamic alignment or becoming a rule taker—yes or no? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: The objective of negotiating a sanitary and phytosanitary veterinary agreement, so that agricultural products, food and drink can be traded more cheaply between the UK and the EU, is in the Labour manifesto, and we have a mandate for that. The Government will put more money in the pockets of working people and create greater long-term stability and security for the British people. Apparently, the Opposition are against that, and so, I hear, is Reform. To be fair, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) says that he thinks the current deal with the EU can be improved, but he has never told us exactly how, and we wait to find out.

Since last July, this Government have been getting on with the job of resetting our relationship with the European Union in a number of important areas. \p Pete Wishart: Right now, the young people of this country are confined to this island, and cannot live, work or move freely across the continent. There are discussions about a youth mobility scheme. Will the Minister commit himself to securing a mobility scheme for the young people of this country? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I would not describe the hon. Gentleman as being confined to any island. I have already spoken about smart, controlled youth mobility schemes; the previous Government agreed a number of them.

This Government are exercising diplomacy in our national interest. We need only take one look at the trade deals that we have signed with the United States —[Hon. Members: “Terrible!”]—and India in the last fortnight to see that we are delivering for the British people. Conservative Front Benchers shout from a sedentaryposition about the US deal, but they can tell that to the workers at Jaguar Land Rover whose jobs have been saved by the deal.

I can tell the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) that I was in Scotland yesterday to talk to the Scotch Whisky Association about the enormous benefits for Scotland of the India deal. He should welcome that deal, not criticise the Government. Britain is back on the world stage, no thanks to the carping from the Opposition \p Harriet Cross: Will the Minister give way? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: On the point about carping from the Opposition, I will. \p Harriet Cross: The Minister mentioned that he was in Scotland yesterday, which is wonderful. As a Scottish MP, I am in Scotland every week, and I quite often meet people from distilleries, who have recently said that they are suffering because of the family farm tax that the Government have brought in. Their farmers are downsizing and not investing, which is reducing their supply of grain. Are the Minister and the Government proud of that legacy, and that contribution to the Scotch Whisky Association? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I am very proud of the extra £25 billion that we have put into the national health service. Apparently, the ludicrous position of the Opposition is that they are in favour of the investment, but they will not tell us exactly how they would raise the money.

I put it to the Opposition: is there any country they actually want a British business to trade with? In government, the Conservatives promised a trade deal with India by Diwali—to be fair, they did not say which Diwali—but they delivered absolutely nothing for the British people. We secure an India trade deal, and they complain about it. We secure an economic deal with the United States—long promised by the last Government, but never delivered—and they do not like that. I like to be constructive, so can I make a suggestion to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith)? Maybe he should change his title to shadow Secretary of State for no business and no trade, because when it comes to the trade deals that we have negotiated, that is the Opposition’s position. \p James Cartlidge: He has run a business, unlike you. \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I was self-employed, actually. I would be careful about making remarks without knowing the facts.

While the Opposition continue to turn inwards on themselves, this Government will focus on delivery. Our priority is translating that strengthened relationship with the European Union into a long-term UK-EU strategic partnership that improves the lives of working people and puts more money in their pockets. \p Rachel Blake: The Minister will have heard what the shadow Minister said about the Conservatives’ pride in Brexit. It seems to me that they are proud of the terrible Brexit deal that they delivered and completely unable to bring forward any constructive ideas. They have managed to set out five red lines, but does the Minister agree that  the Opposition have nothing to be proud of when it comes to the botched Brexit deal that they brought forward, nothing to be proud of in making Britons poorer, and nothing to be proud of in making trade harder? Will he share with us some of the framework that he will be discussing? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: Conservative Members sit there defending the status quo, but if they bothered to speak to any businesses trading internationally, they would know that the status quo is not working for Britain. \p Robin Swann: The Minister has spoken about UK deals with India and the United States, and next Tuesday there will be a UK deal, or a reset, with the European Union. Where is Northern Ireland’s place in that? When the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and I have asked where the benefit is for Northern Ireland from the UK-India and UK-US trade deals, we have had no answers from the Government. \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I have visited Belfast as a Minister more than once, and I have listened very carefully to businesses in Northern Ireland about their priorities. Northern Ireland has dual-market access, and I am absolutely supportive of Northern Ireland taking the greatest possible economic advantage of that. On the Windsor framework and the checks at the border on the Irish sea, if we are able to secure a sanitary and phytosanitary deal, that will obviously reduce the necessity for checks at that border, which I hope the hon. Gentleman would be able to support.

On safety, the trade and co-operation agreement agreed by the Conservatives left a gap in our ability to tackle crime and criminality, and stopped opportunities to work with European countries on closing the loopholes allowing illegal migration. We have to improve on that. On security, which was raised by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, we are responding to a once-in-a-generation moment for the collective security of our continent through an ambitious UK-EU security and defence relationship. In the shadow of the 80th anniversary of VE Day, which gave us all powerful historical reminders in our constituencies up and down the country, securing our collective future is paramount.

I remind the House that NATO was the creation of that great post-war Labour Government of Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin. It has been the bedrock of our security over three quarters of a century after the treaty was signed, and that will not change. In fact, a new defence and security pact strengthens European security and strengthens NATO, and to suggest otherwise is irresponsible. The United Kingdom is rapidly increasing defence spending, and it is playing a leadership role on Ukraine. The only person who would benefit from talk of division across Europe is Vladimir Putin.

On growth, the Government’s central mission is to slash red tape at the border, making it easier for UK businesses to trade with the EU and to cut costs for businesses and consumers. \p Catherine Fookes: I am so pleased that the Minister is trying to negotiate a new SPS deal and working to remove the red tape. Would he  agree with me that businesses in my constituency, such as Tri-Wall in Monmouthshire, are absolutely desperate to remove that red tape, so they can increase exports again, as they did before the botched Brexit deal? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and businesses up and down the country will benefit from a reduction in trade barriers. \p Helen Maguire: The Minister is making a good case. Would he agree with me that closer UK-EU defence ties do not diminish our role in NATO, but complement it, especially at a time when transatlantic security simply cannot be taken for granted? Would he also agree that securing access to programmes such as the Security Action for Europe fund would be a win for British manufacturers and for our strategic capability? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: The hon. Lady is absolutely right that that is in the UK’s interests, and this would be the worst possible moment to start fragmenting defence across Europe.

Let me just say that on the three pillars of this negotiation—safety, security and growth—this Government will deliver for our country’s future, reducing the cost of living and creating jobs. The Opposition motion is stuck in the past. Everybody else has moved on and, frankly, it is time for them to move on, too. \p Carla Denyer: The Minister raises the important issue of the cost of living. Given the dire economic impacts of Brexit, including food inflation being eight times higher than it would otherwise have been, and the costs of leaving the European Union amounting to £1 million an hour in 2022, according to data from the Office for National Statistics, does he agree with me that it makes total economic sense for the UK and the people in it to use next week’s summit to start discussions with the EU on what the process of rejoining might be, and the timings for that?[Official Report, 14 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 6WC.] (Correction) \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: We respect the result of the 2016 referendum. What the hon. Lady is saying on the cost of food is precisely what an SPS agreement on agricultural products, food and drink would seek to deal with—I would hope to see her party supporting that.

The Conservatives now seem to be the defenders of the current status quo. If they bothered to speak to traders these days, they would know that that status quo is not working in the interests of UK businesses, big or small. One Member said that the existing trade deal is

“not a very good one”.

That was actually the hon. Member for Clacton; it is not often that I agree with him, but there we are. As a result of the previous Government’s failure, companies have been enduring significant delays at our borders, and having to fill out hundreds of pieces of paper just to be able to import or export to our nearest neighbours. \p Matt Rodda: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is making an excellent speech. Like me, I am sure he is concerned  about small businesses that could particularly benefit from an agrifood deal. Would he like to say a little bit more about the benefits for our small businesses? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There will be a particular benefit to small and medium-sized businesses, which simply have not had the capacity to deal with the additional red tape we have seen in recent years. \p Ashley Fox: rose— \p Freddie Van Mierlo: rose— \p John Hayes: rose— \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I will give way once more: to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). \p John Hayes: I am immensely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. The last time we exchanged comments in the Chamber, I think they were about Asquith, but I cannot match that today.

The right hon. Gentleman is making some sensible points about trusted traders and easing barriers at the border, but he will know, when he speaks of safety and security, that our key security relationship is the Five Eyes relationship: with America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Of course we co-operate with Europe, but any changes to our relationship around security with Europe would endanger the security of this country, if we compromised that core relationship. In particular, given that those Euro-enthusiasts on the continent have always wanted a pan-European army and a pan-European security policy, will he talk a bit about defence and defence procurement? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: First of all, there is absolutely no compromise on the core principles of our defence, which we have had since NATO was founded in 1949. Far from any weakening, we are producing the opposite. This would be the worst possible moment to fragment European defence. That is not what this Government are doing. I dismiss any suggestion of a European army in the way that I think the right hon. Gentleman means it. This is a crucial moment for our continent. It is about leadership and peace on our continent, and strengthening and complementing NATO—absolutely not weakening it in any sense. I hope he will take that reassurance.

I have to go back to the point about businesses, because businesses themselves are speaking out. Businesses such as Marks and Spencer have been up front about how real the challenges are. Its head of food said recently:

“paperwork takes hours to complete and demands detail as niche as the Latin name for the chicken used in our chicken tikka masala.”

It is not just M&S. All supermarkets have said the same, as recently reported in the Financial Times. Just yesterday, I was in Edinburgh hearing from businesses about the difficulties they face—difficulties that we could resolve with some ruthless pragmatism and a better deal. \p Calum Miller: Will the Minister give way? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I am going to make some progress.

Meanwhile, a few weeks ago more than 50 energy companies and organisations highlighted the need for closer energy co-operation with the EU to drive down costs and drive up investment. All those were voices that a Conservative party of the past might have listened to, but not, it seems, this lot on the Opposition Front Bench. There is an opportunity in front of us that the Opposition do not even want to try to understand. It will make a difference to growing our economy, boosting our living standards and eradicating the barriers that limit trade with our single biggest trading partner today.

The consequence of the Conservatives’ position today is that they are defending a status quo that is failing businesses and failing working people. Their view—let us be clear about this—is that the trade barriers holding businesses back should stay in place. That impacts on the cost of living and on the number of jobs. \p Perran Moon: Does the Minister agree that at the heart of this debate is that this Government are taking proactive engagement with our nearest and largest trading and security partner, which is a quantum leap from the failed position of sneering resentment from the Conservative party? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The situation now is a quantum leap of improvement after what we saw from the Conservative Government. \p Ashley Fox: Will the SPS and energy deals that the Minister has in mind be on the basis of a mutual recognition of standards, or does he envisage the United Kingdom accepting EU standards now, being dynamically aligned and placing ourselves under the jurisdiction of the European Court? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: Just to be clear, whether on energy, an SPS agreement or employment rights, this Government are interested in a race to the top, not a race to the bottom. [Interruption.] Opposition Members feign interest in the details of the deal next Monday. The Leader of the Opposition did not even want to look at it before she went out at the weekend and made her mind up about it. That is not the behaviour of a serious Opposition party, let alone a party of government. But that is where the Conservatives are now: very happy to carp on about what they are against, not caring about reducing bills, not caring about people’s pay checks, not caring about people’s jobs, and forever trying not to spell out an alternative. They have not listened, and they certainly have not learned. \p Iain Duncan Smith: rose— \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: On the issue of learning and listening, I give way to the right hon. Member. \p Iain Duncan Smith: I just wanted to check on something. We can debate whether a trade deal can be improved—I am sure that all trade deals can be improved, whether it is the American one or what is an extensive one with Europe, and probably the greatest one negotiated in the past—but one area, as the Government go back into this discussion, needs to be very clear. I was looking  at a paper produced by the Centre for European Reform, which makes one point very clear, as the Government go into the negotiation. It states:

“Labour’s red lines do not extend to ruling out dynamic alignment or a role for the ECJ in dispute settlement.”

Is that correct? Is that the position of the present Labour Government? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I have to say, having been for some years in this House with the right hon. Gentleman, that I never thought I would find him quoting the Centre for European Reform in a parliamentary debate, but clearly someone on the Opposition Benches is moving on, even if those on the Opposition Front Bench are not.

Driven by our ruthlessly pragmatic approach, next Monday’s UK-EU summit will be the first annual summit between the UK and the EU. It will be a day of delivery. We are delivering on our manifesto—not returning to the customs union, single market or freedom of movement, or revisiting the arguments of 2016. \p Richard Tice: rose— \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: On the subject of revisiting the arguments of 2016, I give way to the hon. Member. \p Richard Tice: I can understand why the right hon. Member did not want to answer the two questions from the Opposition on dynamic alignment, but surely, given a third opportunity, he will commit the Government not to have dynamic alignment in any way, so that we can benefit from trade deals around the world—a great Brexit benefit. \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: In the past few weeks, we have absolutely been benefiting from trade deals around the world. Nothing we are doing with the European Union is stopping that. If the hon. Gentleman wants evidence of that, he can see the UK-India trade deal that this Government agreed in recent weeks, or look at the deal with the United States that we agreed in recent weeks. Nothing we are doing with the European Union cuts across that. Our position has been that we will not choose between our allies. The UK’s national interest lies in deepening—[Interruption.] No, there is nothing dynamic about the Conservative party. The UK’s national interest lies in deepening our trade relationships with all our partners. \p Stephen Gethins: Will the Minister give way? \p Nick Thomas-Symonds: I have given way a number of times now.

Trade, security, defence and other areas of our relationship should never be treated as a zero-sum game. It is possible to deliver on all fronts, and that is exactly what this Government are doing.

I look forward to turning the page next week, as we forge a new strategic partnership with our European friends and make Brexit work in the interests of the British people. We are stepping up and meeting the moment, making people safer and more secure, delivering growth and delivering in our national interest—that is what this Government will do. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p James MacCleary: I thank those on the Conservative Front Bench for bringing this motion, which reveals, if nothing else, the sorry state of their party—not a vision for Britain’s future, but a stubborn fixation on a failed past.

The Tories’ botched Brexit deal has left us not flourishing, but floundering—not prosperous, but poorer. Their dreadful Brexit deal has been utterly ruinous for our economy. While they cling to their Brexit dogma, British businesses, farmers and fishers in every corner of our country face the harsh reality of their record of incompetence. Britain deserves more than hollow promises and endless excuses—Britain deserves better.

The Conservatives’ motion today is a checklist of their own failures. What was once a pro-business party that supported open markets and free trade now cowers behind trade barriers. There is only one liberal party speaking up for British business in this House, and that is the Liberal Democrats. Businesses that were promised a bonfire of regulation are now buried in paperwork. The Tories did not deliver the streamlined trade they promised; instead, they created a bureaucratic nightmare. \p Freddie Van Mierlo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of one of my constituents, who started a business importing organic produce from the EU but has to pay to re-certify the organic produce in the UK at their own cost. That is killing their business. Is this the type of red tape, introduced by Brexit, that the Government should remove? \p James MacCleary: Absolutely. My hon. Friend’s point speaks to the nature of the deal that was agreed when we left the European Union. Far from creating the streamlined trade the Conservatives promised, and instead of boosting growth, they have strangled it. Our farmers were promised golden opportunities, but have ended up poorer and weighed down by yet more Tory Brexit bureaucracy. \p Sarah Dyke: The previous Conservative Government undermined farmers and our rural economy with a botched trade deal with Australia and New Zealand. Indeed, the former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs slammed it by saying

“the UK gave away far too much for far too little”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424.]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government should not allow our farmers to be thrown under the bus again? \p James MacCleary: My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for farmers in her constituency and across the country, and I absolutely agree with her.

Our fishing communities have suffered similarly. I hear from local fishers in Newhaven, in my constituency, who fear their livelihoods are close to collapse. Elsewhere, we have the example of offshore shellfish in Brixham, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for South   Devon (Caroline Voaden), where a vet is now needed to sign 17 separate documents by hand for every shipment of mussels. If the deadline is missed at Calais, the entire catch goes to waste. That is not taking back control—it is losing the plot.

The Tories have thoroughly botched our relationship with Europe, but Labour’s overcautious approach risks cementing this failure. We acknowledge the Government’s recognition that this Brexit deal was not working, but their approach falls a long way short. Where Britain needs bold leadership, they offer nothing more than reluctant half-measures; where we need decisive action, they offer excuses and red lines. \p Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point about shellfish. The environmental and hygiene standards we apply to our shellfish remained exactly the same the day we left the EU as when we were in the EU—it was the EU that supplied all that bureaucracy and requirement for wet stamps. Under World Trade Organisation rules, if a territory has equivalent standards, it is obliged to allow goods to enter its jurisdiction unchecked. Why does the EU breach this international law so wantonly, and why have the Government become a supplicant to the EU, trying to gain its favour to remove these illegal barriers? \p James MacCleary: I think the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that the regulations he references are not the only barriers to export in this country. I mentioned Calais; the port of Dover currently sees massive delays in getting any goods through the port because of the additional bureaucracy and security that are necessary as a result of Brexit. Newhaven port in my constituency, which I know very well—in fact, I humbly suggest that I know it better than other hon. Members—has had to spend millions of pounds simply putting in place more barriers in order to move goods through the port, and that is what is slowing things down. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about equivalence, but at the end of the day, it is not the only output of Brexit that is harming our industries.

With its half-measures, Labour seems so afraid of its Reform-shaped shadow that it has ruled out bold measures to set free British business and stimulate growth. Britain cannot afford such timidity; our businesses cannot afford it, and our young people, who face a future with fewer opportunities than their parents, absolutely cannot afford it. \p John Hayes: I assume the hon. Gentleman is not advocating returning to the common fisheries policy, which, with its ludicrous quotas and equivalence, was bad for fish, which were discarded live, and bad for fishermen, who were limited by quotas. It was a disaster that had a detrimental effect on the fishing industry across this country. Surely he does not want a return to that. \p James MacCleary: Absolutely not. The common fisheries policy did a lot of damage to British fishing, as the common agricultural policy did to farming. \p Caroline Voaden: On that point, it is possibly worth noting that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) attended only one of 42 European  Parliament Fisheries Committee meetings that he could have attended, thereby never speaking up for British interests, and that is potentially why the common fisheries policy was not to our benefit. \p James MacCleary: I thank my hon. Friend for that point.

What we have advocated for on all these areas is a new relationship with Europe, which would involve a new discussion around fishing. Unlike the Conservatives, who apparently cannot cope with the idea that we can actually move forward in the world and have a different arrangement, we acknowledge that we do not have to go back to what we had before.

The Liberal Democrats have a clear four-step road map to rebuild our European relationships. First, we must have a fundamental reset, rebuilding trust trashed by years of Conservative recklessness. I absolutely acknowledge the positive work Ministers have done in that regard. Secondly, we must rejoin crucial European agencies that directly benefit British people, such as Erasmus+, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency and Horizon Europe, which back in 2023 the Conservatives agreed to pay more than £2 billion a year to rejoin due to the enormous harm that leaving that programme had done to our critical research and innovation sector. To recognise the necessity of such programmes, only to demand in the motion that the Government rule out paying for access to other schemes that could benefit the UK, is the very height of hypocrisy.

Thirdly, we must negotiate practical arrangements to slash red tape, culminating in a UK-EU customs union by 2030 that would give British businesses the oxygen they so desperately need. Finally, as trust rebuilds, we must pursue single market membership, unlocking maximum prosperity for businesses and maximum opportunity for future generations. \p Joe Robertson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the common fisheries policy. Will he join us on the Conservative Benches and go one further by urging the Government not to give up any of the sovereign fishing rights that the UK currently benefits from by giving away fishing to France for other seen-to-be benefits from a wider deal? Can he be strong and urge the Government on fishing, like those on these Benches? \p James MacCleary: I can be strong; I promise the House that I will never join those Benches—I can rule that out definitively. What we should not be doing, as the right-wing press have slightly hysterically speculated, is trading away fishing rights for a defence deal, for instance. That is something that Liberal Democrats have been very clear about, and that we continue to be clear about. \p Stephen Gethins: The hon. Member makes an excellent case. To his credit, he set out four clear points, which is more than the Government or the main Opposition party have done. Members across this House have previously said that a democracy fails to be a democracy if people do not have the ability to change their minds. Does he rule out ever rejoining the EU? \p James MacCleary: It is impossible to rule out anything in the future. If the hon. Member had asked me 20 years ago whether it were possible that we would ever leave  the EU, I would have said that it was extremely unlikely. Who knows what will happen in the future? We may have a Government of a different complexion one day who choose to take those steps, but right now that is clearly not something that we are talking about.

The EU must show flexibility, too. Britain is no ordinary third country. We are a major economy and an indispensable partner on defence, security and trade. The EU must make space for bespoke, pragmatic arrangements. Alongside that, the Government must immediately introduce a youth mobility scheme. Our young people deserve the same European opportunities that previous generations enjoyed, including many on these Benches. The Tories obstinately refuse this common-sense approach and Labour has so far flip-flopped on the issue. We have existing schemes with Australia, Japan, New Zealand and Canada, but not with our nearest neighbours. Our young people do not deserve this short-sightedness; they deserve access to opportunities across Europe.

As global threats multiply—Putin’s brutality in Ukraine and Trump’s economic recklessness—Britain’s security demands strong European partnerships. Our comprehensive UK-EU defence pact is not just desirable, but essential for our national security. We are no longer part of Europol, meaning that we have lost access to crucial intelligence sharing and vital databases that help track criminals and terrorists across borders. That is not taking back control; that is making British people feel less safe and less secure. To those who claim that a UK-EU defence co-operation pact would somehow weaken NATO, let us be clear: it would do the exact opposite. Greater mobility for personnel across Europe strengthens NATO’s ability to deploy forces, particularly in the east. Access to EU procurement mechanisms allows us to purchase more equipment more efficiently and boost British defence firms.

Stronger co-operation on European defence not only bolsters the alliance, but improves our shared operational effectiveness. The Conservatives are undermining British security and scaremongering by suggesting otherwise. With Trump in the White House, the world has been plunged into a trade war. Britain’s exports to the EU reached £356 billion last year, which is 42% of everything that we sell to the world. Imagine how much higher that would be and how much more money the British people would have in their pockets had the Conservatives’ disastrous deal not shrunk our economy by 4%. \p Calum Miller: In my constituency of Bicester and Woodstock, many workers at the Cowley Mini plant tell me that they are worried about the future of the plant, and one of the principal reasons is that the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal has introduced so much red tape that the just-in-time delivery of component parts across the European network that BMW operates is threatening the plant. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is just one example of how the Brexit deal damages our economy, rather than supporting our core industries? \p James MacCleary: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for sticking up for his local businesses, as he always does. Absolutely; the effect on supply chains in particular has not always been obvious, but it has been detrimental to many, particularly large, complicated businesses. \p Mark Francois: Will the hon. Member give way? \p James MacCleary: Not at the moment, no.

By contrast, the much-vaunted trade deal signed with India last week is worth just a fraction of our former deal with the European Union. It is around 20 times smaller than the economic boost that we gain simply by aligning with the EU on goods and services. \p Mark Francois: On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p James MacCleary: Of course. \p Mark Francois: The whole House will have noted that the hon. Member clearly failed to rule out a second referendum, because he did not much like the result of the first one. May I ask him this directly? Like the Government, as is obvious from their evasion this afternoon, are the Liberal Democrats prepared to accept a process of dynamic alignment, whereby we effectively become a passive rule-taker from the European Union? Yes or no? \p James MacCleary: The right hon. Member makes two points. First, he mentioned a second referendum. I find this a fascinating contention. Elections happen every four years. At the last election, we returned a Labour Government. This argument that the result of that referendum in 2016 must be held in perpetuity—no matter what the British people think of it—suggests to me that everybody should join the Labour party, because now we will have a Labour Government in perpetuity, too. Perhaps Conservative Members might want to give some consideration to that.

Secondly, the right hon. Member used the term “rule-taker”. I find that fascinating, too. It was quite noticeable that in the negotiations on Brexit, Conservative Members became enthralled by the philosophy of cakeism to the extent that it became their mantra that we could have our cake and eat it, and that, apparently, modern trade deals do not require any give and take. The recent India trade deal, which has been so trumpeted by Labour Members and, which, of course, was started by Conservative Members, does involve the UK having to take some things as well. That is what a trade deal looks like, and it certainly looks like that when we are talking with the largest trading bloc on the planet. The key question that the right hon. Member should be asking is what benefit would it bring to British people. That, ultimately, is the job of any Government and any politician: what will benefit us? \p Mark Francois: Yes! \p James MacCleary: I am pleased that the right hon. Member agrees with himself.

By contrast, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) tells me of an engineering firm in his constituency that, due to the mountains of Brexit red tape, now finds it far easier to trade with South Korea than with Europe. This is not just damaging, but frankly absurd. The one thing that the Government will not do that is guaranteed to deliver growth is negotiate a bespoke customs union with the EU, yet they are hiking national insurance for businesses, stifling   investment and refusing to support the most vulnerable in our society by not scrapping the two-child benefit cap or safeguarding personal independence payments. \p Bernard Jenkin: rose— \p Helen Maguire: rose— \p James MacCleary: I will, if I may, make a little progress, because I am conscious of the amount of time that I am taking up.

Only a customs union can give businesses the long-term certainty they need, which will help to shield British jobs from the looming threat of Trump’s trade wars. I will take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman first and then from my hon. Friend. \p Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman told us that he has a constituent who finds it easier to trade with South Korea than with the EU. What does that tell us about the EU? Is that not one reason why people voted to leave? It is because of its excessive bureaucracy and its protectionism. Why is it easier to trade with South Korea than with the EU if it is not for EU bureaucracy? \p James MacCleary: Just to be clear, I was talking about one of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth. But on the hon. Member’s point, the reason was the trade barriers put up by the Conservative party as part of the Brexit deal. It is as simple as that. It was a protectionist party putting up trade barriers, and it continues to advocate for it. \p Helen Maguire: On the issue of red tape, Epsom and Ewell constituents are facing preventable delays on essential medication for conditions such as diabetes, ADHD and mental ill health. Does my hon. Friend agree that now is simply not the time to play politics, and that we must urgently seek a comprehensive mutual recognition agreement with the European Medicines Agency to cut the red tape that is so detrimental to the health of all of our constituents? \p James MacCleary: That is a really important point. We have seen shortages of key medications—my hon. Friend mentioned ADHD medication, which has a detrimental impact on the lives of children and parents—like insulin and others.

The Liberal Democrats understand that Britain belongs at Europe’s heart, not on its periphery, isolated and diminished. We recognise that rebuilding these ties requires patience and skilled diplomacy, but unlike the Tories, we will not bury our heads in the sand. Unlike Labour, we will not settle for tepid tinkering. As such, we will abstain on the Government’s amendment. We believe in Britain’s potential and in Britain’s future. We believe that our future is brighter, stronger and more prosperous when we work closely with Europe. Today, the Conservatives’ motion offers no solutions, only distraction from their disastrous record. Britain deserves leaders who will properly rebuild relationships, deliver genuine prosperity and restore our standing in the world. This is the vision that the Liberal Democrats offer—not Tory and Reform fantasies and not Labour fence-sitting. We believe in practical solutions, clear direction and an   unwavering commitment to Britain’s best interests. Let us be honest, many on the Labour Benches agree with what I am saying. They know that this fence-sitting will not cut it, but they are not allowed to say so. Fear not, we will say so.

The Conservatives have nothing to say on Europe. Labour has tied itself up in red lines. The public know that our country’s future is European. For businesses and jobs, for our nation’s security and our children’s futures, it is time to put the divisions of the past behind us and act in the national interest. We will vote against this nonsensical motion, and we stand ready to work constructively with the Government to build a closer, more pragmatic relationship with our European friends and neighbours. \p Ben Coleman: Many people may still be finding things a little bit gloomy and challenging as a result of the mess left by the previous Government, as I am after 10 months of being a Member of Parliament, but today I am incredibly heartened. It is probably the happiest day I have spent in the House yet, because we have a real opportunity to be hopeful and positive about the future of this country. The ideology and chaos that have caused so much damage, with the Conservative Government running frit from the Reform party, have now given way to a party that is pragmatic and has proven itself to be competent.

I would love at this stage to congratulate the Government on their tremendous securing of trade deals with India and the USA. I am looking forward to the hat-trick, where we secure a trade deal with the European Union that is even bigger and better than either of those two, and all in the British interest.

What is absolutely clear to me—everybody knows this in the Labour party and it runs through everything the Prime Minister has said—is that this country has to get growth. Over the last 14 years, services have been decimated. Every time the new Government open a cupboard, we find it bare. We have to rebuild our public services, and the swiftest way to get growth in the economy is by having a good trade deal with the European Union. Nothing will guarantee swifter growth for the economy. \p Julia Lopez: What is the hon. Member’s analysis of why growth projections have been halved since Labour came in? \p Ben Coleman: I find it very hard to take anything that the Conservatives say with any degree of seriousness. What is their explanation for why, after 14 years, public services are on their knees and we have seen a collapse in the economy? We even heard a Conservative Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), say that there has been growth since leaving the European Union “despite Brexit”—even the Conservatives admit that it was a disaster.

Nothing will deliver the growth that this country needs faster than signing a good deal with the European Union, slashing red tape and reducing regulation with the biggest market on our doorstep. Opening up markets, kick-starting growth, boosting exports and investments and reducing prices at home—this prize would be welcomed by anyone who is not a crazy ideologue. We on the  Government side are not crazy ideologues or prisoners of our past—or of a television programme from the past. The actions that the Conservatives took while in government have damaged the British people.

Businesses across the country, and in Chelsea and Fulham, want us to get a good deal from the European Union. People in my constituency do not want us to rejoin the EU, and I am not talking about rejoining. They would like us still to be in it, and they think it has done them damage. The importer of wine in my constituency who has to pay £160 for every consignment he now brings in would like us still to be in the EU and to not have to face that. But they do not want us to spend the next five years renegotiating the deal. \p Marsha de Cordova: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Constituents and small and medium-sized businesses are crying out for this Labour Government to come forward and renegotiate a good trade deal so that businesses can thrive. Does he agree that this Government are taking the right pragmatic approach in wanting to deliver growth for our country? \p Ben Coleman: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for stressing that point. She is absolutely right; we have a Government who have replaced chaos and ideology with cool-headed, pragmatic determination. We have a trade deal with India and with the US, and we are going to get a good trade deal with the European Union. That is why it is a day for rejoicing, not for doom and gloom and people rehashing the past. Not a single one of the Conservatives, except the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar on the Front Bench, who accepted that despite Brexit the economy grew a little bit— \p Kieran Mullan: Sarcasm! \p Ben Coleman: Oh, I didn’t realise sarcasm wasn’t allowed.

As I was saying, I am very pleased, as many are, with the Government for being cool-headed and having a common-sense approach. We are going to reset our relationship with the European Union and put Britain first. Putting Britain first has to also mean putting our young people first, so I am excited by the opportunity for young people in my constituency and every constituency to take advantage of a time-limited, controlled visa-based youth experience scheme, which we already have with a dozen countries. \p John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman will know that thousands of young people—perhaps not in Chelsea but in most of the country—are NEETs, meaning they are not in education, employment or training, and that number is growing. Why should those young people, who are desperately seeking access to education or jobs, have to compete with large numbers of people from abroad? Is that what the people in Chelsea and Fulham really want for the people who live in the rest of Britain? \p Ben Coleman: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman what people in Chelsea and Fulham really want. They do not want a Prime Minister like the last but one—a “bugger business” Prime Minister—who said that we would level up to help people across the country but then did nothing about it. What they want is a Prime Minister who will   invest in increasing skills and apprenticeships right across the country, as ours said yesterday that he will. That is what we need, and that is what we are getting now. \p Stephen Gethins: On that point, because rhetoric is important, does the hon. Member agree with Lord Dubs, who said that what the Prime Minister said yesterday was outrageous, or does he agree with the Alternative für Deutschland leader, who agreed with the Prime Minister? \p Ben Coleman: I have to say, when you ask about Lord Dubs— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. The hon. Member said “you”, but I did not ask the question. \p Ben Coleman: Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member touches a soft spot when he mentions Lord Dubs, who is a great friend and a doughty campaigner in my constituency. Lord Dubs will have his views, but I was talking about the Prime Minister setting out an absolute commitment to increase the skills of young people right across the country, and that is in no way undermined by the prospect of a controlled visa-based youth experience scheme.

In such unstable times, it is right that we should seek a closer relationship with the European Union that will strengthen defence and security alongside our commitment to NATO. I am hopeful that the Government will pull off an agreement that, as hon. Friends of mine have said already, will bring new jobs in the defence industries of this country. We are facing the starkest, most serious defence challenge that we have faced for decades, and we have to meet it together with the European Union. Having spoken to many ambassadors here, I know that they welcome Britain playing its full role in defending our shared continent.

That is what we are doing as a Government. That is why it is so disappointing, with all the prospects and excitement ahead of us, to hear the Conservatives and Reform still putting ideology first, ahead of growth and security. They are failing to say what they would do instead and just want to continue with the status quo.

The hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) talked about the chaos that was brought to Kent, where trucks backed up for miles near Dover because the infrastructure for customs checks was never ready, and fresh produce rotted in the queue. That was under the Conservative Government. They jeopardised car manufacturing in Birmingham and the west midlands, which is a region that relies on just-in-time EU supply chains. It was hit with rules of origin checks, rising costs, and delayed parts—thanks to the Conservatives. They sold out Cornwall’s poorest communities by moving out of European structural funds that has millions in them, replacing them with a shared prosperity fund worth far less. That was the Conservative Government’s failed Brexit.

They weakened Port Talbot and the south Wales steel industry, made exports harder and reduced competitiveness in what was already a challenging global market. They undermined Scottish farmers and distillers by erecting  barriers to their largest export market. This is all part of the record that the Conservatives are delighted to defend. I would not be delighted to defend such a record, but they are—so much so that they have brought forward this ridiculous motion today.

I am delighted by the amendment that the Government have tabled. The contrast between our pragmatic, cool-headed approach and these ideologues could not be starker. It is refreshing. \p Max Wilkinson: The hon. Member has criticised the Opposition for the motion but, to give them their due, at least they have turned up. They delivered Brexit, but none of its architects, who would usually be sitting on the Benches behind me, have shown up. Does that not show the contempt in which those Members hold us, and voters as well? \p Ben Coleman: I agree with the hon. Member. If the Reform party’s entire shtick for getting elected is being anti-EU and thinking that it can defend the interests of the British people better by continuing the chaotic, unfavourable system we have, with that being its entire reason for existence, it is not okay for one of its Members of Parliament to ask a couple of questions and skedaddle. As for the hon. Member for Clacton—and for Florida—I do not know what he is doing today, but he ought to be here.

We should be cheered—it is refreshing—so let us be a little more optimistic as we look to next week and not say, “We’re always going to be out-diddled by French and Germans.” That counsel of despair is pathetic. We are perfectly capable of negotiating trade deals, as we have shown with deals with the US and India, to get the best for the British people, and that is what we will do with the European Union. That is what the people of this country voted for at the last election: an end to failed ideology, and the start of applied, cool-headed, determined common sense. As a result, at the end of the meeting next week and in future years, the British people will benefit. We should all be delighted about that. \p Bernard Jenkin: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) and his flowery optimism for the future of this country, with it somehow being a terribly good thing that we are realigning ourselves with the European Union without actually rejoining it. It makes me wonder about all the debates I have attended over 33 years in the House about our relationship with what used to be called the common market, then the European Communities and now the European Union.

This debate has a ring of familiarity about it, because there are two sides in the House that tend to completely misunderstand each other—only, I think that Conservative Members now understand the truth, because that came out in the referendum. The referendum demonstrated that the House of Commons was completely out of alignment with the population on the question of our membership of the European Union. The whole Brexit story was about a battle within the House as to whether the pro-EU majority would assert itself and somehow negate the referendum, or whether the referendum would be respected. That is why my right hon. Friend the  Leader of the Opposition and her shadow Cabinet colleagues are right to put at the front of the motion the importance of honouring the referendum result.

The fact is that a referendum result represents a superior mandate to a single term of election for an elected Government, because that referendum takes place on a single issue. I do not think anyone would pretend that the European Union was the main issue at the last general election, so anyone in the Government or indeed in the Liberal Democrats trying to use the general election result as a mandate to circumvent the result of the 2016 referendum is playing a dangerous political game. \p Iain Duncan Smith: Of course, that argument was used in reverse on those of us who had had concerns about Europe for 40 years as we were told—exactly to my hon. Friend’s point—that a referendum was superior to continuous elections. We made a decision after the last referendum; that was a generational move. We have hardly had a generation in the few years since the referendum. \p Bernard Jenkin: I agree with my right hon. Friend. The important point is that we do not have a written constitution, but we do have in our minds a hierarchy of legitimacy on which, in the end, the democratic credibility of the House depends. The fact is, a referendum represents a superior mandate on a single issue and, with a great struggle, the pro-EU majority eventually aligned itself with the decision that the British people had taken on our membership of the European Union. \p John Hayes: Since we are straying into political ideas and philosophy, is not the point that the democratic legitimacy we enjoy in this place is on the basis of popular consent, and there is no more direct expression of popular consent than a referendum, which is why its result has to be honoured? \p Bernard Jenkin: I agree with my right hon. Friend, and that is why it was an extremely ominous portent that the Minister at the Dispatch Box refused to answer him on the question of whether there would be alignment or subjection to the European Court of Justice. If the referendum was about one thing, it was about taking back control of our laws. In fact, many of us in the leave campaign at the time argued that the British people do understand sovereignty—they certainly did by the end of the referendum—and getting into permanent alignment of regulation or subjecting the meaning of laws applied in the United Kingdom to the scrutiny and jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice is giving back control. It is a dangerous thing for a Government elected on the principle of honouring the referendum result, and one who are now playing dog-whistle politics with immigration, to be backsliding in secret, with a sleight of hand, into allowing jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and permanent alignment back into our law while pretending that is not happening. That is exactly what the Minister did at the Dispatch Box. \p Mark Francois: rose— \p Bernard Jenkin: I will give way to my right hon. Friend, but I have another point that I wish to make. \p Mark Francois: My hon. Friend will well remember that during the referendum a booklet was circulated to every household in the United Kingdom, which famously said:

“This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.”

The people decided to leave, and some in this place spent three years trying to frustrate their decision. In that context, is he concerned that today the Minister blatantly refused three times to answer a straight question about whether the Government would concede dynamic alignment at the summit? Is that not the sort of duplicitous behaviour that made the public so angry in the first place? \p Bernard Jenkin: I agree. But there is another dangerous game being played by another political party: the Liberal Democrats. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) pressed the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), who wants to rejoin the European Union, on whether there would be another referendum, and he did not say that there would be. That we would have a referendum to leave the European Union but not require a new referendum to rejoin it would be incendiary politics for this country.

Why have people become disillusioned with their politicians? It is because politicians seem to agree to one proposition and then do something completely different from what was voted for. I hope we can all agree on one proposition: that there could be no possibility of a proposal to rejoin the European Union or to accept dynamic alignment or the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice—except over its current limited areas, which will eventually expire—without a further referendum. That is a serious matter. \p Caroline Voaden: The hon. Member talks about people losing their trust in politics. Does he agree that the promise of £350 million a week to go to the NHS, which was broadcast on the side of a big red bus during the referendum, might have somewhat reduced trust in his party? \p Bernard Jenkin: I am happy to point out that after the referendum and since we left the European Union, we are spending way more than £350 million a week more on the NHS than we were, and our contributions to the European Union have fallen dramatically—in fact, much faster than was expected under the withdrawal agreement. So the benefit that was on the side of the bus has turned out to be correct, although I believe it was a statistical sleight of hand to use that particular number; I disowned it at the time. But have no doubt that if we are to get drawn back into the European Union, we will have to start raiding the NHS to make payments to the European Union again. I do not think that is what the British people voted for.

That brings me back to this great defence fund, which I think will be borrowed. Will we have to borrow some of that fund as well? No, it was going to be borrowed through some European Central Bank mechanism. Will it instead be taxed? In any case, it is all Government borrowing, so will we add to Government borrowing by participating in the borrowing or funding of that fund, or would it not be better if we just remained aloof from it to concentrate on spending money on our own defence? That is the point that has already been made: the money  that we have committed to defence over the years, in the period since the second world war and, indeed, since the end of the cold war, is far greater than that of the vast majority of EU countries. We also mandate our nuclear deterrent to the protection of the whole of Europe. We play our part in the defence of Europe. As for the idea that we can deploy troops more quickly through free movement of people, what planet are the Liberal Democrats on? It is utterly ludicrous.

I come back to the point about the defence fund. There have been such funds in Europe before, but I can assure Members that the game that every country plays is the one where what they put in, they get out. The French are past masters at that. They will participate in a multilateral programme, but if they do not get the lion’s share, they pull out. They pulled out of the Eurofighter programme when that was meant to be part of their deal because they were not getting enough work out of it. Therefore, the idea that it is a freebie for British defence companies to participate in the fund and get extra money into the British defence industries will simply not happen.

In any case, this fund is not about creating warfighting capability this year or next year, which is what we need; it is about the very long-term, big programmes that the defence industries want. That will not rescue us from America’s absence from NATO, if that were to occur for more than a few months or a few years under Donald Trump. Let us also remember that Donald Trump will not be there forever; he has 45 more months to go. Let us not do more damage to NATO by making it look to the other side of the Atlantic that we will take care of our own defence in Europe from now on. That is very dangerous.

I remember Madeleine Albright, a Democrat Secretary of State, railing against what was then called the European security and defence policy. She warned that it represented the “Three Ds”: the duplication of NATO assets, which was wasteful and unnecessary; the discrimination against non-EU members of NATO such as Norway, Turkey, Canada and the United States; and the decoupling of American and European defence policy. Is that what we want? Is that what this House wants? Is that what the Labour party wants? No. The Labour party says that NATO is the cornerstone of our defence and rightly so, but what signal is it sending to President Trump? \p Iain Duncan Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way? \p Bernard Jenkin: I ask that he wait just a minute.

What signal is it sending to Donald Trump by suggesting that we will have an EU defence policy that excludes the United States? It is exactly the wrong signal for this moment. \p Iain Duncan Smith: I am pleased that my hon. Friend raises that point, which I want to elaborate further. The real point is that J. D. Vance, the vice president, came over to Munich and ripped a hole through the Europeans, including ourselves, for not having spent enough, although we were one of the top spenders. Since then, the Americans have gone on and on about that, but each time we get the sense that they are keener to decouple. Does what we are about to do not give strength to the argument  that we do not need them any longer and therefore they need to look somewhere else? That is the danger, because NATO was not just about defence of the west; it was about making sure that the US never goes into isolationism again. \p Bernard Jenkin: Yes. That promise of creating an EU defence capability has been on the table since the St Malo declaration of 1999, in the aftermath of the Maastricht treaty that first introduced the word “defence” into the EU. That was when France and the United Kingdom, under a Labour Government, declared that the EU would have autonomous military capability, with separable but not separate military forces from NATO.

We still have the absurdity in which the armed forces of the EU countries are allocated to NATO tasks but, at the same time, are ready for EU tasks. There had to be a complicated de-confliction arrangement to try to ensure that an EU defence mission does not conflict with a NATO defence mission. We finished up with something called the Berlin-plus arrangements, which Turkey has never accepted because it is not a member of the EU but is a member of NATO.

There has always been an impasse between NATO and the EU on those two questions, and it is all completely unnecessary because NATO has a military headquarters, it has a political committee and it is an international organisation. Indeed, it is the most successful military alliance in the world. Why is the EU trying to duplicate it just for itself? The EU is more interested in statecraft and state-building than defending our own continent. The anger with which Ursula von der Leyen and Friedrich Merz have attacked Trump reflects a latent anti-Americanism that has always been there and which we could do without at this moment. \p John Hayes: My hon. Friend makes a profound argument. He highlights the EU, which sees itself as a supranational body, and NATO, which, by nature, is anything but that, in that it is a confederation of sovereign nations. That tension lies at the heart of the EU’s ill-concealed and now evident disdain for NATO. I do not know whether the Government are careless or unknowing of that. They are either complicit or ignorant; I wonder which one my hon. Friend thinks it is. \p Bernard Jenkin: Sadly, European Union defence has always promised far more than it delivers. It was meant to galvanise all the European states into spending more money; it failed and just did not do that. When any serious military operation was required, it was NATO. To the EU’s credit, some EU military operations are taking place, but they are on a very limited scale. The British and the Americans need to reinforce the Balkans now, because the Europeans are not committing enough on their own and are incapable of doing so.

Even if, this time, there were rapid growth in EU military capability to address the crisis that we face, it would take decades to replicate what the Americans currently provide, such as tactical nuclear weapons and air cover. Why does the EU need to have its own air defence policy when that is exactly what NATO does? It does European air defence. We need to bolster NATO. It is encouraging that force planning for a possible peacekeeping force in Ukraine is all being done at  NATO and not in the EU crisis management centre or at EU military headquarters. Only NATO has the capability to plan large-scale military activity. \p Luke Taylor: indicated dissent. \p Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. What does he know about it? I would be interested in him challenging me. \p Luke Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman not see the fragility of a European defence that is dependent on key items of American hardware, which he correctly identifies that we do not have, and which it will take decades for us to replicate, operate, integrate with our systems and train people on? Does he not see the fragility of our defence if President Trump or another incoming US leader says, “Actually, you’re on your own. We don’t care about the defence of Ukraine”? \p Caroline Nokes: Order. While I am in the Chair, interventions will be shorter than that. \p Bernard Jenkin: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that point, but the best thing for all European nations is not to try to build our own EU defence capability, but to strengthen NATO. There is an argument that we are somehow doing this through the EU so that it can strengthen NATO, but I do not think that is really the ambition of the bureaucrats in Brussels. They have a flag and a Parliament, and they want an army—a Euro army. That is what people periodically talk about, particularly the Germans and the French. They want a Euro army, but that would send the wrong signal to President Trump. Yes, we need to develop those capabilities, but let us develop them through NATO. \p Jim Allister: Is not the hon. Member’s point put beyond all doubt by the wording of article 42 of the treaty of the EU, which expressly says that the purpose of co-operation is to arrive at common defence? Is it not therefore perfectly clear that the EU is setting itself up to have its own sovereign defence capability? \p Bernard Jenkin: Yes, and when we look at the European Defence Agency and all the mechanisms that have been created, we can see that the European Defence Agency is an embryo European Ministry of Defence. That is what is intended.

Let us just suppose that, in the ideal world that Labour and the Liberal Democrats live in, this defence capability comes about. The fundamental problem is that the European Union was never originally conceived as a defence and foreign policy organisation. There are many countries in it with very different—[Interruption.] No, it was functionalism that drove the foundation of the European Communities. It was about trade and creating a single market. Defence was never in the minds of the early founders of the European Union, and it is very ill suited to the task of getting defence capability, because the institutions were not designed for that purpose. It is not in the culture of those institutions. To rely on them for our defence and security  is extremely unwise. On the other hand, NATO is already very well suited to the task and does not need to be duplicated.

To put it mildly, given the political disunity in the European Union, particularly towards Trump—okay, that afflicts NATO as well—this is not an instant solution to the political problems in NATO, if those are what the European Union is seeking to resolve. We should dispense with the idea that making a defence pact with the European Union is somehow the great panacea for all the problems we face on our continent because of President Putin. On the contrary, I think it is likely to make things worse—more complicated and more bureaucratic—and it would probably make our defence industries less competitive, because they would be cocooned inside this fund, instead of competing on the on the global stage with the Americans. Incidentally, our defence procurement co-operation with the Americans remains essential. They have the lion’s share of the technology; they are way ahead of the European Union when it comes to technology.

So, why are the Government doing this? I think they have always been religiously committed to the idea of EU defence—they introduced it in the first place, in the St Malo declaration—but why are they so devoted to doing this now? Of course, it is what the European Union really wants. We are the supplicant in these negotiations. We are asking the EU for concessions, and the one thing that would really make it feel good is drawing the United Kingdom into the defence arena of the European Union.

Meanwhile, what concessions are we getting from the EU? I do not see any. It will be interesting to find out. It will not instantly reduce all trade barriers, because we are not in the single market and will not be in the single market. It will still apply all the checks, including the antiquated wet stamps that are applied to forms certifying the fitness of shellfish. Wet stamps are so last century, but the EU is still using them on customs forms. That is how backward it is. There are electronic frontiers between African countries where there are no barriers. Incidentally, that is the answer to the Northern Ireland problem.

I fully support the Opposition’s proposals, which are to question everything that the EU will demand of us and which the Government might pursue, and to reserve our ability to tear up those agreements if they are not in the national interest. The Government do not have a monopoly on the national interest. “National interest” is a subjective term—the national interest might be different in the mind of one person and in the mind of another. As far as I am concerned, we left the European Union in the national interest, because we wanted to remain a sovereign democracy, in charge of our own laws, and to be like most other countries that are not in the European Union; they get on fine. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) pointed out, the economy is still growing, or was growing until the Government hit it with their Budget. We have every opportunity at our feet.

One of the reasons we left the European Union—sorry to relitigate all these arguments—and left that slow-growth, high-unemployment, high-regulation, high-tax trade bloc was so that we could make deals with the high-growth, low-regulation, high-employment parts of the world, which in the end will provide us with far more business than we get from the EU. Actually, the vast majority of  our trade, particularly our services trade, is outside the EU—people forget that. By being obsessed with trade with the EU, we drive our economy into a straitjacket; we are well out of that.

The Government should take away from this debate a warning. They know that they are being attacked by Reform. Those voters would probably never vote Conservative, or are less likely to vote Conservative than Labour, but they are going to Reform because they can sense the backsliding going on in this Government. If there were ever to be another referendum, I would hazard a guess that the vote would be against rejoining the European Union, so there can be no rejoining by stealth, which seems to be the Government’s policy. We will stand by the British people, and will dishonour any agreement that the Government make with the European Union that is not in our interests.

Indeed, there are parts of the withdrawal agreement that we may need to revisit—for example, in the Northern Ireland protocol. The technology has moved on, and we can move to an electronic frontier across the north-south border, without the need for checks on trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. One of the founding principles of the Act of Union was that there should be frontier-free trade within the United Kingdom as a whole. If the continuing development of the Northern Ireland protocol continues to impose those checks, those checks are not in the national interest, and we should reserve the right to jettison the protocol and replace it with something better. \p Tom Hayes: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak, and I commend the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on staying on his feet for nearly half an hour—quite an impressive feat. It is an honour to follow him; he was elected 33 years ago, when I was nine. I imagine that he has seen a lot of history over the past 33 years, and over the past nearly 10 years since the referendum.

If we think about the main features of that history, it is indisputable that we live in a new world. We have the illegal invasion of Ukraine; Taiwan is acting as a test point; NATO and the UN are at risk; and there is rising authoritarian populism, which risks democratic backsliding, be that through the undermining of institutions, power being concentrated in the Executive, the dismissal of checks and balances, growing electoral interference, or big tech captains involving themselves in democratic politics like never before. We see economic inequality on an unprecedented scale. That creates a risk of democratic instability, here and around the world. There is also the risk of wealth concentration, unaddressed tax haven networks, rising social inequality, and people feeling left out. Issues of development, aid and debt relief are gone from our political discussions.

The rise of technology risks creating democratic threats. Artificial intelligence and social media create the potential for deepfakes, automated disinformation, cyber-attacks and the development of lethal systems with no human oversight. There are health challenges, such as the global pandemic that we have been through. Climate change continues unabated and remains unaddressed at the  scale needed, creating the possibility of resource conflicts, climate refugee flows and stresses on nature and wildlife. If that has not convinced the House that I am a fun time down the pub, I do not know what will.

I say all that because those are the major threats that have emerged in the past 10 years—and that is not an exhaustive list. If I carried on, Members would want me to sit down faster. We have to face reality. All of us in this place were elected to behave like grown-ups—to face the facts, debate on the basis of reality, and come up with common-sense solutions. Given that we face those threats—I have not even mentioned the lion’s share of threats in the UK, which I would say we inherited from the previous Government—it is no wonder that people outside the walls of Westminster feel that we go too slow and do not focus on the things that they care about. It is no wonder that people are succumbing to hopelessness, and feel that politics is not meeting their needs.

A question was asked earlier about what was on the ballot paper. I accept that the European Union was not on the ballot paper as an existential question. However, what was on the ballot paper was quality of life in our country, the state of our economy, and the possibility that generations will be locked out of the democratic agreement and social contract on a fair chance at life. We Labour Members are saying that trade is a solution to some of those challenges.

As I was saying, people outside the walls of this Palace feel frustrated by the slowness of our debates. \p John Hayes: rose— \p Tom Hayes: I will come to you shortly.

We must recognise the importance of urgency. That is why I am genuinely extremely pleased that we have a Government who have moved forward in recent days and weeks with two significant trade deals. The first, with India, was achieved in 10 months, after the Conservatives had spent eight years saying that they would get a deal. We rolled up our sleeves and got a deal that will put more money into people’s pockets, create jobs here, and benefit our economy. The trade deal with the United States is not what we would have got had Kamala Harris been elected President; it is the deal we could get with Donald Trump as President, and I think that it shows realistic, common-sense negotiation. \p Kieran Mullan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point? \p Tom Hayes: I will come to you.

That deal will put money in people’s pockets, grow our economy and create jobs. Now, we have the prospect of a third trade deal, with the European Union, on the horizon. It would be a really important deal. That is crucial, because if we do not foster the conditions for trade in a world of global insecurity, we will create further problems in our democracy and around the world. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Tom Hayes: I think Sir John wanted to intervene. \p Caroline Nokes: Order. The hon. Member has said “you” twice, and now says “Sir John”. It is a very long-established convention that Members do not refer to right hon. and hon. colleagues by name. \p John Hayes: I am extremely grateful to my namesake for giving way. He is making an interesting speech. He is right that global power and its growth is making people feel that they cannot affect decision making; that is a profound point, but we need to root power closer to people, not detach it from them, as happens when power is given over to foreign potentates, whether in the EU or any other part of the world. \p Tom Hayes: I agree with the right hon. Member. With the UK a sovereign, independent trading nation, we in this place are able to shape the debate and conditions of trade. We have the prospect of an EU trade deal before us, and we must grasp it. If we do not, we will see our country fall further behind. There are areas of possibility for that trade deal. For example, there is a need for the transfer and exchange of clean energy between the UK and France and the European Union on a larger scale. I had the privilege of visiting Gosport recently to see IFA2—Interconnexion France-Angleterre 2—where the subsea interconnector is exchanging clean energy between the UK and France, ensuring that we can keep the lights on not only here but in France and across the European Union. Surely energy security is an important feature of our democracy, in an age where we are threatened by Putin and other dictators. \p Luke Taylor: The hon. Member talks about us being a sovereign nation and being able to choose our trade deals. I assume we will get a vote in this place on the shape of a future trade deal with the United States, so that we are able to examine it, vote and exercise our parliamentary sovereignty. \p Tom Hayes: I thank the hon. Member for listening to some of what I said. I said that we in this place have the right to speak in debates such as this, to shape the conditions of trade. Clearly, with the Minister on the Front Bench listening acutely to everything that Members are saying, that message is being carried into Government —the Minister is nodding profusely—in which case, we will have that democratic accountability.

I turn to the other areas of potential EU-UK relationship improvement. Defence is obviously a core part of that. NATO is the cornerstone of our collective security, but a strong UK must sit alongside strong European countries. The UK is raising its defence spending to an unprecedented level and making efforts to grow our defence industrial base. We need to do that not only for our own security and the security of democracies, but to set an example to European countries about raising their own defence spending, while working with them to grow our collaboration.

On the question of trade, all of us in this House, whichever party we represent, will have had small businesses come to our surgeries and tell us about the red tape they encounter as a result of the Brexit deal. If they voted for Brexit, they did not vote for that Brexit deal; they voted for something very different. I think we can all recognise that, and if we do not, we are not listening to our constituents when they come to our surgeries and tell us their truth very clearly.

By reducing red tape, we can help to grow the number of jobs in our economy, open up our borders to more trade and smooth our exports, which is critical if we are going to achieve the Government’s No. 1 goal of growing  our economy. Without growth in our economy, we will not raise living standards, we will not be a country at ease with itself, we will not again be confident on the world stage, and we will not be a leading democratic voice in a world of strengthening democracies. \p Danny Chambers: Does the hon. Member agree that rejoining a customs union would achieve all those aims of reducing red tape? \p Tom Hayes: I do not agree. I am talking about a very different proposal that is meeting the needs of our constituents. In the interests of allowing more Members to speak in the debate, I will take no more interventions. \p Bernard Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Tom Hayes: After 30 minutes of speaking, the hon. Member has probably said everything he needed to say, and if he did not, we have a serious problem in this House.

On the question of expanding opportunities in the UK-EU relationship, I am particularly struck by the need for a capped, controlled, balanced youth mobility scheme. Around our country, including in my constituency of Bournemouth East, young people are suffering generational challenges that their predecessors did not face, be it their inability to buy a home at an affordable price, find secure work or get the education they want, or the fact that they have gone through a cost of living crisis and a pandemic. Surely we owe it to our younger generation to provide them with some of the conditions that will allow for a better life. A capped, balanced, controlled youth mobility scheme is key to that.

Such a scheme will not just be beneficial for the youth of the UK. I have in my constituency a significant number of English language schools. I had the privilege of visiting Beet Language Centre in my constituency last Friday for a roundtable that it hosted, and we were joined by other important language schools. They talked to me about the difficult financial circumstances they are all in and the difficulty of keeping the doors open because of the damaging Brexit deal that was negotiated. With a youth mobility scheme, we can put money back into our English language sector, which is critical.

We are living in an insecure world. Britain’s soft power is critical to ensuring that we are respected around the world. By bringing people to the UK—and particularly to sunny Bournemouth—for one to two weeks, or four to six weeks, they get a sense of how wonderful, open and accepting we are as a country. They can then take that back to their families and their home countries, and they can grow an affection for this country, come back repeatedly, spend money here and grow our tourism sector. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole has the highest concentration of English language schools of any borough or local authority in the UK; they contribute £400 million to the BCP economy. Indeed, English language schools contribute £44 billion nationally. Imagine how much better we could be if we had a youth mobility scheme and support for our English language schools.

I will soon conclude my speech so more Members can speak, but before sitting down I want to talk about not just the importance of the UK-EU reset as a way of delivering trade in its own right between the UK and  the EU, but the benefits of trade. In an increasingly protectionist world, we need to be talking up the benefits of trade. Trade brings people into closer, and more harmonious and profitable relations, with one another. It brings down the walls and the barriers between nations. It makes war less likely because it binds people in peace. It does not just put money into people’s pockets or create jobs in our communities; it grows our economies faster and it raises living standards.

We know that trade has its challenges, but—done well—trade deals can help to make sure our countries prosper. At its heart, the EU-UK reset should be about trade, our economy and our businesses. It should not be a question of identity, culture wars and scaremongering. It should be about grown-ups gathering in this Chamber and talking about what is important to our constituents on the basis of the facts, rather than rehashing old, tired debates and scaremongering. We need to face the future, and I am pleased that finally we have a Government who are doing so. \p Iain Duncan Smith: It is good to follow the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and to be reminded of how old he was when I first came here; I hope he stays here as long as well, or maybe I do not hope for that as it might mean we Conservative Members will be on the Opposition Benches forever.

Today’s debate is on an important topic and there have been some very good contributions already, but I want to get to the bottom of what the Government really want out of this negotiation, because they have been a little bit tepid in coming forward on the key issues. I welcome the Government’s negotiations in India—finishing off a trade arrangement deal or whatever it is with the Indian Government. I welcome too that they have been able to begin to negotiate with the United States, although they have not secured a full trade deal. By the way, they would not have got a trade deal if the Democrats had got back into office because they rejected it for four years. In fact, President Biden said that there would be no trade deal with the UK. Let us not just observe that because the Democrats are not Trump, somehow they were going to give us a trade deal. I have my problems with the current President, but President Biden absolutely did not want trade with us; it was as simple as that. That was a mistake on his part. He had a real opportunity, because the trade deal was pretty much all done—and then it was binned.

There is also the question of the reason we are able to do these trade deals with the rest of the world, to which we export more than the European Union. We should do more of those trade deals. The Conservative Government did 73 after Brexit, although some of them were mopping up the ones that we had before. I stand ready to congratulate the Labour Government if they use the freedom Brexit gives them to get more trade arrangements, because that is what we are here for. I might want to press them further and say they could get a lot more out of the US, but that is another debate all together.

I do not disagree with the idea that the deal we did with the European Union is capable of being improved. Of course it is, because the EU put up many barriers in  the course of that negotiation; it weaponised Northern Ireland distinctly, and that was a grave error on its part. It risked some of the process of peace in Northern Ireland by making it a critical negotiating tool that could be used as leverage later in the rest of the negotiations, and as a result we have been left with a problem in Northern Ireland. I encourage the Government to have a very good look at that. I did not vote for the Windsor agreement because I thought it did not solve the problem by a long chalk, and it has left Northern Ireland in the same position as before, with a couple of small modifications.

This debate is really about getting into the issue. I say to the Minister that the European Union did not play straight about phytosanitary from day one in the negotiations, and it still does not play straight. The fact is that our standards in animal welfare and product health are, and always have been, above those of the European Union. The European Union knows that. The reality is that somehow it decided that there had to be all these phytosanitary checks and changes, and it is desperately keen to get dynamic alignment now, because that means that there will be a rules-based order coming from the EU. That is what it has always wanted to do.

The truth is that the European Union does not have that arrangement with other countries around the world. For example, it is quite happy to have New Zealand vets check their products before departure. Those products go in through Rotterdam without any checks, other than checks that they came from the area specified. The EU knows which vets it authorises, so it does that. It could have done that here in the UK.

I sat down with Monsieur Barnier and a group of people to have a long discussion when the negotiations broke down as a result of what was going on here in Parliament, and I very much remember that we talked about trusting each other’s regulations and working with that trust to get an arrangement that made it as easy as possible to get goods across the border. He accepted that then, saying that, provided we could trust each other’s veterinary authorities, we would not need to have the phytosanitary rules as proposed at the moment. It was only later, when my party in government came back and did a terrible shimmy with him, that he thought he had it all, so he took it. The reality is that the EU knew all along, from the word go, that it was easier to put in place these arrangements than it made out.

I have always found the phytosanitary objection peculiar, because it could be sorted out very quickly. Our standards are higher than the EU’s, and our vets are quite capable of checking different producers to see whether they fit European standards. That is all it is: are they up to European standards, and are European standards up to ours when the EU exports to us? It is very simple. That can be done in every trade deal, and the EU already does it with other countries that are not, and have never been, part of that Union. There is an idea that to get this issue sorted, we would have to go into dynamic alignment and accept the EU’s rules over our products, but it would make it more difficult to make future trade arrangements if we were rule-takers from the European Union and could not negotiate these areas ourselves. That brings me back to my previous point.

Before I return to that issue, I want to raise another point. The trouble is that the argument I heard made—that a phytosanitary agreement involving dynamic alignment  would address the price of food—is patently absurd. If SPS checks concerned the price of food, we could unilaterally relax them. They do not have to be where they are: that is our decision to take. It would not change or lower the price of food. If anything, it would be more likely to block us from doing a number of things, such as gene editing in food and work that we want to do that the European Union does not want to do. All these things put at risk where we may be in future trade arrangements and the direction in which we may want to develop farming here. \p David Chadwick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? \p Iain Duncan Smith: I want to make a couple of points on this issue before I give way.

We know, and everybody else around the world outside the EU knows, that the EU puts up very hidden tariff barriers. America is right about that; it complained that Europe finds all sorts of little regulations and problems, so that it cannot break in with its products and goods. That has happened for a long time, and it has happened with us—we know that it was even happening when we were in the EU. We are by nature a free-trading country, and there is no way on earth that we think the EU as a construct is as free trading in that sense. It wants to protect its markets more than anything else, rather than open up to the rest of the world. \p David Chadwick: Welsh food and drink exports have fallen by 18% since 2018. Does that not evidence the damage that has been done to Wales by these deals? \p Iain Duncan Smith: If damage has been done to exporting to the European Union, as I said earlier, that is about the attitude of the European Union to protectionism in the EU. Its trade with us has not fallen away on that basis, because we did not set up those barriers in the first place, so my argument to the hon. Gentleman is very simple: the European Union wants it all. That is the reality of what we are dealing with. It wants it all, and it negotiated in bad faith from the word go. We have an agreement, which is a pretty good agreement as trade agreements go. It is one of the largest trade agreements that we have. It can always be improved—I do not disagree with that—but the reality is that we need to deal with an organisation that is as relaxed about being fair to us as we are about being fair to it. That has been our biggest problem from the word go.

Returning to phytosanitary issues, I have had debates and discussions with the Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), in the past, and we have agreed with each other many times. I laud him for his stance on Russia and everything else—there is no question about that—but I want to quote from a little document that I came across from the Centre for European Reform. By the way, it is very complimentary to say that I read things that I do not agree with. I tend to do that quite a lot, strangely—it is a bad habit of mine, I know. That document is very close to how the European Union’s heads of department all think, and it says:

“Labour’s red lines do not extend to ruling out dynamic alignment or a role for the ECJ in dispute settlement.”

As such, I ask the Minister this simple question: is the Centre for European Reform correct? Do the Government’s red lines rule out dynamic alignment, or do they not? I will give way to the Minister right now, because I am generous like that, and he probably wants to answer that question. I tempt him to come to the Dispatch Box and say whether the Government’s red lines rule out dynamic alignment. Could they, and will they, agree to dynamic alignment and ECJ rules? I will give way to him now, because I see that he is beginning to move. \p Stephen Doughty: indicated dissent. \p Iain Duncan Smith: He is not—what a pity. \p Tom Hayes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? \p Iain Duncan Smith: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he has a little while to go before he stands at the Dispatch Box. I am after the Minister, not him, but we will get to that in due course. The reality is that the Government could agree to dynamic alignment—there was no denial of that. Essentially, the Government are going into this negotiation knowing full well that they are so desperate on phytosanitary matters that they will give way on dynamic alignment. That is exactly what the EU wants.

My real worry in all of this, however, is that we know what is going on—I will just move on to another topic, and then I will sit down and give other Members a chance to speak. Most of all, I am worried about bad faith. When we talked about improvements—which, to be fair to the Government, they did with the European Union—what did France do almost immediately? The Prime Minister is showing some leadership over Ukraine, trying to galvanise the other nations, which is his role. His role is to haul America and keep it with us, and he has been doing that. I do not have any criticism of that, but when the Prime Minister got involved, saying that Europe should form a coalition of the willing and that he wanted to drive that further forward and get some kind of agreement on it, what did France immediately say? “Not before you give us access to fishing.” That was it. In no world does fishing have anything to do with defence, yet France weaponised fishing to block off the UK, which had taken the—I think—generous position of saying that it wanted to galvanise Europe to do more.

The problem here is that if we take out the countries that joined since the Ukraine war, Europe across the board spends half of what the United States does on defence in dollar terms. We have more people and more industry in Europe, yet we spend half of what America does on weaponry and defence. That is a shocking position for a member of NATO to be in. We have not stood up. We have done better—still not good enough—but what the rest of Europe has done has been shocking. By the way, the country that just told us that we will not get any discussions unless fishing is on the agenda has been one of the worst spenders on defence in the European Union, let alone in global terms. \p Mark Francois: Less than us. \p Iain Duncan Smith: Way less than us, and less than most of the others—it is at the bottom of the scale. I simply say to the Government that the Prime Minister is right to press on defence, to get the European nations  to step up, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) said earlier, we have a mechanism for that. The Prime Minister is right to do it through NATO, and we must not allow Europe to slide away from NATO as its means of defence.

I watched, as did many of its leaders, when Vice-President Vance lectured the European Union in Munich. What he said shocked the European leaders, as it was meant to—he laid into Europe quite vindictively—but fair enough. However, where we are now heading, towards somehow encouraging those countries peculiarly to form some kind of European Union defence organisation, is exactly what will give the American Administration permission to say, “Well, you can do this yourself.” We are already halfway there, by the way, because we are forming a coalition of the willing but America is not willing, and we are at odds with it over its relationship with Ukraine. We agreed about the ceasefire, but America has now changed its position and will now be holding negotiations before a ceasefire. I think that that is wrong, by the way. Although I am personally a big supporter of America, I think it is mistaken on that particular point and the Government are right.

My point is that we are putting the whole of NATO at risk for a phytosanitary and fishing deal. In what world does anyone do that? What are we doing it for? The answer, it seems to me, is that we are too desperate to curry favour with an organisation that, when push comes to shove and when it comes to defence, needs us more than we need it. It needs the UK to be locked into this because we are the key to so much of what it needs to do with defence. I say to the Government, “You have much stronger tools in your hand than you may think.” We have key persuasive powers on defence, and we should not sell them on the basis that they should become European and we should destroy NATO, or damage NATO, simply because we want to make some kind of adjustment or improvement which includes dynamic alignment and the loss of the possibility of future trade negotiation. \p Jake Richards: Unlike many Opposition Members, my constituents have little appetite for a relitigation of the Brexit debates of 2016. Back at the time of referendum, 66% of them voted to leave the European Union; there is scant desire for us to rejoin, and even less desire for a return to embracing freedom of movement. I will always put my constituents first, and these are red lines that I understand, honour and respect.

However, my constituents also see the changing world around us, and recognise that the world has been transformed immeasurably since 2016. The terms on which we left the European Union do not match the global moment that we face today. President Trump’s tariffs have rocked the international economic order. War has broken out in Europe, and there is a need for dramatically increased defence spending and new methods of working with international colleagues. A new wave of mass migration from the middle east and Africa, and the small boats crisis in our channel, can only be properly handled through further co-operation with our international partners.

Basically, my constituents are patriotic. They want their country to be resilient to new threats, and prosperous in a chaotic world. While any future with the European Union must respect critical red lines on controlling borders and protecting ultimate sovereignty in Westminster, there is now scope for a new thread, a new relationship, to embolden our security and economic interests in a volatile world. This new approach can, should and will, I believe, overcome the increasingly desperate, archaic, old-fashioned attacks from some Opposition Members about the so-called Brexit betrayal, and the British public know that.

Polling by the Good Growth Foundation shows that 73% of the public support significant co-operation with the EU on trade and the economy, defence and security. More than twice as many adults say that the EU is the UK’s most trustworthy ally, rather than the United States under its current President, and about 60% of the public say that it is imperative for us to have a closer relationship with the European Union in the future. A new, better deal with the European Union is popular because few think that the current relationship is working. Many, while supporting the principle of Brexit and having voted in favour of it in 2016, feel that its execution during the chaotic Conservative premierships has been disastrous.

The public’s desire for change is a reality that the Conservative party cannot seem to wake up to. Although I fundamentally disagree with its principles, it has been a great party. At their best, the Conservatives have been successful in modernising the country in line with global trends. They brought us into Europe, and played a pivotal role in building the single market that so many Europeans enjoy today. Given their track record, it is sad to see that they seem to oppose the notion of negotiating a new and better relationship with Europe. The party of Churchill and Thatcher, who once led on the world stage, is now left to carp from the sidelines, like talk radio commentators from a bygone era. The Leader of the Opposition is busy denouncing every post-Brexit deal that this Labour Government sign as inadequate or a betrayal, including those that she failed to get over the line when she was Trade Secretary.

On this issue, as with so many of the Conservatives’ current fixations, the public have simply left them behind. The Conservatives are fighting yesterday’s battles. Although the themes that won such support in the referendum cannot be ignored, change is required. Any entanglement of political structures, and any notion of increased immigration or a lack of control, will rightly be met with outrage by those who supported Brexit, but the benefits of a closer deal are now clear. \p John Hayes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the Conservative party; it has indeed been a great party and remains so. On entanglement, he makes a valid point about co-operation and collaboration, but that has always been the case. Of course we must work with other countries, but the core issue here is authority. Entanglement means granting authority to a power outside this country. Surely this movement of young people, which is a dressed-up form of free movement, is just that. \p Jake Richards: I reject the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the policy. I will come on to that specific policy in a moment, but his characterisation is  unfair. I am not in the habit of giving advice to the Conservatives, but my understanding is that at the last general election, the party finished fifth among voters under the age of 35. Looking in the mirror and thinking about how they have ended up in that position might be a worthwhile way to spend some time.

The benefits of a closer deal are now clear: a unified carbon and electricity market could raise billions of pounds in revenue for the Treasury, and more collaboration on defence would ease pressures, enhance capability, and support joint procurement and R&D in key areas. There is also scope—this goes to the right hon. Gentleman’s point—for a capped UK-EU youth mobility scheme to be part of the deal, but it has to be negotiated and the devil will be in the detail. There should be tight limits on the numbers, access to services and duration of stay, and it should be part of an agreement whereby the EU helps the UK with many of the challenges that we face with immigration. This is part of a relationship that does not stop at one moment or at one deal; it is an ongoing relationship. This Government are open, negotiating, listening and getting the best deal for Britain, and it is one that I support.

As so often is the case, the political class is lagging behind public opinion and fighting the last battle. The Brexit paradigm that certainly defined British politics between 2016 and 2020 is history, and the Government are right to look to the future and pursue a better and deeper relationship with our European partners in order to improve living standards, offer economic protection and ensure our country’s security. I am pleased that this Government appear willing to seize the moment, and I look forward to supporting their efforts in that endeavour in the coming weeks. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I do not intend to introduce a time limit, but Members will be aware that there are in the region of 25 people wishing to speak. They might like to consider how long they will spend on their feet, so that as many colleagues as possible can get in. \p Rachel Gilmour: Last week, this House recognised the 80th anniversary of the allied victory in Europe, so I find it somewhat strange that today the party of Churchill is calling for a debate that seeks to drive a wedge between us and our friends and allies on the continent.

I speak on behalf of the young people, farmers, fishermen and small business owners of my constituency—[Hon. Members: “Fishermen?”] Yes, plural! They are hard-working people who have felt the consequences of our severance from Europe. The bungling of farming and fisheries policy since Brexit has led to supply chain disruptions, reduced access to export markets and financial uncertainty for our producers. Our farmers—once able to trade freely with Europe—now find themselves bogged down in paperwork, losing out to competitors who enjoy smoother trade arrangements.

Despite the turbulence of Brexit, the European Union remains our largest trading partner. To undermine this reality seems, to my mind, to be a curious act of  economic self-harm. Grand promises of scaling back Brussels bureaucracy were made, but precisely the opposite has occurred, with more red tape, delays and headaches for our businesses and traders. \p Kieran Mullan: As was put to the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), at the start of the debate, the red tape is coming from the EU, not us. Why is the ire of the Lib Dems never directed at the people responsible for introducing the trade barriers? \p Rachel Gilmour: I simply do not accept what the hon. Member says. Big corporations may be able to adapt, shift operations—[Interruption.] Do be quiet for a minute!

Big corporations may be able to adapt, shift operations and sidestep the chaos, but for our small businesses—the backbone of our economy—this is not merely an inconvenience, but a catastrophe. Ask my constituent Becca James of Williton what she has made of the Brexit fallout, having run a superb au pair agency that folded. As an MP representing many SMEs in my constituency of Tiverton and Minehead—Minehead being on the sea, hence the fishermen—I hear daily about their struggles to keep trading and to navigate new regulations. Conservative Governments have hung them out to dry, leaving them to fend for themselves in a post-Brexit economic landscape riddled with uncertainties. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

We must swerve the temptations of dogma and pursue policies that benefit our economy, our people and our future. We must come to terms with the fact that forming a new customs arrangement would offset much of this harsh impact and would be a sign of a more grown-up politics. I and my party are looking forward eagerly to the Government’s big reset in the weeks to come. Without a comprehensive trading arrangement with the EU, it will be clear that reset just means rebrand.

Fisheries have not fared any better. Grandstanding notions of reclaiming British waters turned out to be hollow, as coastal communities have seen dwindling profits, complicated licensing, and deals that have left them materially worse off than before. If only the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) had attended more than one of the 42 meetings of the EU Parliament Committee on Fisheries, which he was paid to attend, our fishermen might be on a more even keel.

We must embrace the EU youth mobility scheme. The West Somerset area of my constituency sits at 324th out of 324 on the social mobility index, and while there is no overnight panacea to this, I believe that those from disadvantaged backgrounds having access to opportunity on the continent can only be a good thing. The youth mobility scheme would democratise travel and work abroad by removing the financial barriers that typically make it an option only for the privileged. It would empower talented young people who may have the skills but lack the financial means to access the same opportunities as their more affluent peers. Why should they be reserved for a few?

It is my firm belief that travel and broadening one’s experiences can be one of the best forms of education. Why would we deny our young people that golden ticket to live, work, study and build lifelong friendships in Europe? This is not entirely an argument about economics, for what monetary value can be placed on broadening the horizons of our young people wherever  those opportunities may lie? It is a peculiar irony that young people from nations on the other side of the world—the likes of our Australian and Kiwi friends—are part of this scheme, while the UK across that small body of water known as the channel, or la manche, remains on the outside looking in.

I will end with the words of the European Union preamble: nous sommes unis dans notre diversité, notre histoire commune, nos valeurs et notre avenir partagés. I will give hon. Members a translation if they need one. \p Andrew Lewin: As this is a debate in the name of His Majesty’s Opposition, it is only right that I share some personal reflections on the record of the Conservative party when it was in government. I am feeling generous, Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure the House will be pleased to know that this will be a brief speech. But I am also feeling generous because I want to begin with three simple and constructive suggestions for the Conservative party on its future approach to the European Union.

First, a good place to start would be by accepting that the Brexit deal signed in 2020 has done substantial damage to our economy. Fundamentally, it was a deal that put up barriers to trade. As the Office for Budget Responsibility concluded, the UK economy will be 4% smaller than previously expected. That means the country is on course to be £100 billion poorer than it otherwise would have been. \p Danny Kruger: It is not the first time that the 4% figure has been referenced. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it was based on the assumption that UK-EU trade would fall and there would therefore be a hit to our productivity? In fact, EU-UK trade has risen since Brexit, so the whole basis of that assumption is wrong. Will he please acknowledge that? \p Andrew Lewin: It is curious, is it not? I have seen Conservative Front Benchers talking up the OBR when it is convenient, but in this case, when they do not agree with it, they decry it and say we must not listen to it.

Step one: it is time to accept that it was a deal that made the country poorer and it must be looked at again.

My second tip would be to apologise to the business community. He is no longer a Member of this House, so perhaps it is time to fully disown the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip. As well as saying sorry for his language towards the business community, it might be time to say sorry to the 60% of companies that told the British chambers of commerce that it has become harder for them to trade as a direct consequence of the deal that was signed.

The highlight of the shadow Minister’s speech was his reference to “Quantum Leap”. He talked fondly of it, but I think it is time to jump back into the present. My third piece of advice is, therefore, that the Conservative party should listen to more podcasts. I know for a fact that the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) and the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy  Hunt) listen to a certain weekly political podcast featuring former Chancellor George Osborne. I know they listen to it, because I have heard the voice notes they submitted as questions in recent weeks and months. It is an excellent podcast, but I fear that while Conservative MPs are tuning in, they are not really listening. George Osborne could not be more clear: the European Union is our single biggest trading partner and if we are serious about growing the economy, it is time for a new and more ambitious deal. On this, he and his co-host Ed Balls are united, and they are absolutely right.

I am a pro-European and an internationalist. In my short time in this place, I have already had the opportunity to speak at greater length in other debates on why now is the time for a substantial reset in the relationship with our largest trading partner. Today, I will not revisit those arguments at length. But we are less than a week away from the UK-EU summit and I am very hopeful that we will see a comprehensive deal that makes progress on security, trade and a visa-based youth mobility scheme.

This is not 2016 or 2020. While the Conservative party in Parliament may want to replay the old debates, public opinion in the country has moved on. In an uncertain and volatile world, there is no more important relationship for the UK than the one with our closest neighbour and biggest trading partner. People want to see progress. They want to see a deal that makes a material difference to their lives. I am confident that is exactly what this Labour Government will deliver, starting with the summit next week. \p Joy Morrissey: It is wonderful to hear from the acclaimed globalists from both the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Labour Benches who cannot wait to bring us back into the EU. For the record, I am opposed to doing so not only because the British people voted the opposite way and we should honour the referendum, but because, as Labour Members seem to have forgotten, we actually negotiated a trade deal with Europe.

What I am interested in is the evasive nature of what the Minister said from the Dispatch Box, which committed us to nothing other than resetting our relationship with the EU. I would like reassurances on what that means. What strategic partnership with the EU was he referring to? What concessions is he planning on making? Will some kind of new EU treaty renegotiation come out of this? What kind of active or passive role is the UK planning on taking at this summit? None of that has been made clear. \p Ben Coleman: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Joy Morrissey: In a moment—I want to make some progress.

While none of that has been made clear, we have heard from quite a lot of Back-Bench Labour MPs that we will have a wonderful new trade deal and a great new visa system for young people, which gives me pause. Either we are not being told fully what is going to happen at this summit, or there is such anticipation for back-door EU realignment that the Labour party cannot contain itself, and its Members cannot help but tell us what they are planning on doing.

My biggest concern in all this—forgive me for wanting reassurance from the Dispatch Box—is that the outcome of the summit might involve concessions of jurisdiction to the European Court of Justice, or the application of any of the principles of supremacy of EU law. I would like a guarantee from the Minister, on the Floor of the House, that that will not be the case. There can be no question of the European Court of Justice being brought back via the back door through dynamic realignment with EU law.

I want to hear reassurances from the Minister that nothing will be discussed or renegotiated at this summit that would tear apart all the work we did, through the withdrawal agreement and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, to ensure that our laws have supremacy over EU law. That was the point. Many of us voted for Brexit because we wanted to see our sovereignty and our borders restored; we wanted to see our laws brought back under our sovereignty. We want to ensure that we honour the commitments that we made, with both the Retained EU Law Act and the withdrawal agreement, to move forward with the EU.

I welcome trade deals all over the world; I want us to be as successful as we can be. Praise where praise is due: if the Labour party has achieved a trade deal, fine—I am happy to acknowledge that and to say “Well done”. We should be trying to get trade deals with any country that we can.

The reason I am asking for assurances from the Dispatch Box is that I have seen the Labour party change its view on so many things: on Brexit, on Trump, on scrapping winter fuel payments, on energy bills— \p Iain Duncan Smith: On national insurance! \p Joy Morrissey: And on national insurance. Forgive me for needing reassurance from the Dispatch Box that the Minister will not come back with some sort of 1984 doublespeak and expect us to enjoy that. \p John Hayes: My hon. Friend’s scepticism is well founded, because many on the Government Benches—I do not say all—could barely sustain the result of the referendum and regarded it with outrage. The people had spoken and contradicted the long-standing prejudice of the liberal bourgeoisie. That is why they tried to block Brexit—indeed, the Prime Minister tried to block it 48 times. My hon. Friend is right, therefore, to be sceptical about Labour. \p Joy Morrissey: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We need to protect our Brexit freedoms and make sure that we hold the Labour party to account.

We heard a lot from the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) about all the wonderful things he has planned for our free trade deal. However, I am concerned that we are going to rewrite history; that we are going to ignore the British people again and allow for dynamic back-door realignment with the EU without giving Parliament or the British people a say. \p Ben Coleman: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Joy Morrissey: The hon. Gentleman had a long time to speak, but I will give way once. \p Ben Coleman: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I took a third of the time that her colleague, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), took for his speech. Is she genuinely suggesting that we should tell this House right now what we will be negotiating in Brussels next week—that we should give away the full details of our strategy? Perhaps that is the attitude that the Conservative Government took when they were negotiating the trade deal with Australia; the Conservative former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that it was a poor deal that let our farmers down. Given her approach, no wonder that happened. \p Joy Morrissey: The hon. Gentleman should allow us to fulfil the deal to which we are committed. We have put in place a trade deal and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. Unless there are new negotiations to be had, what exactly is the purpose of the summit?

I was going to end my speech, but the hon. Gentleman has inspired me to continue. The Government’s amendment relates to NATO, but NATO has nothing to do with the EU; it is a completely separate entity. Talk of dynamic realignment on defence came about after we left the EU. Ensuring an ever closer Union, through military, policing and social policy, has always been part of the plan of the European Union. That is welcome to internationalists, Liberal Democrats and Labour Members. I am sure that they would all love to have another way of binding us to the EU. NATO is separate; it has one document that has been agreed in the post-war period— \p Gareth Snell: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Joy Morrissey: No, I will not.

NATO gives us an alignment on military matters that needs to be protected and fostered. A Liberal Democrat Member mentioned our technical and military capability. That is not the issue; the issue is: who bears the cost of our military capacity, which we deploy in defence of Europe and the free world? NATO was created post war, during the cold war, when we needed that strategic protection in Europe. That still holds true. Why would we disrupt that, and muddy the waters with this motion, which brings in NATO, which is separate from the EU? Why would we talk about something related to the military in a debate on EU jurisdiction? \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Joy Morrissey: I will finish and allow others to speak. I want to hear from colleagues from across the House, because this is a very interesting debate. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your time. I will really enjoy hearing from the Minister when they return from the summit on what exactly they have in mind for us and the EU. \p Catherine Fookes: I am delighted to contribute to the debate. I was really pleased to hear the Minister say from the Dispatch Box that, at the EU summit, we will focus on safety, security and growth. And, boy, don’t we need growth, after 14 years of chaos and disaster from the Conservative party. Since leaving  the EU in 2020, businesses in Monmouthshire and across the UK have faced the many barriers that resulted from the Tories’ botched Brexit deal.

I must declare an interest: I am a big fan of the EU. No, that does not mean that I want to rejoin the EU, contrary to what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) said. We need a better trading deal for our farmers, and for businesses in Monmouthshire. I was lucky enough, when I was at Middlesex Polytechnic many years ago, to take part in the Erasmus scheme. I went to Europe for two years; I studied in France. I learned French and did my finals in French. That cultural exchange—that ability to go to another country—is so important for our future, and for our young people. That was even before I met my Catalan husband, so now I have lots of family in Barcelona. It is so important to have close ties with the European Union.

As a member of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, I was delighted that we were received with open arms in Brussels earlier this year. Our trading relations with our nearest and largest partner are too important to be taken over by playground politics from the Conservative party. I am so pleased that the new Labour Government are seeking a more co-operative and mature relationship with the EU. As one MEP said, “Thank goodness the grown-ups are back in charge”.

Wales has a unique relationship with the EU, especially regarding our world famous, delicious and best-tasting Welsh lamb. Farmers and National Farmers Union Cymru have told me that we need a new SPS deal. In 2023 alone, Wales exported £600 million of food and drink to the EU, and a large proportion of that was red meat, but UK exports to the EU overall were down 19% in 2023. \p Ben Coleman: On the subject of lamb, will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact—I asked this of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey)—that the previous Government negotiated a trade deal with Australia that a former Conservative Environment Secretary described as a disaster for our farmers, not least those farming lamb? \p Catherine Fookes: Absolutely, I remember that well.

The reduction in exports is mainly due to the increase in paperwork, form-filling, and checks and barriers to trade. Some companies have simply given up because they have had such a difficult time dealing with the red tape. Companies have also had to put up prices, which has impacted consumers. For farmers, businesses and consumers, we need a strong, beneficial SPS agreement. I am so pleased that the Minister is working hard on this. Our Government’s No. 1 priority is economic growth, and that would be supported by growing co-operation with the EU.

Recently, I met people from businesses in my constituency that export to the EU for a proper discussion about what Brexit has meant for them. Sadly, I was unsurprised by what they had to say. I have already mentioned the increase in admin, which has hit their productivity; they are doing more work for less reward. Requirements for product information and documentation are creating a time-consuming and costly burden. Once the paperwork is all done, there is another set of challenges. One person  I met said that delays at Calais were borderline unmanageable. That is especially impacting the small and medium-sized enterprises of Monmouthshire.

One person I spoke to at the roundtable said:

“The biggest issue currently is that inspections at Calais for our products are very slow and at the same time we are restricted in terms of time spent at the port due to dangerous goods that are included in the load. This is a balance that is barely manageable for us.”

A person from another company said:

“What a disaster Brexit was for the import/export business: for my company, although through the agreement we are now back to ‘zero tariff’, the net result is simply a huge increase in admin and transport costs, for which ultimately the consumer pays.”

Finally, a person said:

“Exhibiting in the EU is much more complex and requires greater admin”.

They gave this example: if a business takes as much as a screwdriver to an exhibition in the EU, it must fill in a form for that screwdriver, even though it is to be used only to put up an exhibition stand. They said that every single piece of equipment must be counted in and counted out.

Three overall strands emerged from my roundtable: we must remove trade barriers; we must have dynamic alignment of standards; and businesses in my constituency would like a return to some kind of youth exchange scheme, like the one I benefited from. Trade is one of the most pressing issues at hand as we seek to rebuild our relationship at the summit next week. Removing barriers to export will be essential for farmers, businesses and consumers in Monmouthshire as the Government pursue their vital mission of economic growth. \p Danny Kruger: I will start with a few words about the context of the debate. Clearly, the accusation—as though it were a negative—is that the campaign for Brexit had a sort of nostalgic, backward-looking spirit, and that those of us who supported it did so in that spirit. There is something in that, because we were talking about restoring British sovereignty; there was a sense that something good had been lost and needed to be brought back. All good revolutions are in a sense backward-looking; the bad revolutions are the progressive ones, while good revolutions restore what was lost. That is what Brexit was about.

Nevertheless, despite that point, which I do concede, fundamentally the case for Brexit was forward-looking. It was about putting this country in the best possible position to meet the challenges of the 21st century. This century demands agility, and the independence that sovereignty can allow. Obviously, there must be co-operation and close working in partnership—Britain has always been an outward-looking country—but nimbleness and agility will be needed in the highly contested new world that we are in. That is what Brexit was about, and on a number of hugely significant occasions since Brexit, we have already seen why our independence was so necessary. We saw it in our covid response, and in the context of Ukraine and our defence policy, and we see it now in our trade. Indeed, we have done since Brexit. We have seen it in the UK’s negotiations with the US, which we can compare with those undertaken by the EU in recent months.

On trade, as I said in an intervention, the challenge is often made that Brexit has harmed our GDP because it brought about a loss in productivity. The reverse is true. Trade with the EU has grown since Brexit, and it is not the case that we have suffered detriment because of that. Trade is growing between the UK and the whole world, including the EU, but it is growing more with non-EU countries, which makes the point about why it was so necessary to reclaim sovereignty over our trade policy. I echo the concerns raised by Conservative colleagues about what is being planned for next week, in terms of dynamic alignment on trade, and I call on the Minister to rule out a back-door alignment arrangement with the EU. We have seen worrying hints of that. I look forward to his response.

The case for Brexit was not primarily about trade. Of course, that is a very important matter, but let us acknowledge, as I think we all do, that really people were voting to take back control of our borders and our laws. Those two vital issues remain contested because this Government never believed in Brexit and do not understand the call of the people for independence and sovereignty in those two key respects.

On borders and immigration, I recognise the case for a youth mobility scheme. In principle, the abstract case for a reciprocal arrangement in which young people can spend a few months or a year working in another country is a good thing. The hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) said that it was a nice thing to do. Nevertheless, we see the value of such schemes only when there is a reciprocal arrangement and comparable numbers are coming and going. The same argument applies to the Indian trade deal and its reciprocal arrangement on national insurance. The fact is, many more people will take advantage of the so-called reciprocal arrangements by coming to the UK than will go either to India or to the EU, so we would not have a level playing field. As with free movement, this youth scheme would be another way for many more people to come to this country, undercutting British workers and continuing the stagnation of wages that we have suffered from for so many decades.

On laws and taking back control, I am concerned about the threat of European Court of Justice oversight of the trade arrangements, and potentially of the new veterinary agreement and deals on meat and dairy. I very much hope that the Minister will definitively rule out any extension of ECJ oversight. The fact is—we see this in the Government’s rather mealy-mouthed amendment to the motion—that Labour does not believe in Brexit.

I really honour the Green party for its amendment, because in that we hear the true voice of the pro-European movement. It is almost a parody. It suggests that free movement and rejoining the EU are what the country needs and would be in the national interest. Indeed, it suggests that it would be a way to counter the hard right. Have Green Members seen what is going on in Europe? The extension of the principles of ever closer union, deeper alignment and concentration of power at the European level is stoking the far right across Europe. The fundamental reason why the Conservative party has always been so successful, historically, is that we have spoken for those people who otherwise would be outraged. Reform has been doing well—by the way, I do not associate Reform with the far right—because it speaks for those outraged members of the public, many  of whom used to vote for us and for the Labour party, who feel that their Parliament has let them down and politics has left them behind. That has happened across Europe in a much more dangerous way, so if we are serious about countering the danger of the right, we should be absolutely clear about there being no suggestion of any return to the EU.

Let me finish on Reform. Its Members are not here any more, but there we go. They have a rather amusing amendment to the motion, which simply replaces the words “Conservative party” with the words “Reform”. They are piggybacking somewhat on our good work, in a desperate search to be relevant and to catch up with the Conservative party, which is leading the way on this agenda. It is a bit of a problem, and two things occur to me: first, that they cannot even write an amendment of their own and they have to rely on us— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. The hon. Member might reflect on the fact that the amendment to which he refers was not even selected, so he should not even be speaking to it. \p Danny Kruger: I will therefore end just by saying that the amendment tabled by Reform, which I appreciate was not selected, demonstrates that we are on the same page and I deeply regret their opposition to what we are trying to do. \p Iain Duncan Smith: Reform Members are not here, so I will answer that point. They are not on the same page as us because their amendment, which was not a proper one, did not fit on the same page of the Order Paper! \p Caroline Nokes: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced parliamentarian and knows that he should be addressing the Chair, not facing the back of the Chamber. \p Iain Duncan Smith: Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker—that was a lapse on my part. \p Danny Kruger: All sorts of things go wrong when we mention Reform, so we had best leave that topic.

I pay tribute to the Conservative Front-Bench Members, who have put forward an important and principled statement of the declaration that our party will stand for. We support the decision of the British people to leave the European Union, repeated in multiple general elections. It is a great shame that we cannot hear the Labour party make the same pledge. \p Ben Coleman: I am trying to understand if, at some point, we will hear anything from the Conservative party about what its Members think could be improved in the Brexit agreement that has been so bad for their party. We are talking about getting a better Brexit agreement than the one they negotiated. Are they saying that what they did was perfect, or can it be improved on? If it can, how? Everything else the hon. Gentleman has said has been negative. \p Danny Kruger: There are two things. First, we could do better on Northern Ireland, but let us leave that whole topic for another day. Secondly, the Brexit agreement  that we negotiated was absolutely right, but the problem is the EU and the fact that it is a protectionist bloc. We decided to leave because we believe in sovereignty and leaving a declining quarter of the world’s economy. The problem is the trade barriers that the EU erected unnecessarily and which are harmful to both parties. I will leave it there. \p Stella Creasy: May I start with a warning to my colleagues elected in 2024? Many of us who were here between 2017 and 2019 have been deeply triggered by this debate, which has rerun and rehashed the debates of old. We have the scars on all our backs. I warn hon. Members: do not go down that rabbit hole. No good can come of it. [Interruption.] I wager that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) is laughing because he knows how much— \p Iain Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Stella Creasy: Well, of course I have to give way to my constituency neighbour. \p Iain Duncan Smith: I am grateful to my neighbour for giving way. If she wants to deliberately not go down that rabbit hole, she should be talking to the Government Front Benchers. \p Stella Creasy: And lo, Bugs Bunny did appear. We have also heard from the man I started arguing with 33 years ago as a young campaigner about the merits or otherwise of working with Europe. It appears that the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) was on the other bus in the debates about Brexit. That is exactly it: our constituents, who might listen to this, would be horrified to see us going backwards again, acting as if the last 10 years had not happened and there was no evidence about what Brexit means. \p Bernard Jenkin: Will the hon. Lady give way? \p Stella Creasy: I do not want to try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have had to sit through many a lengthy speech. \p Bernard Jenkin: rose— \p Stella Creasy: Oh, go on—I will give way. The hon. Gentleman was like this when I was 15, too. \p Bernard Jenkin: Who is it that is trying to take us back to the past? It is the Government. Brexit is giving this country its new future and the Government are trying to turn the clock back. That is what is wrong. \p Stella Creasy: I hate to warn the hon. Gentleman, but I have a horrible feeling that if he were to compare the speech he made today with many of those he made between 2017 and 2019, he might find that he would lose “Just a Minute” on the grounds of repetition. That is going backwards. This country deserves better.

Let me start with a clear statement of intent. Brexit has happened; we have left. I am not here to prosecute the argument to rejoin. We do not have time for that. What we need is a salvage operation, because of the damage that has been done, especially in a world with so much uncertainty, where tariffs are now part and parcel of the everyday conversation and the damage that is being done to our constituents.

We can fight many things in life, but geography really is not one of them, however hard some Members on the Conservative Benches try. We heard from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) the continued myth that somehow the isolation to our status that Brexit has brought would bring us strength. The last 10 years—indeed, the last six months—have shown how clearly that is not the case. In fact, we are uniquely isolated and at risk as a nation. That is why what this Government are doing is absolutely right. They are getting on with signing trade deals, trying to sort out the damage that has been done and, indeed, looking for that hat-trick.

I have to say to Conservative Members that there is no conspiracy here. Those of us who were here in 2019 remember exactly the details of that deal and the fact that a five-year review process was written into it. What we are going to see next Monday is not some secret negotiation; it is part of the trade and co-operation process—[Interruption.] I hear Conservative Members chuntering. Hang on, I can see their tin foil hats! I beg them to look at the details of the agreement, which said clearly that there would be a renegotiation point, where we would review whether or not it was working. I am sorry that the shadow Minister is not in his place. He tried to claim affinity with Sam Beckett but frankly I suspect he is going to be more like Jim Trott from “The Vicar of Dibley”. He will say, “No, no, no, no, no, no, no”, and then have to say yes. The summit is not the end. It is the start of the process of reviewing the trade and co-operation agreement, and looking at what is in the best interests of this country.

Let me be clear: I am absolutely committed to the idea that there should be parliamentary scrutiny. My colleagues on the Front Bench will know that I have been concerned that the European Scrutiny Committee was deleted, because I think we should be able to discuss these matters. However, I think there probably ought to be a summit first in order for us to have something to discuss. I hope that will account for me putting in an advert for the Backbench Business debate that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and I were going to have after the summit on 22 May, so that we parliamentarians may properly examine what comes out of it. Sadly, he is not in his place, which is a shame because I know how strongly he feels about these things, and I am sure he would want to talk about the benefits of Brexit and other mythical creatures. The summit is the starting gun. It is not the final deal, and it is really important to look at it in that way.

This is the test for the motion today. Are the Opposition really telling us that the trade and co-operation agreement is perfection? Is there absolutely nothing in that agreement that they would not wish to amend, revise or refine? Is there absolutely nothing in what it has delivered in the last five years that they are troubled by? For example, there are 1.8 million fewer jobs in our economy because of the Tory hard Brexit, and the academics who have  studied this recognise that that figure will rise to 3 million by 2035. Trade is down 27% with the European Union—a bloc that we do five times more trade with than we do with America. Over 16,000 businesses have given up trading with Europe all together, because the truth about Brexit is that it was just paperwork—reams and reams of it—and small businesses in this country have sadly had to up sticks.

I declare an interest as the chair of the Labour Movement for Europe. I am not standing here arguing to rejoin, but I am a red against red tape and what I see is the amount of paperwork—[Interruption.] I am loving the fact that Conservative Members are chuntering from a sedentary position, as if this was some sort of revelation. Perhaps they can borrow some tin foil from their fellow Members and talk about a conspiracy. They would do better to reflect on the impact of the border trading operating model—an entirely self-inflicted wound by the previous Government on British farmers and British food supply chains that pushed up inflation, because charging for pallets of food coming into the country created more and more paperwork. Unless Conservative Members are genuinely telling us that they think “chef’s kiss” for the trade and co-operation agreement, it is right for us to look at whether there are things we can do to deal with the problems it has created for our constituents—including the £6.95 billion of additional cost to households—and to account for some of the myths that have been created.

Again, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire—he will accuse me of being obsessed, but let us look at what he talked about—said that somehow being out of the European Union made our response to covid better. Well, he might want to talk to the UK covid inquiry, which found that it was the reverse. It found that our failure to prepare was increased by the fact that we were dealing with a no-deal Brexit; it harmed our covid response. He might even want to reflect on the words of the UK medicines regulator, which said we could have used the emergency processes to bring forward our own vaccine. I am sure that is what he was talking about.

The hon. Member also talked about Ukraine. He might want to reflect, as he thinks about the summit on Monday, on how hard it was for us to make the case about the importance of standing with Ukraine from outside of the room, and that those who were less convinced who were part of the European Union would have heard our message more clearly if we were inside the room, particularly when it came to gas imports. We championed Ukraine, but we had to shout from outside rather than being part of the conversations from the start.

This summit needs a strong agenda, and that is exactly what this Government are talking about. It is an agenda focused on fixing the problems that this trade and co-operation agreement has created. That is what the public want—they agree with us. They do not want us to spend five to 10 years on treaty renegotiation and the possibility of rejoining; they want us to salvage this country from the damage that Brexit has done. Two thirds of the country say that Brexit is bad for the cost of living, and 65% say that it has had a negative impact on the economy. Opposition Members might want to reflect on the fact that that is nearly twice the number of people who think that immigration is bad for our economy.

The British public are not daft; they are wise about what needs to happen next. They understand the value of a defence deal. They understand that, in a world with Putin at our doorstep, with the challenges we face and the uncertainty in other parts of the world, it is absolutely right and proper, and will complement NATO, to work more closely with our European counterparts, to increase investment in the UK defence industry and to collaborate on crime. Those of us who used to have constituents whose needs were served by the EU arrest warrants know the damage that the previous Government’s deal has done. Those of us who want to see us stepping up the way we collaborate on international aid know that we need to get round the table with our European counterparts. The best way to tackle those who might be stuck on a boat, fleeing persecution, is to try to stop the conflict at the source. That is what collaborating on international aid with Europe could offer.

The public understand the value of an SPS deal, which my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) mentioned, and the value of the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, which deals with the paperwork about rules of origin. Thanks to the Tory hard Brexit, those rules mean that every time a tomato is brought into this country to make a pizza in the Wirral, extra paperwork comes with it. The public would want us to look at the VAT rules, because small businesses are now struggling with 27 different VAT regimes. They would also want us to sort out the carbon border adjustment mechanism; that is how we save British steel, which will be affected if there is a divergence. We need to look at how the emissions trading schemes can be linked, and we can save British business £800 million in charges.

The public want us to look at mutual conformity assessments to try to reduce duplication. They want common sense on regulation. The previous Government tried to bring in separate regulatory regimes and, understandably, British business said, “That is twice the cost.” British businesses want to be able to sell to their neighbours; they do not want extra pieces of paperwork. The previous Government tried to make us have separate regulations on airline safety—as if an aeroplane taking off in London would need to follow a different set of regimes if it landed in Berlin. That is bonkers. Understandably, we walked back from it, and we should not go back to those kind of arguments just because those on the Conservative Benches have a blindness when it comes to Europe.

This Government have got their head on. They are looking at what they can do to help the chemicals industry and supply chains, and of course it is looking at what a deal on youth mobility might look like. This is a summit; it is about having the conversation, looking at the details and looking at how we can support apprenticeships through youth mobility. Clearly, youth mobility is not freedom of movement, otherwise I would have heard complaints from Opposition Members about the fact that we have freedom of movement deals with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Uruguay—[Interruption.] I can see a Conservative Member saying, “Yes, indeed.” I presume they are going to call for the abolition of freedom of movement from Canada, then; that would be consistency.

We could also do more to help our creative services and financial services, and, yes, to resolve some of the tensions in Northern Ireland. Many of us feel deeply  that the people of Northern Ireland have suffered the most as a result of the Tory hard Brexit. Yes, we could do a deal on fishing. We could acknowledge the fact that our fisheries industry felt sold out by the previous Government by supporting them to be sustainable. All those are issues that we can return to in that Back-Bench debate, but we cannot do that if we do not have the summit. We cannot walk into the summit saying, “No, no, no.” We need to walk in saying, “What gives? What are the opportunities here? How can we solve some of these challenges?”

Many, many years ago, one of my next-door constituency neighbours was Winston Churchill. We on the Labour Benches have become the defenders of his vision of ending conflict in Europe. Conservative Members spend all their time fighting with each other and fighting a ghost. We need to talk about the future. We need to get away from the fantasy that somehow Brexit will deliver and start getting back to the cost of living crisis in our communities and how we can help people. \p Danny Kruger: rose— \p Stella Creasy: I was going to sit down, I promise, but I cannot resist. I give way. \p Danny Kruger: The hon. Lady mentioned Churchill, so I cannot let her sit down yet. She talked about conflict within the Conservative party. Winston Churchill had a few battles in his own party, as she might recall—he was not averse to that. Sometimes one has to stand up for what is right, which is what Conservative Brexiteers did. Does she really think that Winston Churchill would have supported the EU in its current form? Does she really think that he would have supported what the ECHR has become? How can she possibly claim Winston Churchill for the politics that she stands for? Go on! \p Stella Creasy: I think Winston Churchill would turn in his grave if he saw what the Conservative party and its libertarian wing have become, and how the proud defence of our ability to participate in international organisations, and to speak up for freedom, for shared interests and for the national interest, have been diminished as a result of the previous Government’s approach to Brexit, as well as that of Conservative Members today.

I will draw my remarks to a close. The world is changing. We are living in a world in which trade, security, co-operation and climate issues move at pace. Many of us could not have predicted—remember, it has been only 120 days since President Trump was elected—what would happen next. Never more have we needed good relationships with our neighbours. Monday is about being good neighbours. The world might be changing, but we have the same old Conservative party, on the same page as Reform—that is all they seem to care about. We care about the British interest. I look forward to hearing what comes out of the summit, and I look forward to the Back-Bench debate to discuss it. That really is taking back control. \p Stephen Gethins: It is good to contribute to the debate. On the matter of Churchill, I am of course one of his successors in  Dundee, where he was defeated by the only prohibitionist ever elected. It was after his defeat that he went on to make his speeches about Europe, after he had joined the Conservative party.

I suspect that I will in a moment slip into the same levels of exasperation expressed by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)—I hope that she does not mind my saying that we agree on so much—but before I do, let me thank the Conservative party for bringing this motion. I have to say, I salute their—how should one put it—courage in securing the debate. Nobody is saying that the Conservatives’ Brexit has been a success. In that context, I feel that they are leading with their chin today. Nobody is arguing that it is something that has gone well. Nobody is arguing that it has become a triumph. Rather, we are debating and discussing today how to tackle a problem that has been well set out by the Government. I am sorry to say that Brexit continues to cast a spell over the political classes at Westminster.

We have heard a rerun of some of the arguments and some of the falsehoods about the European Union, but let us talk about the evidence—I will be brief, as it has been well covered. There is the 4% drop in GDP that the Treasury has outlined, and the 15% drop in trade that was part of the Budget documents. The UK has now lost more than it ever contributed financially, with absolutely nothing in return. There is the loss of jobs, the loss of regional structural funds that were never replaced despite the promises, the loss of opportunities for SMEs and, critically, the loss of opportunities for our young people. I can remember when the Brexiteers told us that lots of countries would follow the UK out the door. Nobody has followed the UK, and I wonder why. It leans into the sense of British exceptionalism that we hear time and again. The UK has been left impoverished as a direct consequence of those arguments.

I have heard the warm words from Labour Members about wanting to be closer to Europe, but they are fundamentally grabbing hold of a hard Tory Brexit. I fail to see why a Labour Government do not stand up for Europe more. Rather than try to imitate failed Conservative policies and failed Reform policies—let us not forget that Reform has a track record, and it is not a good one—Labour should take them on, on that track record. \p John Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Stephen Gethins: Before I move on to the Treasury and some of the right hon. Gentleman’s points, I will give way to him. \p John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman was pointing to an empty Bench when he talked about Reform, by the way, because its Members have not turned up.

On the structural funds, I know the hon. Gentleman would not want in any way to say something misleading. After Brexit, my constituency attracted Government funding of something like £60 million or £70 million for roads, a new leisure centre and the regeneration of our town centre. In the last year we were in the EU, does he know that it cost us £17 billion to be a member? What sort of price is that? \p Stephen Gethins: Seventeen billion is less than half the amount lost from the public finances. Those are not my figures, but the Labour Mayor of London’s figures. That is money lost without getting anything back in return, and the Scottish Government has lost £300 million in money that has not come from regional structural funds.

Let me turn to devolution and sovereignty. The EU is a Union fit for the 21st century. The UK is barely a Union fit for the 18th century, because it has not been modernised since. We have a Brexit deal that ripped up the devolution settlement, which Scottish Labour and others spoke out against but which has now been imposed on the devolved Administrations in a way that the EU could never do to its member states. I remind Members that not one of the 27 independent, sovereign member states of the EU consider themselves any less independent or sovereign for being a member of the European Union—not one of them. Just one did, and it is this British nationalist exceptionalism that is so utterly damaging to everybody in the UK.

The most sovereign country in the world is North Korea, because we give up a tiny bit of sovereignty with deals. All these other states that see themselves as sovereign—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) talks of Ukraine. Ukraine wants to join the EU. He talks of democracy. The democrats in Georgia and Moldova drape themselves in European flags because they see that as the future of the rule of law, democracy and greater wealth for their country. Every country that has joined the EU got better off. The one country that left got worse off, and its citizens had fewer rights.

We all have to recognise that the EU is a security actor, and a majority of European states now see the EU and NATO as the twin pillars of security. Those sovereign states see that. While I welcome the UK Government’s steadfast support for Ukraine—both the current and previous Administrations—we are not realistic about the challenges we face. Putin’s Russia fears the EU. That is why we saw the initial war in Ukraine in 2014, because of the EU accession agreement. We know that, and everyone else gets it except those in the United Kingdom. The EU provides food security and energy security for its members, and sitting outside leaves us more isolated and less secure. Why is the UK so exceptional? What makes the UK so special? How is it that everybody else has got it wrong, but the UK has somehow got it right? It is a piece of nonsense that is damaging us all.

Turning to young people, I am getting tired of hearing Labour talk about youth mobility schemes. I would like the Minister to tell me whether a youth mobility scheme will be put in place, and then say how it will compare with the free movement we all enjoyed when we were in the EU. We are leaving younger generations with fewer rights and opportunities than we ourselves enjoyed, and that is a failure of our political generation—an abject failure.

I am sorry to say that the Prime Minister’s rhetoric yesterday feeds into that. That he was called out by Lord Dubs, a Labour Member of the House of Lords, and yet praised by the leader of Alternative for Germany should surely give Labour Members some cause for reflection—some cause to reflect on how others are seeing them right now. I would expect such rhetoric from Reform and others, but I did not expect it from the  Labour party and I say to Labour Members, “I’m sorry, I oppose you sometimes and you stood against me, but I did not expect that from the Labour party.”

The worst part of this is that we are getting it from a Labour Government who do not really believe in what they are doing. I know that from working with them over the years. They do not believe in the damage this is doing. What is damaging us in politics right now is that people are standing up for things they do not really believe in. They do not say what they believe in. They might say, “I believe in leaving the European Union”—(Interruption.) The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) talks about Parliament—I just heard that—in a Parliament where we do not have an idea of British sovereignty. The definition of Scottish sovereignty—I would encourage him to read MacCormick v. Lord Advocate—is different from the idea of English sovereignty, because the supremacy of Parliament does not exist. \p Mark Francois: I think it is fair to say that in the years I have been here generally most people have known what I believed in, but is the reason the hon. Gentleman is so incredibly angry this afternoon because, from his point of view, he lost not only one referendum, but two: on Scottish independence and then on the European Union? \p Stephen Gethins: I will concede the point. I know what the right hon. Gentleman believes in. I was not surprised that he wanted to take me on not on the substance of what I said but rather on some of the semantics, because as the Secretary of State for Scotland said, a democracy ceases to be a democracy when it ceases to have the ability to change its mind.

My appeal would be this: yes, I believe in independence; I believe that the European Union provides a model that the UK Union does not. That is something I believe in, and some Members disagree with me and I respect them for that, and I know that Scottish Labour Members disagree with me on that, and I respect them for that as well. What I struggle with is that we know this is a bad deal with Europe. We know that staying outside the customs union and the single market is making us poorer every day. I would encourage Members to stand up and put the case of what they believe in, because that is the way to return respect back into politics—not repeat what has been said in the past, but truly look to the future. \p Joe Morris: I will keep my remarks fairly brief, and we have been treated to a lot of good, well-informed speeches. On respect and speaking up for what we believe in, it is important to remember the poison that was brought into the body politic before I entered this place. On the local election night I was particularly concerned in my constituency about the return of a Reform councillor whose Facebook page has been described by Hope Not Hate as

“a slew of anti-Muslim content.”

That really worries me. It worries a lot of my constituents, and it worries a lot of people across the country. I am very disappointed with Reform and question some of its vetting processes.

To return to the matter in hand, I meet every week with businesses in my constituency—with farmers, small businesses, businesses that export and those that want to export but do not feel they have the facilities or support in place to do so. There are failures in the Brexit deal, and I know that there are many sober and mature Members on the other side of the House who recognise those shortcomings, and this summit is an opportunity to recognise that we live in a world that is changing every single day, where the demands of yesterday are not the same as the demands of tomorrow. We have a Government who are looking to the mature, reasonable and responsible thing to do, which is to improve the day to day lives of our constituents, which is what we are sent here to do.

I speak to farmers who suffer from being caught up in red tape when trying to export or small businesses who do not have access to the “Rolls-Royce” access programmes that larger businesses do to go abroad, and that is one of the major failings of the previous Government’s trade policy. I hope that in winding up the Minister will address how we can get small businesses exporting across the world as part of the slew of trade deals that we have just signed.

It is really important that we do not go into conspiracy-theory baiting on backsliding on the EU and what that means. I do not particularly care about chasing views from accounts amplified by Elon Musk: I care about getting good results, jobs and outcomes for my constituents. For far too long, my constituency was denied a voice because it was a safe Conservative seat. It was a seat where Members would go up every six weeks and not really engage with the solid issues. We have a school in my constituency that was built eight-and-a-half years ago that is already structurally unsound. That is a pretty damning failure of the Conservatives. We need to ensure that the system we have inherited works properly.

I urge the Minister and the Government to get to the negotiating table, work through the kinks in the deal, work out what is going wrong and holding businesses back, and approach the issue with a mature, honest and genuine discussion on how we can improve things. As it says on my party membership card, we achieve more by our common endeavour; ultimately, we need that approach. We need an internationalist approach rooted in pragmatism that does not fall victim to some of the appalling cynicism and rather brutal mischaracterisation that we often see from Opposition Members. \p Mark Francois: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to contribute to this important debate on the forthcoming UK-EU summit next Monday. As someone who has, I hope the House will concede, followed these matters reasonably closely for a number of years, I will focus on three broad areas. I will say something about the summit itself, make some points about the very worrying suggestion that we are about to waive a large part of our fishing rights, and raise my concerns and those of many others about the potential for so-called dynamic alignment by which the United Kingdom effectively would become a passive rule taker, despite voting peacefully and democratically to leave the European Union in the first place.

Before I do that, I pay a personal tribute to Sir Roy Stone, who has tragically passed away. He was a constituent of mine and lived just a few minutes away from me. I once inadvertently canvassed him some years ago during the local elections. As a highly professional public servant, he was completely inscrutable about his voting intentions. I subsequently worked with him closely for two years in the coalition Whips Office between 2010 and 2012. He was always very patient, especially with me. When I was the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household, he always gave well-informed and canny advice. He believed passionately in the institution of Parliament and the principle of representative democracy, which he served so well. Our thoughts and prayers are with his widow, Dawn, and her family. May he rest in peace and always be warmly remembered.

A crucial summit will take place between the leaders of the UK and the EU in London next month. I recall being told repeatedly during the referendum campaign that if we left the EU, we would be isolated and friendless. All the meetings that have taken place in London recently, including one with virtually every EU leader at Lancaster House regarding the so-called coalition of the willing, show how absolutely ludicrous that assertion was. However, according to multiple media reports, it seems as if this summit could involve some kind of defence pact between ourselves in the UK and the European Union. As I have Front-Bench responsibility for defence, I shall not dwell at length on those matters, but hopefully we will have a lot more to say on them next week once the details of any such agreement have been made public and, crucially, we have had an opportunity to read the small print.

Nevertheless, I am sure that the Government’s tactic will be to try to talk almost exclusively about defence as a form of camouflage to mask likely concessions both on our fishing rights and, potentially, relating to our food. When the British people voted democratically to leave the European Union some nine years ago, they did so in order to decide their destiny for themselves. It would be completely against the spirit of the referendum, under the guise of some kind of reset with the EU, to surrender that principle next week. Moreover, after the absolute chaos of the Labour Government’s proposed Chagos deal, the Spanish Foreign Minister asserted only yesterday that the UK should make concessions over the sovereignty of Gibraltar as part of our reset at the summit. This is despite the fact that the Gibraltarians themselves voted by a majority of 99% to maintain the current position in their own referendum on the subject, a margin so emphatic that even the SNP would have to accept it.

On fishing, in early 2020 during Boris Johnson’s premiership, the United Kingdom agreed what was known as the trade and co-operation agreement between the UK and the EU. While there has been much recent talk of trade deals, including with India and now the US, the TCA was in effect a major, comprehensive trade deal with the EU, negotiated in the context of having left the European Union. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), who is no longer in his place, that agreement was 1,245 pages long—I know, because I read it. In essence, the TCA guaranteed virtually tariff-free trade between the UK and the EU. Moreover, the fact that we had left the EU, including the customs union, meant that we were able to negotiate unilateral trade deals of our own around the world. \p Catherine Fookes: Will the right hon. Member give way? \p Mark Francois: In a moment.

While we were in the customs union, it was possible to negotiate those agreements only collectively via the auspices of the EU. That is a fundamental difference. It is important to note that by using this critical Brexit freedom, we have been able to negotiate almost 80 independent trade deals with nations around the world since we left the EU, including important Commonwealth partners such as Australia, New Zealand, and now India. We have also joined the trans-Pacific partnership, which materially improves our access to Asian markets worth trillions of dollars. Moreover— \p Catherine Fookes: Will the right hon. Member give way? \p Mark Francois: If the hon. Lady will let me finish this point, I promise I will do so, but I want to enjoy this bit.

We now have the delightful visage of our ambassador to the United States, one Lord Mandelson, having to acknowledge through metaphorically gritted teeth that we have been able to negotiate a trade deal with the United States—albeit one that is limited in scope—only because we left his beloved European Union. I think our Peter is struggling with that.

I will give way to the hon. Lady, who has been patient. \p Catherine Fookes: If those trade deals were such sunlit uplands and such wonderful deals, can the right hon. Member explain to me why our seafood exports to the EU plummeted by 80% since the Brexit deal? Why did that happen on his watch, if that deal was so good? \p Mark Francois: The hon. Lady pre-empts me. If she will give me a moment, I will get to fishing very shortly.

The TCA—part 2, heading 5—contains transition arrangements relating to fishing. In essence, the TCA allowed for a period of over five years during which there would be temporary arrangements on access to UK waters by EU fishing fleets. After that, under international maritime arrangements, the United Kingdom would become solely responsible for its own territorial waters, out to 200 nautical miles in some places. As this transition period is now approaching its expiration in 2026, the EU is pushing very hard to maintain its access to our fishing waters and—it would seem—even to expand its access in certain cases, were we naive enough to give in. It would be a complete betrayal of our fishermen if the United Kingdom Labour Government were now to grant major concessions to the EU in what will become indisputably our own sovereign waters once again come 2026. \p Ben Coleman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? \p Mark Francois: In a second—the bourgeoisie will have to wait. While our sovereign rights are enshrined in both the TCA itself and wider maritime law, we have yet to see the final details of whatever Faustian pact the Government have agreed with the EU on fishing. However, our fishermen and those of us on the Opposition Benches  —although not Reform Members, who are not here—will be watching the Government very closely, and will be highly alert to the prospect of a sell-out on fish.

We then come to veterinary matters and SPS—and ultimately, therefore, food—which would involve the United Kingdom in a process known as dynamic alignment. In essence, this means that if the EU were in any way to change or modify its rules in those areas, we would in turn be compelled to follow the EU, regardless of the wishes of our own Parliament. In other words, we would become a “rule taker” in those areas, even though we have left the European Union. Moreover, it seems that these arrangements would apply throughout the United Kingdom, and in the event of a dispute, that would be arbitrated by the European Court of Justice rather than the UK Supreme Court or even an international tribunal. \p Joe Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? \p Mark Francois: In a moment.

To have left the EU but submit to becoming a passive rule taker would be entirely contrary to the spirit of the 2016 referendum. That is why, time and again today, no Minister will admit that the Government are going to do it next week. \p Ben Coleman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? \p Mark Francois: No.

When Labour talked about a “reset” in its general election manifesto, there was absolutely no reference to rule taking as part of any such accommodation. Labour would therefore be giving away our rights, entirely without the consent of the British people. That must be fiercely resisted and, if necessary, overturned. Moreover, there is the prospect of additional concessions over everything from so-called youth mobility schemes—a euphemism for a return to freedom of movement in another guise—to capitulation over net zero mechanisms and, specifically, the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism, or CBAM, which would make our remaining industries even more internationally uncompetitive than the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) has achieved to date.

As someone who sat here during the last Parliament—as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) kindly mentioned—and witnessed, night after night and week after week, the then Labour shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, now the Prime Minister, pulling every procedural trick from the depths of Erskine May in order to try to keep the United Kingdom in the European Union at almost any price and despite the referendum, I am in no way surprised that his Government are now attempting this act of capitulation. Our Prime Minister has always been a passionate Europhile; in short, he remains a remainer in his heart of hearts, and he always will.

What the Labour Government are up to—and I say again that they will try to use a defence pact in order to hide it—is beginning a process of gradually taking us back towards and even back into the European Union, if they think they can get away with it. They will never risk another referendum, because in 2016, almost up to the last minute, the polls were showing that remain  might win, but when it came to it, the British people had the temerity to vote to govern themselves, despite the best efforts of the British Establishment and “Project Fear”. What they will do is try to take us back in very gradually, via a process of grandmother’s footsteps, or, to make another analogy, trying to boil a frog slowly. If they get away with submission next week, despite their manifesto commitments, they will eventually try to take us back into the single market—although, no doubt, under some other name—and if they can get away with that, they will suggest that we might as well rejoin the customs union. They will put the argument to the British people that we are so far back into the blooming thing that we might as well go the whole hog and rejoin it entirely—all without a vote or the consent of the people of the United Kingdom, at any stage, whatsoever. \p Iain Duncan Smith: I just want to draw something out. Dynamic alignment is not a small thing; it is huge, because it is rule taking. Can my right hon. Friend imagine our engaging in any other trade arrangement—with the United States or Australia, for instance, or the trans-Pacific partnership—and being in a position where we had to say, “We will accept your rules and your adjudication”? \p Mark Francois: It would be far better to do this via a process of mutual enforcement, of which my right hon. Friend has always been a staunch advocate. When the Minister sums up the debate, we will ask him if he will rule out, very clearly, any prospect of dynamic alignment at the summit next week. \p Ben Coleman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Mark Francois: In a moment.

This is a yes or no question. Perhaps the Minister, at that time—because he would not answer my right hon. Friend’s question yesterday—will give us an honest answer to an honest question. In fact, if he wants to do it now I will give way to him. A stunning silence! Well, as he has not the guts to get up, I will give way to his Back Bencher. \p Ben Coleman: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his nomenclature, and I am most grateful to my Jacobin friend for taking my intervention. I did not want him to finish without having the opportunity to answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) put to him. Exports of UK seafood to the European Union have fallen by 80% since Brexit, and there have been lots of new checks, and there is lots of new paperwork and bureaucracy. What does he put that down to? Exports of seafood have collapsed. Does he put that down to Brexit, or to something else? \p Mark Francois: People have made market choices, but under the common fisheries policy, we had the absurdity of so-called discards. Our fishermen had to throw fish, many of which were already dead, back into the sea in order to comply with the absurdities of the CFP. Hopefully, we will never return to that. \p Bernard Jenkin: This is something that I have looked at quite closely. The reason for the collapse is that the United Kingdom is not in the internal market, so we do not give direct applicability and direct effect to EU SPS laws. The EU procedure is to check every consignment of shellfish coming into the EU to see if it complies with EU standards, even though the provisions in EU law on clean rivers, clean beaches and clean water all exist in the United Kingdom, and our provisions are probably of a superior standard to those that apply in much of the EU. \p Mark Francois: I defer to my hon. Friend, who is clearly a subject matter expert.

I will conclude, because others want a chance to speak. The Labour Government will go for dynamic alignment. They will sign us up as a passive rule-taker at the behest of the EU, despite the British people voting in 2016 to take back control of their laws. I have absolutely no doubt that if the Labour Government get away with this surrender summit early next week, that is precisely what they will do. It is therefore very important that we alert the British people, and the media that serve them, to exactly what Labour is up to, in an attempt to expose the situation and prevent it getting any worse.

In summary, we will not allow our obsessively Europhile Prime Minister—in this context, our “white flag” man—to surrender our right to govern ourselves. This surrender to the EU has absolutely no democratic mandate, and we will oppose it tooth and nail. If necessary, we will eventually overturn it. Remember what the booklet in the referendum said:

“This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.”

The British people decided to take back control of their own laws. It is not for Labour to give them away. \p Richard Baker: This has been an interesting debate, but, to reflect on the unhappy nostalgia of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), it is quite clear that some people are having trouble moving on, as we need to. The summit is happening because of the process agreed by the Conservative party when it was in government. This is not a surrender summit; it is a summit for success for business and business people, and we can only achieve that if we move on in this debate. At one point, I thought Bill Cash was going to stand up and contribute. We are not moving forward as a Parliament, and thinking about the real priorities of the British people and our future relationship with Europe, but other people are prepared to move on and want to do so.

Today, I was pleased to have the chance to meet representatives of the Scottish Advisory Forum on Europe, known as SAFE, at an event that I had the pleasure of co-hosting with the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins). It was an excellent event that reflected all their great work in collaborating with their colleagues and counterparts in Europe. They have been collaborating not just with Governments but with civil society, academia and a whole range of organisations, because that is in their interests. This is about growing the Scottish economy and furthering the interests of the Scottish people.

I pay tribute to my good friend Dr Irene Oldfather, who, as chair of SAFE, has done so much to promote ongoing collaboration with colleagues in Europe. She is a happy constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Alan Gemmell) and is doing vital work. We should go into these negotiations in a spirit of collaboration, seeking mutual benefit, in order to build a better relationship between the UK and our European Union colleagues. \p Stephen Gethins: I put on record my thanks to Irene Oldfather. On a very hard issue—and we have seen today that it is very difficult—she is doing something extraordinarily constructive, and I think we can all learn from her work. \p Richard Baker: I could not agree more. On the issue of learning, it is so important, good and welcome to hear that, ahead of this vital summit, the Minister for the constitution and European Union relations, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), attended a meeting with SAFE in Edinburgh yesterday. I understand that it was held at the Scotch Whisky Association, so I hope he enjoyed an excellent afternoon.

This is a good point at which to mention that our trade deal with India is securing £1 billion for the Scottish whisky industry over the next five years, and 1,200 extra jobs. This fantastic deal is in no way frustrated by our pursuing a better deal with the European Union. At that event yesterday, the Minister met young people who look to our future in Europe, rather than seeking to debate the battles of the past. They asked the Minister to find ways to ensure that they have the opportunity to work and study in Europe. I hope he can think inventively about how that can be achieved within the policy framework that the Government have set out, because the previous Erasmus+ scheme was important not only for the young people who participated, but for Scotland’s economy. It was worth £340 million annually, delivering £7 in value for every £1 invested.

Economic growth is rightly the priority for this Government. If they changed course in these negotiations in the way proposed by the Opposition, that would not be putting the national interests first. The Minister and his colleagues should proceed with the vital work that they have taken forward with their European counterparts ahead of the summit. That is the right thing to do for economic growth and in our national interests.

The Government’s approach, which is absolutely essential, recognises the EU’s status as our biggest trading partner. It accounts for 41% of our exports and 51% of our imports. I am encouraged to hear from the Minister that issues that are vital to growth in my constituency of Glenrothes and Mid Fife—including closer co-operation on energy policy, which I hope may include increasing co-operation with the North Seas Energy Co-operation—are the issues on the agenda next week.

I hope that there will be measures that benefit small businesses in my constituency, particularly in the creative sector. Rightly, at the election, our party committed to making it easier for musicians to tour in Europe. That is vital for the future of our brilliant creative sector in Scotland, and in the UK, and I hope that we can make progress in this area.

Of course, we have to respect the decision of the Brexit referendum. However, while we should not simply repeat the debate on Brexit in this House, as we seem to, neither should we repeat the mistakes of the previous Government, who failed to ensure that our new relationship with the European Union created the right environment for trade and co-operation in key areas of policy. This Government have already made significant progress on resetting the UK’s relationship with the European Union in our national interests, and particularly in line with this Government’s policy on economic growth. \p James Naish: My hon. Friend has covered a range of groups—he mentioned farmers, businesses, young people and the creative sector—but is it not the truth that all these groups are simply looking for practical measures that the Government can take to improve their lot, and to improve our relationship with Europe? That could involve cutting red tape, unlocking energy and deepening security co-operation, without being to the detriment of the previous agreement. \p Richard Baker: I could not agree more. This will absolutely be in line with previous agreements. In our new relationship with Europe, we are doing far better than the previous Government, who agreed very poor deals, which resulted in economic decline; we could have achieved more with a different approach.

I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to go further, faster, on this policy area and Government priority. I urge him not to be deflected by Opposition Members who wish to fight the battles of the past. The Government are right to seek a better relationship with Europe, and to be ready for the opportunities, and indeed the tests, that lie ahead for our continent. \p John Hayes: In human affairs, there is a persistent fascination with novelty. It is curious that people clamour for what is different—for the other, whatever that other might look like. It is this fascination that leads to the similar interest in—indeed, preoccupation with—internationalism, even to the point where that means giving up power to someone beyond these shores. It is a damaging preoccupation. At its most curious, it leads to the peculiarity of—I am sorry the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) is not here, because he made a remarkably articulate speech, as I told him afterwards—a representative of a nationalist party making the case against nationalism, and a Member who believes in sovereignty making the argument that sovereignty does not really matter, although he did qualify that by saying that sovereignty in Scotland meant something different. He and I will no doubt have an opportunity to debate that at some length in future.

That fascination fuelled the sentiment that, after the referendum, pervaded the Labour Benches and the Liberals; it is a matter of record that I do not have a liberal bone in my body of any kind, whether socially, culturally, politically or economically, and I shall make the case against free trade in a few moments. As a result of that fascination, the cadre of people who populate a good deal of the establishment—the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) will know this, because a lot of the establishment live in his constituency; it is not surprising that they picked one of their own,  really—could not bear to come to terms with the result of the referendum. For the people had spoken! And of course, the people’s will directly contradicted the assumptions—the presumptions—of that establishment, which they had foisted on the people for donkeys’ years.

I do not say, by the way, that all the guilt lies on the other side of the Chamber. This began with Harold Macmillan, and then was carried on by Ted Heath, who sold out our fishermen. It went on and on; the gallery of villains is almost endless. One thinks of Roy Jenkins. There were noble exceptions, including Labour’s Peter Shore, and Tony Benn, who made the case for national self-government in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) told me was one of the best speeches he has heard in this Chamber in his years here. On our side, there were noble exceptions, too. Enoch Powell stands proud among those, but there were many others. [Interruption.] There was Michael Foot, of course, on the other side. I will not go into the whole list, Madam Deputy Speaker, just in case you thought I was going to. I was thinking of our lamented friend Sir Bill Cash, who gave such great service. He was seen as a bit of an outsider for the great bulk of his career, and then, in the last part of it, was proved right. My goodness, what is better than that in politics? They say all political careers end in failure, but Bill Cash’s didn’t; his political career ended in success. \p Mark Francois: It has not ended yet. Sir Bill is a sprightly 83, and he has been texting some of us throughout the debate. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that Sir Bill’s great success was the sovereignty clause, which finally said, after years of campaigning, that this Parliament is sovereign? That is on the statute book because of Bill. \p John Hayes: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; Sir Bill’s political career has not ended; his parliamentary one has. I can, like my right hon. Friend, acknowledge that Sir Bill has texted me this afternoon, along with no doubt many others—[Interruption.]—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, I just gathered. This tension—between the will of the people as expressed in the 2016 referendum, and the prevailing assumptions of what I described earlier as the liberal establishment—underpins this debate.

In the spirit of generosity, which I tend to employ—there are exceptions, by the way; Members can intervene on me, if they like—I note that there are those on the Government Benches, such as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), who acknowledge, albeit grudgingly, that the referendum result cannot be reversed and that we cannot go back into the EU. That was not what those people said immediately after the referendum, of course. They fought hard for ages to try to frustrate the outcome. They used every parliamentary technique they could conjure, as well as extra-parliamentary techniques, including well-funded legal cases, to try to derail Brexit.

The scepticism personified by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), who said she was doubtful about the Government’s intent, is well  founded. I know that the Minister will want to reassure us, when he rises at the end of the debate, that that scepticism—in his case, at least—will not prove to be a prediction of what might happen next. Scepticism is well founded, though, because of the history. It was a Labour politician who said, “You don’t need a crystal ball when you’ve got the record book”—Aneurin Bevan, of course. We have the record book when it comes to Labour, and, worse still, when it comes to the Liberal Democrats.

I hope the Minister will be crystal clear, as he has been invited to be throughout the debate, on dynamic alignment, or, as I think it would be better described, dynamic realignment: realigning our relationship with the EU. Such alignment would bring us closer not to our friends and neighbours in Europe—of course, co-operation and collaboration is a natural part of mature policies—but to the EU, in terms of governance, regulation, law, interference in our affairs and, crucially, jurisdiction. It is the exercise of authority that we are really debating here—not the ability or, indeed, the willingness to share, but the danger of succumbing to a power that takes authority further and further from the British people.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) talked about some of the challenges the world faces and the answers to those global challenges. He was right to do so, by the way; I thought the first half of his speech was very good, although it got worse as it went on. The answer to those challenges is not to become more globalist or to give in to the forces he described that exert power in an unaccountable way, but to bring power back to the people.

When those of us who advocated Brexit spoke of taking back control, we did so partly because we wanted power to be vested in this Parliament, which is accountable to the people whom that power affects. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, are almost a model for this, and others would do well to follow your model. We are answerable to and known by our constituents; they understand that we make decisions on their behalf. New Members of the House will be coming to terms with what that means and its relentlessness. I do not mind it myself, but I can see how it could wear down souls less forceful and robust than me. It is that constant interaction with our constituents that is the lifeblood of democracy.

Whoever knew who their Member of the European Parliament was? I could not remember who the Tories were, let alone the Members from the other parties. People certainly did not enjoy that kind of intimate relationship and sense of mutual ownership when we were members of the EU. We feel as though we own our constituencies and they feel as though they own us, and quite right too. [Interruption.] I am being chided, Madam Deputy Speaker. I first heard of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) when he arrived here—I never knew who he was before then. I say that without disrespect. \p Ashley Fox: My right hon. Friend is correct. While I was in the European Parliament, opinion poll research was conducted into whether people could name their Member of the European Parliament, and only 2% of British people could name any Member of the European Parliament—regrettably, it was not me. \p John Hayes: It is typical of my hon. Friend’s humility and good humour that he should acknowledge that in the Chamber in such an open and frank way, and I pay tribute to him for it.

The scepticism that I have described and tried to articulate takes the form of real doubts about what realignment will really mean. Let me just deal with three or four specifics. I spoke earlier in an intervention about security and defence. Of course, it is right that we have a continuing relationship with our neighbours in those terms. We do work with the agencies across Europe, but the critical security relationship we enjoy is with the Five Eyes countries—by the way, we also enjoy relations with many other countries in the world outside the Five Eyes and Europe—and it is vital that we reinforce that relationship. That, of course, overlaps with our commitment to NATO and defence.

There may be some virtues in information sharing—indeed, there certainly are virtues in various kinds of co-operation—but anything that undermines the sovereignty of that security and defence alliance seems to be highly questionable and also risky, which is worse.

Let me turn now to free movement. Although the referendum was not all about immigration, immigration was perhaps the most pressing and salient matter during those times. People resented and resisted free movement and they wanted to bring it to an end. For many, the term “take back control” epitomised the need to control our borders—to decide who came here and who did not. Although it may be understandable that people want to wax lyrical about young people being able to travel across the continent, what they say less enthusiastically, or do not say at all, is that young people from the entire continent will want to travel here. Until we know the terms of that, that could easily mean those people competing with Britons for scarce jobs.

We have large numbers of young people not in education, employment or training. No Government have dealt with that satisfactorily. I started speaking about this more than 20 years ago. Previous Labour Governments and, indeed, Conservative Governments did not really grasp that nettle as firmly as they should have done. Disturbingly, the trend is upwards, and so I do not want people in my country to have to compete for education and training places and for other opportunities with possibly tens of thousands of people who have entered the country by those means. There will be suspicions that it is the beginning of a return to free movement.

What did mass immigration do? The Prime Minister was right about this yesterday. He is a very late convert, but the Bible says that we must welcome all converts with enthusiasm. What mass immigration did was to displace investment in recruitment, training and retention of workers and in automation and improving workplaces, making us ever more dependent on low-skilled labour. It had the effect of stultifying the economy. Any suggestion that we may return to that will inhibit—perhaps ruin—the Government’s intention of improving productivity. If we really want to deal with productivity, we have to create a high-tech, high-skilled economy. I am fearful that that broader consideration will not necessarily hold sway when we get into negotiations with the EU on this issue of some relaxation of the bar on free movement, which was brought by the referendum.

Mindful that there are enthusiastic, insightful and bright colleagues on all sides of the House, but mainly on the Conservative side, who want to contribute to the debate, I will draw my remarks to a close. I can hear colleagues saying, “No, go on”, but I am going to resist those overtures and finish with this thought: C.S. Lewis said, “We are what we think we are”. I think we are a proud, independent nation that has made a disproportionate contribution as part of western civilisation to world history. I think that our past is noble and should give us a sense of achievement and pride. I do not buy the self-loathing that seems to have taken hold with too much of the very establishment that I derided earlier. \p Ben Coleman: Will the right hon. Member give way? \p John Hayes: I will happily give way—let us see whether the hon. Member is a self-loathing individual. \p Ben Coleman: I trust that I am not. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman appreciated when I said earlier how excited I was for the prospects ahead of us. I want to thank him for identifying me a couple of times and associating me with my constituents, which I am certainly proud of. I also thank the right hon. Gentleman and a number of his colleagues for making me feel like I have been in this place not for 10 months but for 10 years, and for giving me the privilege of seeing the Brexit debate live, writ large again. It is a rare opportunity that I did not know I would get as a Member of this House, and I am most grateful. \p John Hayes: I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at it through this prism: for all intents and purposes, I am Brexit, I stand for Brexit: I am a patriot, proud of my working-class origins; I am determined to do my best for my constituents and my country; and I am driven by a combination of the national interest and the common good. That was the spirit that inspired Brexit. It inspired those of us who campaigned for it, and those who voted for it, which 75% of my constituents in South Holland and the Deepings did. I am a bit resentful that Boston and Skegness next door had an even higher percentage, but it was only by 1%.

As I said, C.S. Lewis said that we are what we think we are. I think that we are a proud country who can stand in the world, in collaboration with other nations, of course, but free and sovereign. Labour cannot have it both ways. It cannot say that we have done a great deal with India because we did not have to kowtow to the EU and that we have done a great deal with the US because we escaped the clutches of the EU, while at the same time saying that we want to creep back in and for them to have more say in any future deals we might do.

Let me end with the words of one of my political heroes, Joseph Chamberlain, who understood that to protect our economy we need to protect the jobs, industry and enterprise that are part of it and not to give in to the free trade liberals. He said:

“a democratic Government, resting on the confidence and support of the whole nation, and not on the favour of any limited class, would be very strong. It would know how to make itself respected, and how to maintain the obligations and the honour of the country.”

No Member of this House should do less than that. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I am now instating an immediate three-minute time limit. I call Luke Charters. \p Luke Charters: Next Monday is a really important day, as the UK rebuilds our relationship with Europe. This is a big issue for my constituents, because they were failed for far too long.

Let me be clear: I cannot believe that the Conservatives think that they have the credibility to run an Opposition day debate on this topic. The absolute cheek of them is off the scale. They come in here to talk down the merits of the youth mobility scheme—an arrangement that we already have with many non-EU countries. What they are really doing is demonstrating yet again a prehistoric approach to young people across this country. It is no wonder that support for them among that age group is virtually extinct. They want to deny a reset that will benefit our national security, food security and economic security with our biggest and most proximate trading bloc. \p Christopher Vince: My hon. Friend is making an excellent, powerful speech. Does he agree that the summit is not about giving away power, but about working with our European neighbours in our mutual interests, of which there are many? \p Luke Charters: My hon. Friend is spot on. That is why the Conservative party is completely irresponsible. Conservative Members are so out of step with reality that I may as well be asking them to take advice from the stone age. They said that they wanted to take back control once upon a time, but the reality is that over the last eight years they completely lost control of our economy, of our borders and of our future. They do not want the pragmatic, sensible summit next week that will be focused on the future, not the past—a far cry from the chaos and Conservative circus they presided over.

Let me move on to something we should all be welcoming: a youth mobility scheme. It is important that we strike the right balance with that, just like we have with other countries we already share deals with. But unlike Conservative Members, who focus on themselves rather than the public, let us talk about how such a scheme would matter to ordinary people. Nobody would want an 18-year-old at the start of their adult life, eager to explore the world, to be limited to just 90 days in Europe. It is natural for young people to swap Bishopthorpe in my constituency for Barcelona for a year or so, or Copmanthorpe for Copenhagen.

As a parent in York, I would love for my children to have the privilege to enjoy an experience like the youth mobility scheme: an opportunity that can open minds and broaden horizons. Research from the University of Oxford has shown that mobility schemes lead to returnees who launch their own enterprises, start social ventures, reform hospital practices and launch tech start-ups—that sounds good to me.

A really important topic that we must address in the forthcoming summit is defence. \p Ben Coleman: Before we leave young people, Opposition Members have said that we are not doing enough for our young people and that a scheme would cause problems.  Does my hon. Friend welcome the fact that yesterday the Prime Minister said that we must put British young people at the front of the queue for skills and training? The Government have already committed £625 million for training up 60,000 young engineers, chippies and brickies— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. \p Luke Charters: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. A youth mobility scheme could be sensible and pragmatic and lead to opportunities across the continent.

Let me briefly touch on defence. Last week, I held a Westminster Hall debate about the benefits of a multilateral defence bank. I was pleased to have with me the founder of the Defence, Security and Resilience bank, Rob Murray, who is an inspirational ex-Army officer. I really believe that the UK could anchor a multilateral defence bank at the heart of any future defence pact with Europe. That is the single most transformative lever that the Government could pull to fortify our collective security, acting as an industrial deterrent to Russia. I would welcome my hon. Friend the Minister thinking about that running into next week.

Finally, I will touch on holidays. Over the next few months, hard-working families across the country will travel to airports up and down the UK to go away for some hard-earned summer sun. Since leaving the EU, many of us have landed at a foreign airport to see a huge queue and waited with envy as others pass straight through. I would really welcome it if, as a small gesture to give back to the grafters of this country, we could look at a new arrangement with the EU to ease airport congestion. \p Kieran Mullan: Will the hon. Member give way? \p Luke Charters: I will not, because we are on a three-minute limit for speeches. Perhaps the hon. Member does not want to give back to the grafters of this country, but I think we should be helping hard-working Brits get through to the gates and straight to their sunbeds. Could we have some co-operation with the EU on airport congestion?

There is lots that I could talk about, but I will leave it there. This is about moving on pragmatically and securing our future, just as we have recently with India and the US. \p Julia Lopez: Next week, the EU and the UK will meet in London for a much vaunted reset of our post-Brexit relationship. If that delivers real benefits for our country, that is great—let us hear them—but forgive me, because I am a doubter.

I have learned two lessons from my miserable direct experience of how Labour operates. First, do not trust the Prime Minister. Between 2017 and 2019, I and others watched him, as the shadow Brexit Secretary, twist every parliamentary rule to block what the British people voted for. That was not principled opposition; it was sabotage. In so doing, he connived to empower Brussels in a way that directly and actively undermined our national negotiating position. He was not alone in that endeavour, but it was a spectacle that disgraced this House. \p Caroline Nokes: Order. May I respectfully suggest to the hon. Lady that she needs to be very careful in the language that she chooses to use about the Prime Minister? \p Julia Lopez: I was deliberately careful to adhere to the rules of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I hope my intent was clear.

Let me be clear. I do not think that the Prime Minister is a straight dealer. He says what suits him, poses as a man of decency and hopes— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I suggest the hon. Lady withdraw her comment, in which she has accused the Prime Minister of not being straight. \p Julia Lopez: If that is outside the boundaries of what is acceptable, I will withdraw the comment.

My second lesson is that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses. We have already seen it in this Parliament, from the Chagos islands to the backroom deals with the unions. It is ideological naivety dressed up as serious and sober diplomacy. Labour thinks that signing a deal is the same as securing a good one. It is not, and all that will become clear.

Let us remind ourselves that Brexit was never a rejection of Europe and its people. It was a demand for democratic control over our laws, our borders, our trade and our future. \p Mike Martin: The hon. Lady is a great fan of honesty in this Chamber, so I am sure that she will give me an honest answer. One way of understanding Brexit is that it replaced a circular flow of people with a one-way flow of people. Does she think that Brexit increased or decreased migration into this country? \p Julia Lopez: Brexit allowed us to introduce a points-based system and that is what we did. I will accept that mistakes were made in the introduction of that points-based system, but the key is that we can tweak and tune that to accommodate the needs of our economy and those of the people we represent.

The British people could feel the world changing around them and they knew instinctively that the UK needed to be nimbler, faster and more accountable in responding to those currents, be they the movement of people or the regulation of businesses. We will not let it be said that there have been no Brexit benefits, because that is simply not true.

For a start, we no longer hand between £11 billion and £12 billion a year net to Brussels. We have secured trade deals, including from the fast-growing comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership nations. Whatever we think about last week’s US-UK tariff deal, we are not paying the same prohibitive trade taxes as the EU. We are setting our own course in areas such as AI, financial services and agritech. Those are not abstract wins or nostalgic impulses; they are real opportunities for a modern, outward-facing Britain.

If next week’s summit can ease practical frictions, that is all well and good. I want what works for British people. However, I am worried that Labour does not know what it wants, only that it wants a deal. I am  worried it does not grasp what the EU will demand in return. And I am worried that Labour thinks slick comms matter more than real outcomes for the British people.

Today, we lay down a clear marker. On immigration, there should be no youth mobility scheme. It might sound harmless, but let us not be naive and have partial free movement by stealth. On defence and regulation, we want no dynamic alignment, and I am fascinated by the Minister’s refusal to say anything further on that matter. If Labour really thinks it has a great deal, there is a simple thing it could do, which is to bring that deal back to this House for a vote. \p Caroline Voaden: We are here to look forward to the UK-EU summit next week and not to relive the past; although, listening to today’s debate, I feel like I have gone back about 10 years. As we look forward, it is important that we all, in this place, do what we can to make the lives of people across the UK better. That is our job.

Even though the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), who is no longer in his place, would probably not agree, times change, as do opinions. We know that many people—even some of those who might have voted for it—now realise that Brexit has damaged our economy and our country. We only need to compare the result of the election in 2015 with the result last year for the Conservative party to see that opinions can change quite drastically.

Looking forward to the summit next week, I would like to focus on reality, not rhetoric. The former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, said in May 2016: “We think that leaving the single market would weaken our economy and hurt jobs, trade and investment”. That is exactly what we have seen: an act of economic self-harm that no other country is dreaming of. Research by Aston University has shown that exports to the EU have fallen by 27% since Brexit, and the Office for Budget Responsibility has projected a long-term reduction in GDP of 4% relative to remaining in the EU. In contrast, the great Brexit benefit of the Australia trade deal negotiated by the Conservatives was projected to increase UK GDP by just 0.08%, and the Government’s new India trade deal, while welcome, is estimated to add only 0.1% to GDP.

Neither of those trade deals even come close to touching the sides of what we have lost through Brexit, which is why the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to approach next week’s summit with ambition and boldness and to agree a road map and a timeline for the creation of a new, bespoke UK-EU customs union to free up the red tape that is strangling our businesses. We have had lots of examples. I could give the House many from my constituency, but in the interest of time I will move on.

I also want to see us agree a youth mobility scheme as part of next week’s summit. It would be a win-win for young people and deliver a boost for our economy. Yes, we do want to see young people coming over here. I no longer want to see the pubs in my constituency closed two days a week because they cannot get the staff. I do not want to see cafés closing down because there are not enough young people to staff the hospitality business. It is estimated that 120,000 young people have left the  hospitality industry since Brexit. We need progress. We need to improve the terrible deal that was done by the Conservatives, so I hope the Government will be bold, forget this rhetoric and bluster and sign a deal that we can all celebrate across this House. \p Kieran Mullan: I am grateful to be able speak in this Opposition day debate ahead of next week’s UK-EU summit. I campaigned for, believed in and continue to believe in the promise of Brexit. At its core, Brexit was a vote for the importance of national democracy, a vote for national sovereignty and a vote against regionalisation and government by bureaucrats. I believe strongly in international co-operation, but I do not believe in institutionalisation. I do not believe that decision making gets better in aggregate. My experience has taught me that it only gets worse. It gets more remote, less well informed and riddled with compromises that barely satisfy anyone and please no one. I continue to believe that the UK—its people and its Government—deciding its own future, not locked into continental bureaucracy, provides the best possible future for us.

Behind all the carefully choreographed language from Ministers about resets, there is one inescapable truth: this Labour Government risk laying the groundwork and taking the first steps to betraying the full promise of Brexit. That should not be any surprise, given that they are led by a man who campaigned for the leadership of the Labour party on the basis of restoring freedom of movement. He supported a second referendum and he voted against Brexit 48 times. We on this side of the House are not prepared to watch this slow train wreck in silence.

Many issues have been raised by many Members, but I want to raise just two that are of particular importance. First, on the youth mobility scheme, the fundamental issues that made freedom of movement so unpopular would remain at the core of any youth mobility scheme. The level of economic disparity across EU member states is fundamentally incompatible with the scheme becoming anything other than yet another route for mass low-skilled migration, at a time when the Government tell us they want to drive that down.

Secondly, there can be no dynamic EU rule taking or ECJ oversight. Any agreement on food standards, services or carbon trading must not come at the price of automatic alignment. We did not leave the EU to find ourselves bound to it in everything but name. We must demand mutual recognition and independent dispute resolution, and that is the only thing we should accept. That would reflect a relationship of mutual respect. These are not unreasonable demands. They are the bare minimum that any sovereign state would expect when engaging in talks with a foreign bloc.

The United Kingdom voted to leave the EU, whether the Prime Minister and his Ministers like it or not. Is it any wonder that they are looking for answers internationally when we look at their domestic picture? They are restricting winter fuel payments, inflation is still biting us, business confidence is shaken, working families are being hammered with job-destroying taxes, and growth is stalling. We must not allow this to serve as a diplomatic distraction  from their domestic failure. We will not allow Labour to turn a reset into a roll-back, and any future Conservative Government will not be bound by any agreement that breaches these clear red lines. We will not allow Brussels to disguise control as co-operation, and we will not let the democratic choice of the British people be eroded by stealth.

Brexit was not a pause; it was a pivot. It was a huge opportunity for our country, and I believe that the benefits will accrue for decades to come. The Government might be able to hide their true intentions this week but they will not be able to hide them forever, and we will be here to make sure that the British people know what they really believe in. It is not the freedom and sovereignty of Brexit. \p Judith Cummins: With regret, it may not be possible for all Members to speak in the debate, even with this time limit. \p Jim Allister: No one representing Northern Ireland wishes more than I do for a proper reset of the relationship with Europe. To be a proper reset, however, it must acknowledge and respect the fundamental concept of international agreements: that the agreeing parties respect the territorial integrity of each other. That is the fundamental flaw and failing of the present arrangements.

There is not, and there was not under the last Government, a requirement for the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom to be respected. That is how and why it came to be that, in my part of the United Kingdom, in 300 areas of law we are subject not to the laws of this House but to those of a foreign Parliament. The EU insisted, and alas the British Government accepted, that Northern Ireland should be under its customs code, which treats GB as a foreign country and Northern Ireland as EU territory, and that we should be in its single market and subject to all its laws. In that, we had the most dramatic refusal and repudiation of that fundamental concept of mutual acknowledgment of territorial integrity. Unless and until that is addressed in a reset, we will never have a fair deal with Europe, and that is what I would dearly like to see.

When I hear talk about dynamic alignment, it is not academic for me; we experience it every day of the week. We experience the indignity of being subject to laws that we do not make and cannot change. We are subject to the indignity of the other part of this United Kingdom being described as a foreign country whose goods must be checked coming through an international EU customs border.

If the Government are going to do an SPS deal with Europe, it inevitably falls, as it has in Northern Ireland, that we submit to the yoke of dynamic alignment with EU rules. That is the price that the EU extracted for Northern Ireland. It is the price it will extract for an SPS deal with Great Britain. Therefore, that is not the way forward. The way forward is to retrieve sovereignty over all of this country and to retrieve respect for territorial integrity. \p Sarah Bool: In mid-March, in my role as a vice chair of the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, I formed part of  the delegation that headed out to Brussels for the assembly meeting ahead of the 19 May summit meeting. While it was a convivial affair, I came away with great concerns about the tone of the conversations and contributions made by Labour Members. While the Prime Minister is on the record as saying, as part of his red lines, that there would be no return to freedom of movement and no rejoining of the customs union or the single market, the assembly would not allow me to include such a statement in the committee’s recommendations that were published. If, as was said, it was implicit, surely it is not controversial to include it as a statement of fact. The tone of the conversations and debates indicated a different direction. The red lines seemed to be drawn in disappearing ink.

It very much felt that the leadership and the Members were singing from different hymn sheets, or perhaps the Members belie the Government’s true intentions. If that is the case, the Government should be much clearer with the British public and those in this House about what they are trying to achieve. Going into the summit, the conspiracy of silence cannot continue.

Brexit at its heart was about restoring powers to Britain, allowing us sovereignty. Despite the result of the referendum, the goal of Labour Members seems to be to get ever closer to the EU again. Talk of youth opportunities seems innocuous, but Labour Members must explain their terms and be realistic about what that would mean for opening up free movement of people between the European Union and the UK via the back door.

We must also be alert to the trade-offs in this debate. I fear that, to secure a veterinary agreement, we will concede on dynamic alignment. The Minister has another opportunity to intervene, should he so wish. Silence once again. I also fear that our fisheries, which were not mentioned once in the Labour manifesto, may be the next sacrificial lamb.

The PPA recommendation, which the Conservatives dissented to on the whole, states that the assembly would provide

“a signal at or before the Summit that a fair deal on fisheries will be reached, building on current arrangements”,

but what does “a fair deal” mean to this Government? If, as a condition for getting an SPS agreement, the French insist on a multi-year agreement that naturally shifts the favour further towards their industry and our Government agree, they will have harmed another community. First, they attack our farmers; now they attack our fishermen.

At the PPA meeting, members said that everyone should be clear that this Labour Government are clear in their ambition to reset the relationship with the EU, but I offer a word of warning: we must not betray our fishermen and risk our food security in doing so. \p Joe Robertson: I could speak about so many aspects of the Brexit renegotiation that the Government are entering into—Conservative Members in particular have spoken a lot about those issues—but I wish to focus on fishing and farming.

It is always a worry when this Government go into bat in a negotiation, because when Labour negotiates, Britain invariably loses. The current agreement with the  EU on fisheries should be a baseline, and preferably a springboard, so that if the Government negotiate, they improve on that deal. That was always the intention. What is a negotiation if we go into it with a mind to sell out and come away with a worse deal? That is what is on the mind of UK fishing communities right now. When my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) asked the Prime Minister only last week to rule out giving away sovereign British waters to the EU, he refused to do so. The Minister may intervene on me to give our fishing communities the reassurance that the Government will not sell out to the EU on our sovereign waters.

We know what the French want: to send their trawlers closer inshore to our fishing waters in order to catch fish from UK waters and take them back to the EU and sell them. We are already in a situation whereby Dutch trawlers—4,000 tonne vessels—travel up and down the English channel trawling the bottom of the ocean. They take a huge bycatch of fish, including bass, right in front of small British vessels—such as those fishing out of the Isle of Wight, where my constituency is—that have a set of rules restricting their bass catch. They have to watch the Dutch boats scrape those fish up by accident and take them home.

If the Government enter a negotiation, the current arrangement for fishermen must be a baseline. They must improve on the deal and absolutely rule out any concessions to the French and the EU on sovereignty over British territorial waters. \p Ashley Fox: I welcome the Government’s stated aim of negotiating a closer trading relationship with the European Union—I wish the Minister well—but given this Government’s record of negotiating international agreements, I worry about what the Prime Minister will agree on our behalf. We have seen his weakness in the negotiations on the Chagos islands. The Government intend to give away the sovereignty of a territory that we already own and then pay billions of pounds to lease it back. I can assure the Minister that when he comes to negotiate the details with the European Commission, he will find it a great deal tougher to deal with than the Government of Mauritius.

The Government say that the agreement will improve growth in our economy, and that is commendable, but we on the Conservative Benches would take that assurance far more seriously if the Government had not spent the last 10 months making life more difficult for British business. The Employment Rights Bill will increase costs to businesses by £5 billion a year, borne mostly by small and medium-sized enterprises, and the £25 billion national insurance jobs tax will make it more expensive to employ people—unless, of course, it is an Indian business importing workers from India, because then it will benefit from the new trade deal negotiated by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade.

A closer trading relationship with the EU would be very welcome. Trade frictions could be diminished easily. An agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures could be reached were the EU and the UK to recognise each other’s standards. Our standards are already the same as, or higher than, the EU’s, and the EU knows this. But the EU has no intention of doing that. It intends  to wait until the UK has a Government who will agree to its rules, agree to the dynamic alignment of those rules and then agree that the Court of Justice of the European Union is the final arbiter of those rules.

It seems that the EU’s patience has been rewarded, because when I asked the Minister earlier to clarify what approach he intended to take, answer came there none. It is clear that this Government intend to sign us up to EU rules, over which this House will have no say. When those rules are changed by the EU, Britain will simply have to follow. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) that this is the beginning of a process to bring the United Kingdom within the regulatory control of the EU, and thereafter, perhaps an attempt by the Labour party to make us join the EU. \p James Wild: There has been an astonishing lack of transparency by the Government ahead of the dud deal that they look set to agree next week, and that was personified by the Paymaster General, who refused to engage on any of the substantive issues. Briefings suggest that the Government are preparing to sign a deal that pulls the UK back into the EU’s regulatory and political orbit. Anyone listening to the debate will have heard Ministers repeatedly refuse to deny that the Government are preparing to make the UK a rule taker once again.

One of the frustrations when we were negotiating the trade and co-operation agreement was that the EU refused to back a veterinary agreement based on regulatory equivalence. Given our record and our commitment to high SPS standards, that was clearly the common-sense approach, but the EU simply refused to engage. Instead, it has imposed higher costs and regulations, which fall on businesses and consumers. Now, extraordinarily, it seems that this Government are simply going to roll over and concede that the UK will have to follow EU rules over which it has no say, and bring back ECJ jurisdiction. That is not necessary, desirable or consistent with a democratic vote to leave the EU and restore our sovereignty. Once again, let us see whether the Minister will rule it out when he speaks.

Having spent three years in the Ministry of Defence advising the then Defence Secretary, I am concerned at the approach the Government are looking to take on defence and security. NATO is the cornerstone of our defence, and the alliance should be our focus, yet a leak reveals that the deal will pull the UK into the EU’s common security and defence policy, duplicating many of the functions and institutions of NATO—and for what? The deal does not even guarantee British firms access to the rearmament fund. Instead, that will be subject to future separate negotiations, and the UK will have to pay; how much and on what terms is completely unclear. It is very disappointing, given the need to defend our continent, that some in the EU want to link access to the defence programme to fishing rights. [Interruption.] France, indeed. Once again, the Government have simply rolled over.

I know from my time in the Cabinet Office and No. 10 working on Brexit issues that the EU was determined to be inflexible from the start. Michel Barnier,  the negotiator, embodied that rigidness. Unlike the man from Del Monte, he delighted in saying no. Improvements to the TCA can be made. The agreement provides for that precisely and deliberately in the review mechanism. To get trade flowing, there are easements that the EU could easily agree to, benefiting businesses and consumers. Instead of pursuing those from a position of principle, this Government are negotiating a backroom deal and look set to do so badly and undermine our national interest. \p Jack Rankin: I start by paying a small tribute to the Government because just last week they passed secondary legislation, albeit made possible by the Conservatives’ groundbreaking Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, that will mean more resilient crops, further food choices and enhanced food security. Although it might pain some of them, Labour Members have to admit they are making some use of the hard-won Brexit freedoms secured by the Conservatives. Why would we give them away? The example I have used might seem somewhat niche, but this is exactly what a modern industrial strategy focused on technology, productivity and the future looks like, and in doing this, we have a head start on the continent, which is now fumbling to produce regulation of its own in this area.

We should be going further still. Gene editing has the power to reduce the impact of animal disease and stop pandemics in their tracks. Researchers at Imperial College London and the Roslin Institute, Edinburgh, are now close to making breakthroughs on bird flu-resistant poultry using gene editing. The Government must introduce secondary legislation for farmed animals, as they have done for plants.

I visited Imperial’s Silwood campus in my constituency. The students there are doing incredible things. When they make breakthroughs, our regulatory framework should allow us to nimbly make use of them, but there is a very real risk that with next week’s reset the Government could kill the progress with the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement they are negotiating.

Companies at the forefront of the agricultural industry have raised concerns about this reset, and I know that my colleagues, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the all-party group on science and technology in agriculture have done the same. This is a rare—and much needed as those on the Government Benches hammer our farmers—competitive unique selling point for British agriculture. Reports suggest that this Government will make concessions on SPS to give them more bartering power on other issues, setting a precedent for the wider agricultural relationship with the EU, bending over backwards for an establishment that the British people voted to reject. We would also be signing up to rules we have no power to influence. There were good reasons to leave the EU and good reasons to stay in the EU, and reasonable people could and did disagree, but there is no good reason to leave and opt into rules over which we have no say. That is the worst of both worlds.

Under Switzerland’s agreement with the EU, it must align with almost all the EU’s food safety demands and replicate any further regulatory changes made in the future. That agreement may well be in the best interests  of the Swiss but it would not work for Britain. Every time we want to diverge in a way that could benefit the British people, we would have to supplicate to those in Brussels once again. Carve-outs are possible, but we all know what tends to happen when the Prime Minister negotiates. When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. A reset deal with a deep SPS agreement would be short-sighted, perhaps offering a quick boost in the near term but taking the wind from the sails of longer term, game-changing investment that is starting to flow in.

We need to maintain a competitive advantage to supercharge investment in areas like the Thames valley, where we have a world-leading life sciences sector. So I warn the Government not to chain Britain to the economic anchor of the EU and the dead hand of its precautionary principle regulators, especially when last week’s secondary legislation on precision breeding is such a clear example of what regulatory autonomy for an innovative UK could do for us. \p Liz Jarvis: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate and to highlight the impact of the botched Brexit deal on businesses in my constituency, including pharmacies and the local hospitality industry.

Stuart Yalden, the managing director of GW Martin, a small and medium-sized enterprise in engineering in my constituency, has raised concerns over the additional costs and regulatory requirements the business now faces when trading with the EU. In one recent case it exported a small volume of products to a customer in France worth around £5,000 but the combined cost of paperwork, export licences and transport came to £2,500. This is not a sustainable way to trade. To reassure my constituents, I hope that the Minister will give this important matter some consideration, and that he will raise these issues next week.

We cannot ignore the opportunities that have been taken away from young people for no good reason and with no benefit to anyone. I have listened to arguments from Conservative Members, but I still cannot understand why anyone would want to stop young people from experiencing all that the world has to offer. I hope the Minister will agree with me that giving young people, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, the opportunity and freedom to live, study and work in Europe with a youth mobility scheme would be hugely beneficial to them and to the country. We must also recognise the negative impact that Brexit has had on our creative sector. We need urgent action to renegotiate touring arrangements with the EU, ensuring that British artists can showcase their talent abroad without excessive red tape.

The Liberal Democrats have set out a clear road map to reset UK-EU relations. We must start by restoring trust, rebuilding co-operation in key areas such as research, climate policy and security and removing the barriers that have been strangling our economy. It is time to take meaningful steps to repair our relationship with Europe and restore the prosperity that our country so desperately needs. I sincerely hope that the Government will use the EU-UK summit to turn a page on the chaos of the last five years. \p Llinos Medi: Diolch, Dirprwy Llefarydd. The people of Wales have been let down by those who promised that Brexit would lead to a brighter future; instead, it has caused huge damage right across our communities and economy. The hard Brexit pursued by the previous UK Government has cost the Welsh economy up to £4 billion and reduced the value of Welsh exports by up to £1.1 billion, and post-Brexit trade deals, such as those with New Zealand and Australia, have been unfavourable for Welsh agriculture and manufacturing. Since Brexit, Wales has lost out on £1 billion in European structural and rural development funding, which could have been used to support our deprived communities. That is despite the promise made by the then Conservative UK Government in 2019 to

“at a minimum match the size”

of former EU funding in Wales and the other nations across the UK.

In my constituency, the port of Holyhead, which is a strategically vital port for UK-EU trade, has seen dramatic falls in traffic since Brexit. I note that following the closure of the port after Storm Darragh in December last year, the value of trade going through Holyhead has dropped by £500 million. At the time, I called for the Government to establish a hardship fund to support businesses impacted by the closure of the port. I urge the Government, as part of their strategy towards the EU, to make clear commitments to safeguard the port against future crises, given its strategic importance.

We need a relationship with Europe that works for Wales, and the opportunity to improve relations at the upcoming UK-EU summit is welcome. Given that Wales is more reliant on exporting to the EU than the rest of the UK, it is crucial that we make trading between Wales and Europe easier. I have seen the challenges that exporters in my constituency face, with local business The Lobster Pot telling me that it has struggled to export under the post-Brexit system. A veterinary agreement covering plant and animal health to cut red tape and costs for our exporting businesses will be vital. The Government should create a youth mobility scheme and join the Erasmus+ programme so that our young people can study and work abroad, creating new skills and opportunities for the next generation. We also need to see co-operation on the environment, the arts and defence.

I hope that next week’s summit will be the start, not the end of strengthening our ties with Europe. This Government have said that their first mission is to grow the economy, and I can see no better opportunity to improve growth than by committing the UK and Wales to the long-term goal of joining the single market and customs union. Wales has been made to suffer badly by those who championed the false promises of Brexit. This Government must now take action to fix our damaged relationship with Europe to protect the Welsh economy. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Minister. \p Andrew Griffith: We have had a strong debate this afternoon, with many contributions on both sides. I thank so many of my hon. and right hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends  the Members for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) and for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who knows a great deal about this subject, as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and my hon. Friends the Members for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) and for Windsor (Jack Rankin)—what a fantastic set of knowledgeable contributions and real concerns about the impending EU surrender summit. It is in the spirit of such rigorous debate that this House finds its strength and purpose.

It has been less than a year since the general election. In that time, this Labour Government have tanked the economy, crushed British business, seen—as we have learned today—100,000 fewer people in employment, driven wealth creators overseas at the rate of one millionaire every 45 minutes, and shattered any signs of economic growth. I am afraid to say that the next item on this bleak agenda of declinism is the betrayal of the 17 million people who voted for this country to leave the European political union. This should come as no surprise to anyone, because those on the Benches opposite—and, I regret, some of those on the Benches to the left of me— voted against Brexit on no fewer than 48 different occasions.

If this debate is reminiscent of the past, it is because that is precisely where some Members wish to take us back to. Ever since they were seduced by Jacques Delors, the Euro-socialist, their hearts have never been in the mission of taking back control of our laws. Next Monday’s EU surrender summit formally marks the start of Labour’s plan to dismantle the powers of not just the Government, but this House, and push us back into the European Union as a passive rule taker. We Conservatives ask, “To what end? Why are the Government capitulating the very same hard-fought Brexit freedoms that permitted the signing of two trade agreements—notwithstanding their limited scope—in the past seven days?”

Had we followed the policies that Labour was advocating in opposition, this Government would never have been able to reach an agreement with the USA or with India. They would not even have been in the room; they would have been one of 28 member nations, resorting to asking—begging—Ursula von der Leyen to perhaps consider putting British interests first. We were right not to follow Labour’s advice then, and the Government would be right to listen to our advice now, yet it appears that they still have not learned. As we heard from many speakers this afternoon, the opportunities of the future will fall to those states that are agile—opportunities in areas such as artificial intelligence, genomics, space, the creative industries, financial and professional services, and the life sciences.

This country already has a good deal with the European Union. We have a mutually advantageous zero-tariff agreement that is valued at £184 billion in services and £174 billion in goods. Nothing is perfect, and where there are sensible measures—such as pursuing opportunities for mutual recognition—they should be explored.  For example, one of the biggest frictions our businesses face today is the denial of the use of e-gates, which was imposed by the European Union out of spite. There was no such small-mindedness from us.

However, the problem we face today is that the Government have failed to come to this House and explain exactly, or at all, what the Prime Minister’s EU reset will look like. We have seen nothing on the Government’s negotiating objectives, their red lines or the supposed benefits, and we have not seen an impact assessment or even an interim update. Of course, I understand there will be finer negotiating details that the Government will not want to share, but that is very different from sharing absolutely nothing. That is disrespectful of Parliament, and forces this House to rely on leaks and read between the lines of Downing Street press handouts. If those leaks are to be believed, we know that Labour is planning on signing up the British armed forces to an EU army, binding our strategic military decision-making powers to bureaucrats in Brussels. [Interruption.] The Minister is very welcome to rule these things out—perhaps he will be more forthcoming than the Paymaster General was earlier.

When it comes to security, there is no bigger challenge than our borders—I think even the Prime Minister recognised that on Monday—but the UK’s request for shared access to a joint illegal migrant database has already been rejected by the European Union. So much for co-operation on security. Defence procurement must never be “pay to play”. I have no idea why the European Union member nations would cut themselves off from the UK’s excellent defence primes, unless this is once again a protectionist industrial policy cloak—and what twisted deal-making trades fishing rights for the French for working more closely together, as we have so many times, on Europe’s defence? We warned that Labour would betray our fishermen, and it has sadly proved us right by putting fishing rights back on the negotiating table. \p Harriet Cross: My hon. Friend has referred to the betrayal of our fishermen. I wonder whether the Minister will take the opportunity to deny media speculations that the Government are about to consent to multi-year agreements. The fishermen want single-year agreements, which are the international norm. Can the Minister rule that out today? \p Andrew Griffith: I am afraid the Minister is as talkative as a haddock when it comes to clarifying his objectives, but perhaps he will confound our expectations when he sums up the debate.

Just as the Prime Minister pretends to talk tough on immigration, by the same token he plans to open our borders to an EU youth mobility scheme. Perhaps the Minister will deny that, but it could mean millions from Boulogne to Bucharest. Limited volume schemes with comparable economies whereby the UK is able to decide who comes here are fine in principle. We have such a scheme with Australia, but Australia is 10,000 miles away and its economy is very different from those that we are discussing. The wrong type of youth mobility scheme would disadvantage young British workers who, thanks to this Government, are already struggling to get a foot on the ladder, whether for a job—unemployment is up again today—or to secure a roof over their heads  in Britain’s housing market. What part of the Government’s objective involves making things harder for our young people?

What we do see is the Government proceeding at breakneck pace with the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. Beware of Bills with boring names, Madam Deputy Speaker! This is a Trojan horse, blank-cheque Bill giving Ministers the power to roll back Brexit, sign us up to EU rules and abandon imperial measurements for good, all at the stroke of a pen. It provides unchecked ministerial power to make us a passive rule-taker of Brussels diktat. Let me be clear. The Conservatives are certainly not opposed to co-operation with Europe as one among other markets—that much should be obvious from the hard-fought trade agreement that we obtained under the last Government—but we must not in any circumstances surrender our Brexit freedoms so that the Prime Minister can reassure his next law school reunion that he has undermined our sovereignty.

After the earlier equivocation from the Paymaster General, let me give the Minister—they have been chuntering all afternoon—a final chance to answer these questions once and for all. Can he reassure the millions of people who voted to leave the EU that his surrender summit will not betray their wishes? Will he confirm that there will be no backsliding on free movement or compulsory asylum transfers? Can he reassure taxpayers, or those who have lost their winter fuel allowance or whose benefits are set to be cut, that the UK will not be agreeing to any new payments to the EU? Is he able to confirm, for the benefit of our coastal communities, that there will be no concessions on fishing rights? Can he assure the House that there will be no rule taking, dynamic alignment, or extension of European Court jurisdiction? Will he pledge, in deeds as well as words, that there will be no compromise on the primacy of NATO as the successful cornerstone of European security?

If the Minister is not able to provide those assurances, this Government are betraying Brexit. All of the evidence that we have seen today suggests that they are limbering up for a surrender summit to damage Britain’s interests. They are determined to deal away our hard-fought freedoms, and we will lose control of our borders, our laws, our fish and our armed forces. I urge the Minister to come clean and to have the honesty to explain to this House and this country why Labour is preparing to surrender the right of the British people to choose their own destiny. We know that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses. \p Stephen Doughty: I am grateful to have the chance to respond to this afternoon’s debate. I did not know that the House had so many fans of “Quantum Leap”— a favourite show of mine when I was younger. Of course, fans of the show will know that Sam Beckett was advised by a hologram called Al, a US admiral who would come in and give good advice on how to get through challenges. Instead, we have had the spectre of Sir Bill Cash coming in via text to Conservative Members. Who would have thought it?

This debate has been a journey back to the past. On this side of the House, we have a Government who want to take this country forward, not back. That is a stark  contrast with those on the other side, who seem stuck in the last decade. We will not be rejoining the EU, the single market or the customs union, or returning to freedom of movement, but we look forward to welcoming Presidents von der Leyen and Costa to London next week for the first ever UK-EU summit—the first annual summit to take place between the UK and the EU.

The Leader of the Opposition recently said:

“We announced that we would leave the European Union before we had a plan for growth outside the EU. These mistakes were made because we told people what they wanted to hear first and then tried to work it out later.”

Of course, the lesson that we have learned, and to which the Conservative party might want to pay careful attention, is that failing to plan is inevitably planning to fail. This Government will not take the same reckless, chaotic and dogmatic approach when it comes to the British people and our national interests. That is why, under the leadership of our Prime Minister, this Government were elected on a mandate for change, which is what we are delivering. We have been resetting our relationships with our EU partners and our wider European partners, and we are using those strengthened relationships to deliver growth, prosperity, safety and security. I, the Paymaster General, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and others have been working to do that.

Just this week, we hosted the Weimar+ Foreign Ministers meeting on Ukraine, and we have had high-level engagement with many European leaders. We have been travelling around the continent, driving forward growth, driving forward action on illegal immigration, and driving forward relationships for our security and our defence. We are also setting up structures to ensure that our European partnerships deliver in the long term, including treaties or leader-level summits with some of our closest partners, such as France, Germany, Poland and Ireland—not to mention the exciting and successful state visit by His Majesty the King to Italy last month. I am delighted that Buckingham Palace has today announced that President Macron, accompanied by Mrs Macron, has accepted an invitation from His Majesty to pay a state visit to the UK, and the Prime Minister and President will hold their next summit during that visit.

Increased engagement has already delivered results for the UK. On growth, we have had £250 million of Czech investment in Rolls-Royce small modular reactors and a £600 million investment by the Polish logistics company InPost, and Iberdrola is doubling its investment through ScottishPower over the next four years. On security, we have new defence agreements with Germany and Romania, and new negotiations on defence agreements with Poland and Norway. On migration, we have a joint action plan with Germany and new migration deals with Serbia, Kosovo, Slovenia and Slovakia, and we have also agreed new measures to tackle people-smuggling gangs with France. On energy and climate, we have new civil nuclear co-operation between the UK and Finland, and other European countries are responding positively to that. Crucially, on security and defence— \p Iain Duncan Smith: rose— \p John Hayes: rose— \p Mark Francois: rose— \p Stephen Doughty: They want answers to the questions they have asked. I am going to give them some answers, and then I will happily take interventions.

On foreign security and defence policy, let me be absolutely clear: NATO is and remains the bedrock of our security and our transatlantic alliances, but there are many strands to a muscle. Whether it is the joint expeditionary force, our bilateral security and defence partnerships, or our work through other pan-European bodies, through the European Political Community, in the western Balkans, through the Quint or, indeed, through a new UK-EU security and defence partnership, a muscle gets stronger when its multiple strands are flexed. Those things do not contradict each other; they are strengthening this country and our place in the world, and delivering on defence, on technology, on jobs, on industry and on security. \p Iain Duncan Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and as I have said, we have worked together in the past quite a lot. I will just ask a very simple question. The Government have constantly said they will not breach their red lines. They have apparently said that publicly in Europe, and they have said it here. My simple question is: is dynamic alignment one of the red lines? \p Stephen Doughty: I will come on to that in a moment, but we are absolutely clear. I have been clear, and so has the Paymaster General. I will come on to answer that question specifically in a moment.

Talking down Britain’s role in NATO at a time of war in Europe when we are showing such leadership is, quite frankly, irresponsible. I will not take lessons on NATO, European defence and security or the defence and security of this country from a party that shrunk the British Army to the smallest size since the Napoleonic era, when we have made the tough choices of investing in defence.

Let me be absolutely clear: there is no suggestion that the UK would ever join a European army, and no formal proposal for that has ever been put forward. Indeed, on Gibraltar—I answered questions on this earlier—we absolutely take a stand on the sovereignty of Gibraltar, given the importance of our military base there. I spoke to the Chief Minister earlier about that, and the wild speculation that is being put about is hugely unhelpful.

On fisheries, we should be clear that there was of course a Brexit deal negotiated by the last Government, and we are looking for an overall arrangement that is beneficial for our fisheries and our coastal communities, but I am not going to get into a running commentary.

On SPS—and, indeed, on the question the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—asked, let us be clear: since 2018, the UK’s agrifood trade with the EU has fallen by 20% for exports and 11% for imports, after adjusting for trade inflation, so it is in the interests of both sides to seek an SPS agreement that removes those barriers to trade. We are not interested in divergence for the sake of divergence or in a race to the bottom on standards. We will not get into a running commentary on this, but we have been absolutely clear. Of course, there need to be appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Stephen Doughty: Conservative Ministers ask questions, but they may not want to hear the answers. [Interruption.] \p Judith Cummins: Order. \p Stephen Doughty: We are absolutely clear: we are taking serious action to reduce net migration, but we support controlled schemes that create opportunities for young people to experience different cultures, travel and work. Important questions were asked about issues such as the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention. It is of course right and responsible that we look at it, ensuring that any final decisions are made in the national interest.

However, I want to address a very fundamental point, which is this absolutely absurd and nonsensical suggestion of surrender. What an absolute disgrace to be talking Britain down—talking Britain down! In fact, what we see is strength. We see strength from this Prime Minister and strength from this Government. In a world of turmoil— \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Stephen Doughty: No.

In a world of turmoil and uncertainty— \p Mark Francois: Is there a red line on dynamic alignment—yes or no? \p Stephen Doughty: I have answered that question already. [Interruption.] \p Judith Cummins: Order. The Minister will be heard. \p Stephen Doughty: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been absolutely clear: surrender—what nonsense! Instead, we see strength in standing up for our steel and our car manufacturers, delivering trade deals with the US and India, investing in green energy, leading Europe with our key allies in the defence of Ukraine, tackling illegal migration and serious and organised crime, and boosting funding and support for our national defence after shameful disinvestment by the previous Government. That is talking down Britain; we are standing up for Britain.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 104, Noes 402.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 321, Noes 102.

Question accordingly agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).

Resolved,

That the House notes the overwhelming mandate on which the Government was elected, which included resetting the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union to deepen ties with its European friends, neighbours and allies; welcomes the Government’s commitment only to agree a deal that is in the UK’s national interest and is in line with the manifesto on which the Government was elected; supports the Government’s commitment to agree a new and ambitious security agreement between the UK and the EU to help tackle common threats, whilst noting that NATO is the cornerstone of the UK’s defence; recognises the Government’s ambition to negotiate a sanitary and phytosanitary and veterinary agreement to address the cost of food and to tackle a range of other issues to reduce barriers to trade; and further supports improvements to the UK-EU relationship that are aimed at making the UK safer, more secure and more prosperous, in line with the Prime Minister’s Plan for Change. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Medical Devices and Blood Safety and Quality (Fees Amendment) Regulations, which were laid before this House on 3 April, be approved.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

House adjourned.