Israeli Settlements: Trade Ban

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I warmly thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing this much-needed debate. It is much-needed, because despite the fact that we have discussed the need for a ban on settlement trade on numerous occasions in this Chamber, and despite the fact that colleagues from all parts of the House have repeatedly called on the Government to ban settlement trade, for the past two years we have heard nothing from this Government except excuses. That is simply unacceptable, because we in this country are complicit in what is happening. Failing to ban settlement trade means that money from Britain is actively supporting the perpetuation of the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, and the clock is ticking. We debated just last week the E1 settlement expansion, which will put to death any prospect of a two-state solution and any prospect of lasting peace in Israel and Palestine if it is not stopped.

The Government have an obligation to do everything in their power to pressure the Israeli Government to stop the illegal expansion of illegal settlements and the violence that goes along with it. There is a moral obligation. There is an international legal obligation, too. Two years ago, the International Court of Justice issued an opinion stating that very clearly. One of the excuses we repeatedly hear from the Government is that the opinion is only advisory, but we have UN resolutions and UN commissions of inquiry that state that there is a clear legal obligation on the UK Government to do everything possible to not provide material support to illegal occupation. There is a clear moral obligation, too.

We hear two excuses repeated by this Government. One is that we cannot do this alone, and have to work in concert. We heard that yet again last week from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer). We heard it in June last year, when I raised this precise issue with him in a debate that I led on tackling Israeli genocide in Gaza. He said:

“at the moment no European power bans settlement trade in the way that she describes. It is something that we talk to our partners and allies about.”—[Official Report, 17 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 66WH.]

Since then, as we have heard, Spain has implemented a ban, as have the Netherlands, Belgium and Ireland, and it is possible that the entire EU will. Our neighbours and partners are moving far faster than us, yet the UK bears a specific historical responsibility for this situation. How is it that our Government are abdicating that responsibility and enabling the perpetuation of a situation that will actively counteract their declaration last year of their recognition of the state of Palestine? One excuse from the Government is that we need to work together, yet others are way ahead of us. Is it not time for the UK at least to catch up, even if we cannot bring ourselves to show leadership?

The other excuse we hear is that a ban is too difficult, but as colleagues across the Chamber have already pointed out, it was not too difficult when it came to Russia or Crimea. We have the legislation in place, the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. We could put the provisions in place now.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is doing an excellent job of expressing the moral outrage shared by constituents from Herefordshire to Sunderland to Sheffield, but does she agree that if it is possible for international groups to find origin fraud relating to goods that originate from illegal settlements on the west bank, but are incorrectly labelled as being from within Israel, it is entirely possible for the British Government to do the same? There is no valid reason there for our not implementing sanctions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. One of the other excuses we hear from the Government is that settlement goods do not benefit from the preferential trade agreement that we have with Israel. That implies that it is already possible to distinguish between settlement goods and non-settlement goods, under existing provisions that we should be enforcing. Fundamentally, as has been pointed out, the shoe should be on the other foot. If Israeli exporters cannot prove that their exports do not come from illegal settlements, they should not be able to export to us. We should be absolutely certain. We must make it clear that it is unacceptable for British money to be at any risk of supporting the continuation of these illegal settlements. There is no excuse.

We do not have the excuse that we have to wait for other countries to move, because they have moved ahead of us; and we do not have the excuse that this is too technically difficult, because the legal framework already exists, so what are the Government waiting for? Why will they not take this step? Will the Minister recognise the absolute imperative on the UK to take this step now, or will we hear yet more excuses from him when he sums up?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I will have no choice but to reduce the time limit to four minutes after the next speaker.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend’s really important question. As I have said throughout this session, we are investing in young people and people in work, so they can adapt to the changes happening in the economy because of the transition to digital technology, particularly with AI. We are providing flexible support through bursaries for younger learners and learner support funding for adults. Do not forget the work that Business and Trade Ministers are doing jointly with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to ensure that people in the workplace are trained and have all the skills they need to thrive in the digital age.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Small rural businesses in villages such as Pembridge in my constituency tell me that the combination of high business and VAT rates and rising national insurance contributions means they are facing a struggle for survival. Small rural businesses face greater pressure than their urban counterparts, with lower footfall and seasonal fluctuations in trade, so they operate with very tight margins. Does the Minister recognise the additional pressures faced by such businesses and that existing support schemes simply are not enough, and what more will he do to support businesses in constituencies such as mine?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

Of course, we recognise that this has been not just a tough time for small businesses, but a tough decade for those running one. That is exactly why our small business strategy is improving access to markets for small businesses, improving access to finance for small businesses, and cutting the regulatory burden on small businesses. We will of course keep doing more to make it easier, simpler and more profitable to run one.

Human Rights: Supply Chains

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I am sure I speak for us all in extending warm thanks to you for stepping into the breach at the last minute to enable us to have this timely and important debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing it.

It is clear that UK business has global environmental and human rights impacts. UK business has impacts on climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, waste management, deforestation, and of course on human rights and labour rights, as we have already discussed. The Government have acknowledged those concerns.

This debate comes at a particularly timely moment because, as the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green pointed out, we await with bated breath the Government release of announcements. I note that the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) tabled a question to the Secretary of State in January asking when the responsible business conduct review would be published. The Minister for Trade responded with one word: “Soon.” It is now five months later, so perhaps today’s Minister could assure us in her wind-up that soon really will mean soon. We would very much appreciate seeing that review.

Although we have some parts of an existing legal framework—for example, the Modern Slavery Act and the Environment Act 2021—they are too narrow to meet internationally accepted standards. Single-issue measures such as robust legislation to prevent and address modern slavery, including through import and export restrictions of goods and services that involve forced labour, are useful but not in themselves sufficient to address the full range of human rights and environmental risks and harms. In particular, if they require companies only to report, rather than to take action, they do not have the force that we need.

The UK risks falling behind its international partners. The UK was once a frontrunner on environmental and human rights legislation, but progress has stalled. The EU’s corporate sustainability due diligence directive will apply, of course, to UK companies that generate significant turnover in EU markets, meaning that UK businesses will face mandatory due diligence obligations abroad without equivalent domestic standards at home. That does not make sense. The UK would be better able to produce and sell goods and services in the EU single market, as well as continue to position itself strongly as a global leader on human rights, if we had our own mandatory environmental and human rights due diligence legislation.

It is not just campaigners who are calling for that; business is calling for a new law. A clear majority of businesses surveyed by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law believe that current UK laws do not provide clarity or sufficient legal certainty on human rights obligations. Nearly three quarters of UK businesses believe that additional regulation would provide benefits, including greater legal certainty and a level playing field. Indeed, I met with people from a large business in my own constituency just a couple of weeks ago who made exactly that point. A level playing field is needed. Business is calling for it.

As has already been reflected, major businesses including the British Retail Consortium, John Lewis Partnership, Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Twinings are all calling for new mandatory due diligence laws on human rights and the environment. As we have also heard, over 160 businesses and investors representing trillions of pounds of investment are calling for the failure to prevent liability model. That failure to prevent model is what underpins the Bribery Act 2010. We already have the legal model in UK legislation that we can adopt in the same way. We do not have to reinvent the wheel; it is simply about applying the wheel more consistently. Three parliamentary Committees have already recommended this. Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights has specifically recommended legislation modelled on the failure to prevent framework of the Bribery Act 2010.

We have business calling for that legislation. We have parliamentary Committees and parliamentarians calling for it. The Good Business Matters pledge has secured cross-party support from over 80 MPs and peers from eight different political parties. We also have public support: 145,000 citizens have signed a petition calling for such legislation, and a YouGov survey indicates that three quarters of the British population support stronger legislation in this area.

In summary, introducing mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation is not only the right thing to do to protect the environment and human rights around the world and to be consistent; it is good for our economy. We miss out on opportunities by not adopting such legislation. It is called for urgently by major businesses that want the Government to support them in showing leadership in this area. It is strongly called for by British citizens, who care—people in this country really care about the standards under which our goods and services are produced. We see that in the strong outcry about the continued import of goods and services from stolen land in Israeli settlements in the west bank; in the outcry over the import of goods that are produced under slave labour conditions by Uyghurs in China; and in the outcry over the import of goods and services that result in deforestation, environmental devastation and climate damage. It is time for the Government to act, and I very much hope that the Minister will assure us that they will do so soon.

Fairtrade Certification

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for presenting the case for Fairtrade, and for fairer trade practices overall, so compellingly. I also pay tribute to everybody who has been part of the Fairtrade campaign for many decades. I have been involved in it for at least 30 years, and it is a fantastic example of a widely supported public campaign that has, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, found its way into our schools and communities, and also into our supermarkets, making it easy for people to choose Fairtrade products. That is fantastic and to be celebrated.

This is not just about individual shopping choices, important though they are; it is also about ensuring a level playing field for all producers, so that good environmental, human rights and workers’ rights practices are not an optional add-on but fundamental to the way we do business. That is why I warmly welcome the Brew it Fair campaign and the petition handed in at Downing Street yesterday. I was involved in the delivery of a similar petition a few months ago with the Corporate Justice Coalition. Again, that had well over 100,000 signatures from citizens across the country calling for mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation. We have to ensure that the positive practice encapsulated by Fairtrade is not just an optional extra, but how business is done.

More than 80 MPs have signed an early-day motion in support of the Fairtrade tea campaign and mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation. The reasons for supporting such legislation are clear. Introducing that horizontal legislation that obliges all UK businesses to take steps to prevent human rights and environmental risks in their supply chains, all the way down to smallholder farmers and workers, is the single most cost-effective measure we could take to support sustainability in the food system and to improve the UK’s international reputation for action to create a climate- compatible, sustainable, rights-supporting economy.

We have some legislation on supply chain transparency, but it is insufficient and riddled with loopholes. Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires companies to report on their operations, but not to take reasonable steps to address and prevent the problem—and prevention must be central to this. Schedule 17 to the Environment Act 2021 applies only to commodities identified as key drivers of the UK’s deforestation footprint, such as cattle products excluding dairy and cocoa, palm oil and soy. That is important, but it is narrow in scope.

Human rights and environmental due diligence should not be addressed in silos, where businesses often face the challenge of potentially trading off one sort of risk against another. If we had mandatory requirements on human rights and environmental due diligence, that would provide the consistency and level playing field that businesses need. Businesses that already source their food responsibly—whether voluntarily or because they are covered by the direct scope of the European corporate sustainability due diligence directive—would not be put at a competitive disadvantage by mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation in the UK.

If the legislation were designed correctly, it would reduce the risk of abuses or poor practices in supply chains, put farmers and workers on track to earn a decent livelihood to keep their families’ heads above water, and help end issues such as gendered, racial and pay discrimination, forced labour, child labour, undignified and unsafe working conditions, the denial of workers’ rights to freely associate, and lack of care and consideration for water sources and biodiversity. All those problems could be better prevented if we made such a change in the law.

I warmly welcome the Department for Business and Trade’s responsible business conduct review. It is a critical opportunity to introduce comprehensive, inclusive and enforceable legislation on human rights, labour rights and environmental protection in supply chains, and it is crucial that we take it forward.

Finally, I want to echo a point that a couple of other Members have made. We need to ensure that trade is fair. We need to ensure that these fundamental rights are built into the normal way of doing business. The UK’s foreign aid budget is a crucial element in supporting this work. It is vital that we restore it, so that we play our part in supporting and enforcing human rights globally. Will the Minister tell us whether the responsible business conduct review will include mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation, and will he respond to my point on the aid budget?

Oral Answers to Questions

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

This is obviously a hugely concerning time for the workers in Mossmoran, their families and the wider community. The Government have been in regular contact with the company. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) met with the Business Secretary recently and has been trying to engage with the company as much as she possibly can. The company has faced significant global challenges, including closing a chemical plant in France. We stand ready to provide whatever support we can, but the issues she has raised are obviously deeply concerning. I know that the Business Secretary will look to speak to her and others to ensure that we have as robust a response as possible and that we support the workforce at what is obviously an extremely difficult time.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

With just a few days of COP30 left, it is incredibly disappointing that UK climate leadership is at risk because of the Government’s decision not to contribute to the tropical forest forever facility to end forest destruction. Can the Minister please confirm whether reports that that decision is under review are accurate? Can he assure the House that the UK will play its part in contributing directly to taking its fair share of ending forest destruction?

[Michael Shanks]

We are taking a leading role at COP and at home by driving forward the clean power mission, which requires the infrastructure that the Green party regularly opposes—the party talks on this issue, but it does not actually deliver it. We are at COP fighting for Britain’s interests and playing our part in leading the world and ensuring that collectively we can collaborate to tackle the most existential crisis the planet faces, and we will continue to make that a key priority of this Government.

ExxonMobil: Mossmorran

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

All I will say is that in a situation like this, I would expect every part of the governance system in the UK, whether that is the Westminster Government, the Scottish Government or local authorities, to act with a single-minded interest in the workforce and the communities affected.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Today’s announcement by ExxonMobil—a company that made £25 billion of profit last year—will be devastating for the workers, their families and the communities in and around Mossmorran. Does it not just show that ExxonMobil does not give a fig for its workers; it just prioritises profiteering? Does the Minister agree that the fossil fuel giants cannot be trusted to protect jobs or the planet? Will he commit to investing new resources to ensure a genuinely just transition in which the voices of workers are central to the debate, so that they are not left to the whims of these profiteering fossil fuel giants?

[Chris McDonald]

I point the hon. Member in the direction of our clean energy jobs plan, where we set out how that transition can be effected. There is also the £5.8 billion that we have committed to the National Wealth Fund to support investment in new projects. The transition of workforce and communities is very important to me and to this Government. Not all companies are the same; many different companies operate in different ways. This Government are absolutely committed to working with the private sector to achieve this transition, but in a way that is a partnership between Government, industry and trade unions. We are committed to that.

Carbon Budget Delivery Plan

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for securing it. To be honest, I am a bit disappointed that the Secretary of State did not come to the House to make a statement about the carbon budget delivery plan, especially given that the previous one was in breach of the Climate Change Act 2008, and given the urgency of the UK’s meeting not just its statutory domestic climate targets but its international obligations under the Paris climate agreement.

It is obvious that UK climate action has important domestic and international ramifications. We are holding this debate while COP30 takes place. The UN has warned that the goal of a 1.5°C limit is fragile. According to the UN Secretary-General, the current plans put forward by nation states to cut emissions will put the world on a pathway to 2.3°C of global warming if they are fully implemented, and yet the UK’s new carbon budget delivery plan will fall short of our own commitments under the COP process, via our nationally determined contributions. The delivery plan is looking to achieve 96% of the cuts for the 2030 NDC and 99% for the 2035 NDC. That does not even reflect the fact that the UK’s NDC commitments themselves fail to take account of the scale of ambition needed to tackle the burning reality of the climate crisis, in line with what the climate science demands, and to reflect the UK’s historic responsibilities—and therefore moral obligation—to take a fairer share of the global need to cut emissions.

The Government’s carbon budget delivery plan is absolutely better than previous versions—let’s face it, it was a low baseline—but it is still wanting, both in global terms and in terms of facing the climate reality. That needs to change; even more ambition is required.

The hon. Member for Sheffield Central talked about the warm homes plan and the wider need for investment, particularly in the housing sector. We must ensure all our homes are fully fit for the future. As she said, it must be recognised across Government that climate action is absolutely central. It is not just about tackling our carbon emissions; it is also a really important way to tackle inequality and generate a resilient, jobs-rich economy that will secure long-term prosperity for us all.

There are of course things to welcome in the carbon budget delivery plan, including tougher energy standards for the private rented and social rented sectors, welcome signals on heat pumps and so on, but to make our homes really fit for the future we need to think even bigger. We need to minimise embodied carbon in the housing sector, and maximise on-site energy generation, biodiversity in the construction of new homes and resilience in things such as flooding and overheating, which is crucial in tackling the impacts of the climate crisis, which is hitting harder and harder. Every new home—especially every new social home—must be built to the highest standards.

We urgently need the warm homes plan. It is deeply concerning that there are rumours that the Government are seeking to rob Peter to pay Paul by taking money away from the warm homes plan—that crucial long-term investment in insulating our homes and making them fit for the future so that people have cheaper bills. We must not put a short-term sticking plaster on bills. We need both, not one or the other—[Interruption.]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division in the House. We will suspend for 15 minutes, and when we return Ellie will draw her speech to its conclusion reasonably speedily.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Dr Chowns]

I will conclude with three brief points. First, reframing the carbon budget delivery plan as a growth plan takes things in the wrong direction. It is the myth of infinite growth on a finite planet that got us into this mess in the first place, and that is driving the climate and nature crisis. This moment demands climate action that is rooted in tackling inequality, not feeding the pockets of developers and big oil bosses.

That brings me to my next point. The science on fossil fuels is unequivocal. In addition to the positive measures in the carbon budget delivery plan, we have to keep fossil fuels in the ground. Rosebank and Jackdaw cannot—must not—go ahead.

My final point is to put on record my thanks to Friends of the Earth for challenging the last plan in court and for its ongoing commitment to holding Governments to account. All this is possible only because of the Climate Change Act 2008. We all have a responsibility to uphold that incredibly important piece of legislation, which is key to ensuring that together we build a sustainable future for our country.

The British public remain very supportive of ambitious climate action. They want to know that measures are being taken to transition the economy, build a sustainable future and tackle the huge risks of climate breakdown. We all have a responsibility to ensure that that future is liveable for ourselves and future generations. I look forward to continuing to work across parties to build that positive future.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

North Sea Oil and Gas Industry

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and particularly for mentioning retraining. We see huge opportunities for people who are in the middle of careers to transfer into the energy system. Just in the past few weeks, we have been looking at a scheme to support veterans who are leaving the armed forces in getting jobs building infrastructure. There are huge opportunities in that sector if we can capitalise on the clean energy transition.

We also need to invest in the future of the next generation of workers. In England, we are looking at technical training colleges to make that happen. Funding goes to the Scottish Government to do that in Scotland and, of course, to the Welsh Government as well. The future of our energy system is clean energy; we want to make sure that we have the jobs and training opportunities that go with it, so that the people of our country get an economic advantage, as well as the country getting the energy security.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Today’s Petrofac news has nothing to do with UK oil and gas policy. This is a company with a long history of financial challenges and mismanagement; it was fined millions for bribery, lost £6 billion in value since 2012, and has now lost a contract with the Netherlands. Does the Minister agree that any attempt to claim otherwise is blatant political point scoring by the Tories and others with a head-in-the-sand climate denial agenda, and is a distraction from what really matters, which is ensuring that every worker whose job is affected by today’s news is properly supported?

[Michael Shanks]

I agree with the hon. Lady on the wider point, which is that—as I outlined in my opening answer—Petrofac has not had its troubles to seek. She has outlined a number of those troubles, but I reiterate that the UK arm of that business is successful and growing. We want to make sure that that continues—that there is a buyer, or another solution, so that it can continue long into the future. Others will seek to politicise this news for the sake of their own political narratives, but it is incumbent on all of us to send as positive a message as we can to the workers, suppliers and customers of Petrofac—the message that the UK arm continues to operate as normal, and that we want that to continue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

I am grateful that at least one of the Opposition parties accepts that there is a deal. The hon. Member is right to recognise that the implementation phase is what we are now relentlessly focused on. I am sure the House will be aware of the statement issued overnight by US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, confirming that the US will expedite the agreed quota for car exports to the United States, reducing tariffs from 27.5% to 10%. The Government continue to work on this important deal.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

The UK has a trade agreement with Israel that permits the import of goods produced in illegal settlements. Such goods are effectively proceeds of crime, given that settlements constitute illegal expropriation of Palestinian land. How can the UK justify this complicity in trade of illegally produced goods, and when will we finally see a ban on the import of any settlement goods?

[Mr Alexander]

The hon. Lady raises a critical issue. The British Government have a long-standing opposition to the illegal occupation of lands in the Palestinian territories, principally in the west bank. We have been clear and consistent that, on the grounds of international law, the responsibility lies with the Israelis to resolve these issues. On the points she raised, it is a significant and contentious enough issue. I will be happy to write to her, but it has been clear for many years that we oppose the settlements and continue to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ellie Chowns Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

I had thought that one of the first contributions from the Opposition Front Benchers today would be to celebrate the £1 billion investment by IKEA in the UK. It is opening its flagship store on Oxford Street today, and committing to a range of investments in other towns and cities across the UK. When the hon. Lady was on the Treasury Committee, I do not know whether she looked at the cuts the previous Government made to help for small businesses in getting their goods into new markets. We are taking active steps to increase the opportunities for small businesses in overseas markets.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

2. What steps his Department is taking to negotiate trade agreements with the UK’s main trading partners.

[The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)]

I announced in July that we were resuming free trade agreement negotiations with the Gulf Co-operation Council, India, Israel, the Republic of Korea, Switzerland and Türkiye. We have also begun talks with the United States on an economic prosperity deal, and we support the Cabinet Office with trade aspects of the EU reset.

[Ellie Chowns]

Given the utter unreliability and, frankly, economic illiteracy of President Trump, and given that the EU is by far our largest trading partner, it is clear that the best interests of the UK are served by our having a deal that allows the closest possible co-ordination with the EU. Does the Minister agree with me that that should cover youth mobility, and improved energy and climate co-operation? Specifically, will he work with his colleagues to ensure that we ease burdens for British business by linking the UK and EU emissions trading schemes, and by aligning on chemicals regulation, to boost British productivity and prosperity?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I think that was a few questions, but we seem to have time for them today, so I welcome all of them. First of all, I recognise exactly what the hon. Lady says. When it comes to the importance of the EU as a principal trading partner for this country, the figures speak for themselves. I disagree with her about us having to choose between the US and the EU, or any other markets. I believe that the UK can be well positioned for all markets. There will be strong political views in this place about political leaders in a range of countries, but I would just say to her that when it comes to the United States, there are potentially thousands of jobs at stake. That is why we are pursuing a trade and economic prosperity deal with the US, and I think we cannot get away from that.

On the questions relating to the EU, a successful negotiation takes two parties. I want to see greater co-operation. I would not talk about the specifics of any part of the negotiations, but I would not want the kind of barrier that she identified to be in place. I want the UK to have the best and most frictionless trade possible with the EU, in a way that is consistent with our aspirations and obligations with the rest of the world, but she has made her point very well, and I recognise it.