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.

European Union: UK Membership

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate Robert McMaster on creating this petition and I thank the 330 residents of my constituency who signed it—putting us in the top 5% in the country.

Five years ago, I gave my final speech in the European Parliament as leader of the Liberal Democrat group of MEPs. In that speech, I described Brexit as “a backward step” and as

“a vanity project that has no basis in reality.”

The fact that none of the four current Reform Members or any Conservatives—apart from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), who is bravely sitting on his own—is here in the Chamber to defend Brexit speaks volumes.

Leaving the European Union was a significant moment. We left a union of nations that was established to promote peace on our continent, that had seen the dismantling of barriers between nations, and that had enabled trade and cultural ties to flourish. In terms of international co-operation, what the European Union has achieved is second to none in the world. I still believe that we are stronger together and that, as a small island nation, we played a much bigger part on the international stage as one of the key members of that union.

Nobody wants to revisit the division and toxicity of the Brexit debate, which dominated our national discourse for years. I understand the hesitation of the Government even to go there, but we must not forget that that debate was fuelled by misinformation and outright lies about what leaving the European Union would mean for the UK. Ultimately, it was a playground rivalry between two of our now former Prime Ministers that played out on the national stage, with one side never really believing that they would win and the other not preparing the ground for what would be a seismic shift in the way we do business and trade with our nearest neighbours.

I still believe that leaving the EU was one of the worst decisions that this country has made, and it is what brought me into politics. Having sat in this Parliament as a Member for almost exactly the same amount of time as I sat in the European Parliament, I can honestly say that the democratic deficit is not in Brussels. As an Opposition MP in this place, I believe I have less influence over decisions that will affect the people and the economy of my constituency than I did as a Member of the European Parliament. A Government elected by just one in three voters in this country have secured the biggest majority—aside from 1997—since the second world war, and yet they have chosen to set themselves red lines around our relationship with the European Union that continue to thwart growth, hamper economic development and curtail the opportunities of our young people, all of which are unnecessary and deeply damaging to the standing and prosperity of the UK.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding—possibly, a wilful ignorance—by those in Government as to what the British public really want now. I will use the example of Brixham in my constituency. Brixham is one of the major fishing ports in the UK, a place where the community believed the lies that they were told about what Brexit would mean for the fishing industry. When campaigning in Brixham over the past couple of years, I lost count of the number of people who told me that they had been lied to and who felt cheated by Brexit. People who would never have wanted to elect a Liberal Democrat wore the yellow T-shirt with the “Stop Brexit” slogan back in 2019, and they went out to vote for me last year, because they are so angry at what they see as a betrayal of their trust.

[Dr Arthur]

I cannot resist—did the hon. Member say that people were so angry they voted Lib Dem?

[Caroline Voaden]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. People vote Lib Dem for lots of reasons—but maybe they do not think that we will betray them in the same way that the Conservatives did.

Only last week, with many colleagues, I returned to the European Parliament as part of the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly. While there, I heard the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), refer to research by Aston University that showed that exports to the European Union have fallen by 27% since Brexit. For a Government who want growth, that figure alone should be enough to change their attitude.

That figure is no surprise, however, to anyone who talks to some of the businesses in my constituency. One shellfish exporter tells me that they have to have 17 pieces of paper signed by a vet for every consignment of mussels they export to the EU, making it impossible to trade efficiently with their biggest customer and hampering growth in their business. A small household product retailer has had to end trade with all EU customers because of the new GPSR—general product safety regulation. Delicatessens struggle to cope with the red tape involved in importing smaller shipments of wine and food for the UK, which is the kind of regulations that only big suppliers are able to manage—I am sure that is repeated right across the country. A precision engineering company’s exports have also been badly affected by Brexit red tape—on and on it goes.

Apart from the impact on trade, the opportunities for our young people are being severely curtailed by Brexit. I will not revisit all the arguments that several Members have put forward in this debate, except to say that it is a tragedy that our children and grandchildren will not have the chances that we had—that so many of us had—to go to Europe to develop skills, including cultural understanding and language skills, and to bring all that experience back to the UK. It is high time that the Government agreed a youth mobility scheme with the EU. Last week, I welcomed the PPA agreement that said that the Government understood the need to establish a youth opportunity scheme, including apprenticeships. We all understand the need; let us hope that the Government will go further than that and address it.

Our country has been impoverished by Brexit in so many ways—economically, culturally and politically. I am sure that I am not the only one to be absolutely demoralised by the millions of hours of negotiations that took us out of the European Union, and now, potentially, the millions more that will go into negotiating the piecemeal, bit-by-bit replacements for all the benefits that we lost.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is being very generous with her time. On that point about the many hours taken to renegotiate and change the deal to get potential customs union access, we are now hearing talk from the Government about cutting waste in Whitehall. The irony is that the additional burden put on civil servants in Whitehall due to Brexit is now being spoken about as something that we need to get rid of. Does she have a suggestion for something the Government could do in relation to the European Union to reduce the workload for civil servants?

[Caroline Voaden]

If it were that easy, I am sure the Government would get rid of all that red tape at the stroke of a pen. Sadly, I do not think it is that straightforward.

It is not just about the hours that were wasted in those negotiations; the cost of all those civil servants’ time is unimaginable. I appreciate the scars borne by Members who served through those years, as referenced by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), but I do not agree that we should not revisit our intentions, given the clear evidence that we now have of the disaster that Brexit has been.

The Conservative Government wrecked the UK’s relationship with Europe. The current Labour Government say that they want a reset, but no one I spoke to in Brussels last week was clear what that really means. Fixing our broken relationship with Europe is the most obvious way to boost our economy, providing much-needed funding to fix our public services. The single biggest thing we can do to turbocharge our economy in the medium and long term is form a customs union with the EU, tearing down the trade barriers and shredding the red tape that is holding us back. We must also fix our trading relationship to protect Britain from Trump’s trade war.

The Liberal Democrats have always believed that we are stronger as part of Europe. It is a long road back and, thanks to the Conservatives, it will take a long time to rebuild trust, but we owe it to future generations to make it happen. Sadly, it is probably too early to campaign to rejoin the EU right now—it is not even an option on the table—but we must take concrete steps towards it, rather than just repeating meaningless warm words, and start rebuilding the shattered relationship. To answer the petitioner’s question of whether the UK should rejoin the EU, I will go out on a limb and say that yes, I believe we should.

High Street Businesses

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Matt Vickers]

As a former Woolies worker, I know only too well the consequences for businesses. Not only are we squeezing many businesses out of a future; there is a cost to be paid on the prices in those stores and costs on those jobs and the opportunities that they provide for young people and others to get on in life. There are huge costs to what has been done. We can only squeeze so far. The pips are definitely squeaking in retail.

Sainsbury’s has announced plans to axe 3,000 jobs. Retail and hospitality are already two of the most taxed businesses in our economy, but the sectors employ large numbers of people in entry-level or part-time roles, so are disproportionately hit. A CBI survey of business leaders found that 62% are slashing hiring plans. Almost half will be forced to lay off staff, and 46% are looking to delay pay rises for their workforce. Almost every Labour Government in history has left office with more people out of work than when they arrived. With these measures it looks like the Government are trying to set a record. All too often we see employment figures as numbers, but the jobs that will be lost as a result of this measure are not just numbers; they are families without the security of a pay packet, people stripped of ambitions, dreams and aspirations and left on the scrapheap.

The commercial director at the British Independent Retailers Association gave a realistic but depressing summary of what the Budget means for retailers. He said it was the

“Worst Budget for the high street in my 35 years working in retail”,

and that it showed a

“complete disregard for the thousands of…shop owners who form the backbone of our high streets. Small retailers, who have already endured years of challenging trading conditions, now face a perfect storm of crippling cost increases; their business rates will more than double…while they’re hit simultaneously with employer National Insurance increases.”

The outlook is bleak for traders because of the Budget, but it goes beyond that.

The previous Government sought to support high streets by responding to changing consumer habits and investing to reconfigure our town centres and create other reasons to go to them. Funds such as the community ownership fund allowed people to take back control of their community assets and turn around vacant, lifeless high streets. They were about more than a lick of paint. They were about creating valuable community spaces and restoring pride in our towns.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Dena, a constituent of mine who runs a small high street business, is seriously concerned about the possible removal of small business rate relief. Does the hon. Member agree that a commitment from the Government about the future of rate relief would give reassurance to high street business owners like Dena?

[Matt Vickers]

The hon. Member is right. For many small businesses, the specific relief for leisure, hospitality and retail has already been slashed from 75% to 40%, the end consequence being a more than doubling of what they are paying. It is just not affordable for businesses that are struggling to carry on employing people and doing business, especially with the other challenges that come their way. It is simply not affordable. It is the wrong thing to do, and it has a cost for our communities and those employers.

As I said, funds such as the community ownership fund were not just about a lick of paint but turning around vacant and lifeless high streets, and they created community spaces that were valued, restoring pride in our towns. What is more, community-owned assets are estimated to contribute £220 million to the economy each year.

My constituency of Stockton West saw real progress under the last Government in taking our town centres forward. In Thornaby, the £23.9 million town deal we secured from the last Government has allowed us to achieve many things, including the creation of a new vocational training centre, security and energy interventions in some of the most challenging housing, upgrades to cycling infrastructure and much more. It is allowing us to build a new swimming pool in the town centre, which will drive footfall to businesses.

For years, Thornaby’s skyline was dominated by the eyesore that was the disused Golden Eagle hotel, but now, thanks to money from the last Government and following a long debate with the council, it is finally coming down. Those moves are game changing for Thornaby. They will drive further footfall to local businesses and restore pride in our town centre.

Youth Mobility Scheme: EU

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a youth mobility scheme between the EU and the UK.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. The Government have committed to resetting our relationship with the EU, and the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary are actively engaging to build trust and rebuild relations with our European neighbours through meetings with the European Commission and the Foreign Affairs Council. The Liberal Democrats want to forge a new partnership with our European neighbours, one built on co-operation, not confrontation, and moving towards a new comprehensive agreement. A crucial step in that process is rebuilding confidence by agreeing partnerships and associations to help to restore prosperity and opportunities for British people.

In the light of the new Trump Administration in Washington, the Government are rightly looking to build a closer defence and security agreement with Europe. European officials, however, are insisting that those agreements come in tandem with other partnerships, including a youth mobility scheme. What is the Minister’s response to an article published this morning in the Financial Times stating that the EU has made it clear that a youth mobility scheme is “vital” to any broader reset with the UK, including security and defence?

Providing opportunities to young people should be at the heart of Government policy. The Liberal Democrats believe that establishing a youth mobility scheme would offer not only huge benefits to young people, but a broader range of benefits, including strengthening cultural, social and economic links between the EU and the UK.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

rose—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Sarah Olney]

I will give way first to my hon. Friend and then to the hon. Gentleman.

[Caroline Voaden]

The Government talk a lot about growth being crucial for restoring the public finances. Does my hon. Friend agree that sectors such as hospitality—it is important in my constituency of South Devon—are struggling from lack of staff? If we could restore a youth movement deal, we would have lots of enthusiastic European youngsters coming to the UK to learn English and help to boost productivity in that sector.

[Sarah Olney]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are so many vacancies across our hospitality and tourism sectors, and a youth mobility scheme could be instrumental in helping us to fill them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I do not share the hon. Member’s downbeat assessment, and neither does the European Union. Maroš Šefčovič himself said last week that our relationship with the EU is definitely in a more positive place. I hope the hon. Member welcomes that.

What we have is a very co-operative relationship. For example, I am responsible for the Windsor framework taskforce, which is in the new EU relations secretariat at the Cabinet Office, in the centre of Government. I am sure he would welcome the creation of this new secretariat as it prioritises this relationship, which is precisely what is being argued for in this debate. I will give him an example from when we first came to office, that of dental amalgam and EU regulations on mercury. In previous Administrations, that would have blown up into a significant row, but it did not. With our new, mature relationship, it was dealt with very pragmatically. He will not have to wait too long until the EU-UK summit, after which he will be able to see the concrete progress and deliverables he is asking for starting to take place. I say gently that he should welcome the progress and the constructive relationship that we have. I hope he does not have too long to wait for some more concrete outcomes, which are hugely important.

We are taking the discussions on the reset forward, and they fall, essentially, into three categories—three pillars, if you like. The first is about foreign policy and a more structured defence co-operation. We have already made progress. The Foreign Secretary and the High Representative have already agreed on six-monthly foreign policy dialogues. That agreement is already in place and we will move further forward on that.

The second category is about the safety of our citizens, so on judicial and law enforcement co-operation. The hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) challenges me on concrete progress and we have already increased the National Crime Agency presence at Europol. I visited Europol in opposition, as did the now Prime Minister and the now Home Secretary. We are determined to work more closely together on serious and organised crime—from the vile crime of people smuggling to issues such as fraud, money laundering and drug trafficking—to ensure that there is nowhere on our continent where criminals can find a place to hide from the force of the law.

The third category is looking to make significant progress on trade and reducing trade barriers. We were elected on a manifesto with a very firm framework that we would not rejoin the single market or the customs union, or go back to freedom of movement, but that manifesto contained examples of what we wanted to secure, which we have a mandate from the people to negotiate. That includes a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, which will reduce trade barriers significantly for agriculture and agri-food products, mutual recognition of professional qualifications for our services industries, and what we can do to make it so much easier for our touring artists to once again be able to tour the EU, and for European artists to come here. On those aspects that are within the trade and co-operation agreement as it stands, we will already have to move forward on negotiation. A good example of that is energy, where the trade and co-operation agreement is already putting an obligation on the UK and EU to look at how they operate the emissions trading scheme. There is a substantial agenda that the Government will be taking forward.

[Caroline Voaden]

Since the election, I have seen and heard lots of evidence of more conversations happening between the UK and the EU than did over the previous few years, so I accept what you are saying about a rapprochement and a more positive engagement. You say that the Government are keen to increase trade—

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but “you” is me; she means “he”, in other words the Minister.

[Caroline Voaden]

I apologise, Sir Jeremy. The Government are saying that they want to increase trade with the European Union. Could the Minister comment on how helpful he thinks it is when suggestions are put forward by the European Union? Last week, for example, we had a suggestion of a pan-European Mediterranean customs agreement, which could benefit the just-in-time supply trade and complex manufacturing in this country, but was instantly dismissed by the Government. Would the Minister like to comment on how helpful he thinks that is?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I disagree with the hon. Lady’s descriptions of PEM as a customs agreement—that is not quite how it operates, or is meant to operate.

Secondly, I observe that on the various proposals and comments, the Government will of course be expected to refer to their manifesto commitments, for which we have a mandate. I have always said constructively that of course, within our red lines, we will always listen to the proposals that the EU puts forward. That was the message the Government sent out. I also observe that my very constructive, positive relationship with Maroš Šefčovič is evidence of proposals going between us that are being very constructively received on both sides. Do not take my word for it: have a look at Maroš Šefčovič’s interview from last week where he was asked about his relationship with me and how that is going, and he was very clear about what a positive, different place it is in. The proof is in what is being said on both sides.

Further, I am interested in this press on progress, because I took the time before coming to this debate to have a look at the Liberal Democrat manifesto at the last election, which included a four-step process. I would gently say that if we were doing a four-step process we might take significantly longer than has been taken.