Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am deeply sorry to hear about the case that my hon. Friend raises. We are the party of the NHS, and we will always fight to ensure that it remains free at the point of use. We inherited an NHS on its knees, but we are seeing progress: waiting lists are down; patient satisfaction is improving; and we have the best ambulance response times for half a decade. There is much more to do, but we are delivering the investment that is needed—and it was opposed by who? The Tories and the now departed Reform Members.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Q11.  My constituent Susan suffered horrific, unimaginable, lifelong injury from a pelvic mesh implant. She lost her business, her marriage and her health, and lives in constant 24-hour pain. I would like to congratulate the new Minister for Public Health—the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson)—on her appointment, after her tireless campaigning on this issue, which has clearly been recognised. However, more than two years after the Hughes report set out clear recommendations for redress, thousands of women such as Susan are still waiting for a Government response. Can the Prime Minister tell Susan and the thousands of other women like her how much longer they will have to wait?

[The Prime Minister]

Can I thank the hon. Member for raising Susan’s case? It is really important that she does so, and I am deeply sorry for the enduring harm that patients have suffered. Ministers have met campaigners and the Patient Safety Commissioner to discuss their recommendations, and I can assure the hon. Lady we will provide a full response to the Hughes report recommendations at the earliest opportunity. I am happy for Ministers to update her on the actions we have taken and to discuss the particular case that she has raised with me.

Extreme Climate and Weather Events: National Resilience

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jayne Kirkham]

Of course, the EA has struggled with funding for the past 10 years, after it had been cut so badly.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is being very generous with her time. In my constituency, several homes along the seafront were very badly damaged by storms in February, and as they cannot be lived in, the residents have been evacuated. Seafront protection, which is a responsibility of the Environment Agency, is key—particularly if those people are to live in their houses again—but the Environment Agency tells me that there is no emergency funding, and it cannot suddenly shore up the sea defences. The work would have to go through the normal process of allocation, and it might take up to two years before money can be allocated to improve the coastal defences in front of the houses of Torcross. For the people who have been moved out of their homes, that is an absolute disaster. Does she agree that, as we encounter more extreme weather events, the Environment Agency must be more flexible and nimble, and should be able to access funding quicker in order to shore up defences?

[Jayne Kirkham]

Yes, a great deal of work will have to be done in future, because this will not get better; it will get worse.

Businesses that rely on electricity and broadband are paralysed by outages during extreme weather events, and hospitals risk losing power or water. Heavy rainfall has even led to overflowing septic tanks and sewage spilling out on to streets in Cornwall, creating serious risks to public health. So much of Cornwall’s economy depends on our coast. When beaches, cafés, coastal roads and car parks are under managed realignment in the new shoreline management plan epoch, coastal places will lose their staple industries, and entire communities face existential threats from rising sea levels and coastal erosion. A lot of work is being done across Government, particularly on the water industry and flooding preparedness, which I welcome, but we need to protect communities from the inevitable march of climate change and act with greater urgency.

The urgency of the situation was obvious when Storm Goretti struck Cornwall on 8 and 9 January 2026. It triggered a rare Met Office red warning, with gusts of around 120 mph, and inflicted severe damage on our homes and infrastructure. We lost over 1,000 trees, 121,000 customers lost power, and thousands lost access to clean water. Roads were blocked, communities cut off, and schools, care homes and hospitals faced unprecedented strain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jayne Kirkham]

I agree. A better way of sharing data must be found. Different utility companies and the council had different lists, and the parishes could not get hold of them at all. That is a really important issue.

[Caroline Voaden]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Jayne Kirkham]

Really quickly.

[Caroline Voaden]

On the point about utility companies, we had a major gas outage in South Devon at the beginning of the year. We had a problem that is probably very familiar to MPs in Cornwall; the utility company could not trace who owned the second homes, because the homeowners were not there. As the utility company was working through an intermediary energy supplier, it did not have the data on who the customer was. That meant that the power was switched off for about three days, when it could have been switched off for only a few hours. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is a serious problem in areas like ours, where there is a large proportion of second homes?

[Jayne Kirkham]

I do. Second homes are a whole other debate.

Every parish should be able to identify a community hub that residents can go to in an emergency. It should have a generator, battery packs, blankets, food, and a pre-registered list of volunteers. I know that parishes in Cornwall are considering that, but it could be encouraged across the UK and co-ordinated at a higher-tier council level—maybe across a local or national level. We could look again at the Bellwin scheme, and at how category 2 and category 1 responders respond to these issues.

Finally, there is a conversation to be had about personal resilience. We all need to be more prepared. Having a basic emergency kit sounds simple, but it makes a big difference.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important question. These AI solutions are only as good as their ability to serve the public fairly; equality should be built in at the start. The AI Safety Institute and officials at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology work across Government to ensure that those values and ethics are built into programmes as they are developed by the Government.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

14. What steps his Department is taking to provide households with information on emergency preparedness.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)]

The Government’s Prepare website provides emergency preparedness advice to the public, including information about signing up for emergency alerts and warnings and preparing their home for emergencies. By using this advice, including the downloadable household emergency plan, people can improve their emergency preparedness, regardless of the cause of the emergency.

[Caroline Voaden]

As the Minister will know, a recent gas outage in my constituency left thousands of people without power, many for several days, and Cornwall has recently seen huge disruption from storm Goretti. Those incidents highlight how vulnerable households can be when essential services are disrupted. Given impending climate breakdown and the increasingly uncertain geopolitical environment, will he outline whether the Government are considering any kind of personalised, nationwide information campaign to help people prepare for a crisis? Not everyone will look at the gov.uk website. The Dutch Government have recently sent a 33-page booklet on emergency preparedness to every home in the country, so that people know what they need to do in a crisis.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful for the points the hon. Lady raises. We look very carefully at what international allies are saying about these matters. I am concerned to hear about the situation in her constituency. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero works closely with industry, regulators and other stakeholders to improve and maintain the resilience and security of energy infrastructure. When incidents occur, as they have in her constituency—even exceptionally disruptive ones—industry has tried and tested response plans to minimise disruption to customers as quickly as possible. That said, I am keen to further increase our resilience, so if she would like to write to me, I will look closely at what she has to say.

UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I spoke this morning, I had in my mind someone who wants to do some basketball coaching, or perhaps an engineer on an apprenticeship who has chosen not to go to university but who might well, none the less, want to go on a placement abroad. Those are just some examples of the wide range of benefits that I hope his constituents in Harlow will be able to benefit from.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I warmly welcome the Erasmus agreement that the Minister has announced, which is a Christmas present for young people. Turning to the SPS agreement that he is negotiating, I hope that those negotiations will be just as successful because that is undoubtedly in the best interests of this country. Can he confirm for me and some very invested constituents of mine that bivalve molluscs, or mussels, will be included in the SPS agreement that he is currently negotiating?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

First of all, the SPS agreement is a great priority. I am fully aware of the issue with bivalve molluscs, or indeed—from memory—shellfish from class B waters. I am willing to speak directly to the hon. Lady about bivalve molluscs—perhaps she will write to me about that—but I can tell her that the SPS agreement will mean that for products we currently cannot export to the EU, such as British bangers, we will be able to do so again.

Digital ID

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am here because I have been contacted by countless residents who are deeply concerned about the Government’s announcement on the introduction of digital ID to provide the right to work—that was a mouthful. Their concerns are legitimate, reasonable and deserve to be heard in this place.

My constituents have raised a number of issues. First and foremost is privacy and data security; residents have referred to recent hacks at M&S and Land Rover. The question is simple: if cyber systems have been hacked before, why should constituents trust that their most sensitive personal information will be safe? They ask whether the Government can truly guarantee resilience against cyber-attacks, system failures or misuse of personal data.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mr Alaba]

I am sorry, but I will carry on.

There is also a question of practicality. In reality, will digital ID prevent employers from hiring individuals who do not have the right to work, or will it simply introduce another layer of bureaucracy without addressing the roots of the problem?

Many constituents are concerned about inclusion. What happens to those who struggle with digital technology or do not have access to a smartphone? Will they be able to rely on their passport or driver’s licence? We must not leave behind people who, through no fault of their own, cannot immediately sign up for digital ID, or let that prevent their right to work. Ultimately, constituents have a right to know that their information will be safe, protected and free from unnecessary intervention or misuse.

I do, however, recognise that digital ID could bring real benefits if it is implemented properly, safely and transparently. A well-designed national digital identification system has the potential to enhance security, reduce fraud and streamline how citizens interact with public services. It could consolidate the right to work, healthcare, immigration status and other essential services into a single secure and accessible platform, reducing paperwork and improving efficiency. Law enforcement could benefit from quicker, more reliable identification processes, helping to curb illegal employment. It could provide a form of identification to those who currently lack traditional documents, empowering disadvantaged or marginalised groups—I have to emphasise that, because I think it has been missed in this debate.

I am not opposed to digital ID in principle. It could be an asset for the future, but it has to be done right. If digital ID for the right to work is to be introduced, it must be implemented safely, fairly and transparently, so that the benefits that it promises can be felt by everyone in our society without compromising the rights and protections that our constituents rightly expect. I urge the Minister to listen carefully to the concerns raised by residents in my constituency and across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. As we rightly modernise the way people interact with public services, introducing a new digital credential offers real opportunity. I can envisage it making everyday tasks much more convenient, whether that is proving your age, opening a bank account or completing right-to-work checks, and I can see it doing so in a more tailored and personalised way. I can also see there being quicker remedies if things go wrong, with the possibility of current credentials being lost or stolen. If we had a digital credential, it could be revoked and reissued more quickly.

I would, however, like to raise two concerns that have come through quite strongly from my constituents. The first is about the security of data that people will be required to share. One constituent told me that they are fearful of their data being put at risk, particularly through the creation of a honeypot for hackers and foreign adversaries. My constituents rightly want to know that only essential information would be shared in each transaction; that data would be encrypted and securely stored; and that the system will be able to keep pace with the many evolving cyber-threats out there.

[Caroline Voaden]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Laura Kyrke-Smith]

I will make progress.

People are right to be cautious about handing over their personal data, and they are right to expect a firm commitment that Government will do everything in their power to protect them. Can the Minister provide some reassurance on that point?

Secondly, I have heard from people who believe that introducing digital credentials is the right step, but who are concerned that their elderly relatives, people with disabilities or people without smartphone access, for whatever reason, will not be able to participate. Can the Minister also provide some reassurance that no one, regardless of whether they own a smartphone or have internet access, will be left behind in this scheme?

I know that other countries have rolled out digital credentials very successfully. Estonia’s model is very interesting; users still have a lot of control over their data, and they can see what it is being used for and who has accessed it. As we look at our options, I hope that we will learn from what works in other countries and ensure that we put the same protections in place so that people can remain in control of their personal data as best they can.

I know that we have a long way to go with the consultation, but I really welcome the fact that it is happening. I encourage my constituents to feed in their concerns, and it is really important that this policy lands in the right place. I welcome the Minister’s feedback on the points that I have raised about data privacy and security, as well as digital inclusion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noah Law]

I will turn the question back on the hon. Gentleman. What is the cost of not doing this? What is the cost of inaction? I have heard very little today from Opposition Members about how much a digital ID scheme will alleviate the costs currently associated with some processes, but I would welcome such input.

On a personal level, I have lived in a country with a digital ID system that works well, is widely supported and has had very few issues. Just because I can log in here on my phone does not mean that there is some pesky Finn from the Suojelupoliisi out there logging in to watch my every move. That is not quite how these things work in practice. I know some people might well find this difficult to believe, given the dystopian way of the world today, but this scheme is no conspiracy.

[Caroline Voaden]

Many of my constituents have raised concerns about cyber-security risks. Centralising so much information in one place creates an attractive target for hackers and hostile actors. Does the hon. Member agree that Government systems are not immune from such risks?

[Noah Law]

The hon. Member makes an important point that such systems are by no means immune, but I argue that the systems that we have in place at the minute are hardly secure.

[Caroline Voaden]

Exactly, and why would this be better?

[Noah Law]

This scheme presents a much better opportunity to ensure that we have the correct security procedures in place, versus some of our current insecure measures.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his honesty. It is never easy to stand up and say what he has, and I hope he understands just how important that is for others who are suffering, who will be inspired to talk openly about their experiences, and, importantly, to get the help that they need.

I am really proud to publish the first-ever men’s health strategy today to tackle challenges that disproportionately affect men, including certain cancers and suicide, which is tragically the biggest killer of men under 50. We will invest millions in helping more men access mental health support, in better care for former miners, and in rolling out at-home blood tests to tackle prostate cancer. I thank my hon. Friend for speaking out; I think it is so brave and important. It has been done across the House—this is not a party political issue—but it is always very powerful. It is a model for all of us.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Q2.  Given the Government’s desire to improve our children’s educational outcomes and wellbeing, they are ignoring the elephant in the room. This morning I hosted a powerful roundtable with three secondary headteachers who spoke about the transformational effect that a complete ban on smartphones in their schools had had—improved behaviour, increased focus, far fewer safeguarding issues, and, most importantly, happier children. But for them the ban has been hard won, and it has sunk a huge amount of time. Will the Prime Minister tell me, and the thousands of headteachers out there who are crying out for this change, why his Government will not back them with a ban on smartphones in schools?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for her important question. I have teenage children in secondary school, and I know this is an issue for concerned parents and teachers. The reality of the statistics is that the majority of schools already ban smartphones—[Interruption.] They allow children to bring their phones to school but they ban them in schooltime and lessons. Of course we will always keep this under review, but we have got to take steps that will be effective. I agree with the sentiment of what the hon. Member is putting to me, but we need to deal with it effectively.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend’s sister Margaret, who was a guiding figure in the Labour party and left a powerful legacy in helping us to tackle brain cancer. We are determined to improve cancer survival rates and hit all NHS waiting times in relation to cancer so that no patient waits longer than they should. That is why we are investing £1.5 billion in new surgical hubs and diagnostic scanners to help deliver over 30,000 more procedures and over 1.2 million diagnostic tests.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I recently met about 20 independent local traders in Totnes who are furious that the last bank in town will close in January and that Link has refused to consider a banking hub. My businesses and constituents—1,100 of them have signed a petition—deserve better. The Prime Minister just told the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) that a banking hub can be rolled out wherever a community needs one, so will he now back my campaign, ask his Ministers to write to Link and instruct it to grant a banking hub to Totnes, and review the eligibility of rural towns for such hubs so that we can keep our vital high streets alive?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that. She will have heard the answer I gave a few moments ago. I will ensure that she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister so that she can put the case for the banking hub in question.

Government Resilience Action Plan

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

This is very important. There is no doubt that there are gaps in cyber-defences, and there is an ongoing battle to get up to speed. Many legacy systems that have been in place for decades are difficult to replace, because new has been built on old. We are investing, but it is an ongoing effort to close the gaps to stop those who would undermine the vital public services that rely on those systems.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

One of the vulnerabilities that we saw in the pandemic, after the invasion of Ukraine and even during the “beast from the east” winter storm was to food supplies, but I did not hear the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster refer to food in his statement. Finland’s national food supply can sustain the country for up to nine months; it includes strategic food reserves and grain stockpiles. Germany advises citizens to keep a 10-day stockpile of food and water. Our reliance on imports makes our food supply vulnerable to global events such as pandemics and geopolitical instability. What action are the Government taking to increase our food security?

[Pat McFadden]

The gov.uk/prepare website refers to having a supply of food and water in case of an emergency. We recently struck an agreement with the European Union that will remove a huge amount of the cost, bureaucracy and delay in ensuring the free flow of food to and from the European Union. That is a good agreement for food security.

UK-EU Summit

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The deal will massively help my hon. Friend’s constituents because it will bring costs down. Morrisons is not the only supermarket that has come out in support of the agreement—pretty well all the supermarkets have come out openly supporting it. There is a reason for that: it will bring the prices on their shelves down, and that is good for working people across the country.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I welcome the SPS part of yesterday’s agreement, as I am sure will all the farmers of South Devon and those exporting fish and shellfish from Brixham. The Prime Minister may not know the answer to my question, but perhaps one of his Ministers will. Will bivalve molluscs that are fished in grade B waters, which are very important for one of my major exporters, be included in the SPS agreement?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady raises an important issue. I am not going to pretend that I have the answer in my back pocket, but I will make sure that she gets a proper, detailed answer to her question, which she can then make use of with her constituents.

UK-EU Summit

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[James MacCleary]

Absolutely not. The common fisheries policy did a lot of damage to British fishing, as the common agricultural policy did to farming.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

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.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir 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.

[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?

[Sir 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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

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.