EU-UK Summit

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ms Creasy]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to tell that to his constituents. Of course NATO is vital, but we are dealing with a new world. They see the aggression of President Putin and the need to stand up to address the situation in Gaza. They see the leadership being shown by our European colleagues and they wish us to be not playground generals, but grown-ups. That is exactly what the defence deal will mean.

I also welcome the proposals for co-operation on foreign aid, because that is crucial not only to tackling poverty around the world but to preventing conflict. Conflict is driving many to flee persecution, proving how aid is often our best defence against the small boats, rather than the bluster of some Conservative Members.

There has been a resolution to the risk of divergency in our carbon emissions trading schemes, which would have been a death knell for the British steel industry. Energy UK estimates that will mean around £800 million per year of payments going to our Treasury rather than to the EU. It is worth remembering that 75% of our steel exports, worth £3 billion, go to the European Union. Frankly, if we want to save British Steel, we need to save its market, which is what the resolution will do.

The talks will allow us to use e-gates at the borders. Queuing might be a national pastime, but it is not a national sport that any of us enjoy. There will be co-operation with Europol and data sharing on fingerprints, DNA and criminal records. Again, I suspect that in future years many of us will realise how criminal it was that that was not part of the original deal, which made it easier for the people who wish to do harm to our constituents to evade justice by crossing the border.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Creasy]

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is going to apologise to the British public for such an oversight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

Someone once said that the general rule in politics is never to apologise and never to explain, and I am certainly not going to break that rule now. The truth is that the hon. Lady is arguing for co-operation, and we all affirm that. Britain has co-operated with its neighbours, and with countries more widely, over the whole of our history. We began co-operating with Portugal under Edward III, as the Minister will no doubt confirm and speak about in some detail. It is not about co-operation; it is about governance. There is a fundamental difference between collaboration and co-operation, and government from abroad.

[Ms Creasy]

I am always pleased to see the right hon. Gentleman admit that he is in fact a rule taker, not a rule maker. It is noticeable that the co-operation that his Government did not pursue meant that we did not have access to EU databases such as Eurodac and the Schengen information system, which are critical to stopping cross-border crime and addressing illegal migration. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the fact that we have always co-operated; it was a conscious decision by the previous Government not to do so, and it is a conscious decision by this Government to address that to help to make us safer. Time and again, his Government rejected important security measures just because they had the word “Europe” in the title. This Government will not make that mistake.

All that is before we even get to the basics that I believe most of our constituents will be interested in, including the sanitary and phytosanitary deal, which will see the removal of the vast majority of the paperwork and checks that were killing British food manufacturing and farmers, as well as causing inflation to costs here. Just the removal of export health certificates will save businesses up to £200 per consignment—a cost that was being passed on to our constituents. Again, I offer any Member who wants to defend the previous deal the opportunity to apologise to all those who work in logistics and have had to deal with Sevington, and the queues, delays and confusion about getting goods across the border.

I hope that the Minister will confirm that along with removal of the export health certificates, we are looking again at how we can remove the border operating model that the last Government brought in, which put further charges on top of the export health certificates and meant more delays in getting seeds to British farmers and flowers to market for our British businesses. All our constituents will welcome an SPS deal, because it is a way to tackle the extra £6.5 billion that we have had to spend on food and drink as a result of the charges, on top of other costs, because of Brexit.

Of course, we must talk about fish, because Britain’s fishing industry has indeed been battered by Brexit. Boris Johnson promised both prodigious amounts of fish to be caught and EU vessels out of our waters. He delivered neither—fishcakes, indeed. The new deal will start to address the damage done to our fishing industries. It is an honest and fair deal to secure no further loss of access and the restoration of a market for fish. The SPS deal will cut the Brexit red tape that has caused a 29% drop in fish exports to the EU since 2019. I am sure that Members read the words of Ian Perkes, a fish merchant from Brixham, who said that he had a catch worth £80,000 written off because of a dispute over the temperature it had been stored at, and another consignment rejected because the Latin name for Dover sole was spelled wrong.

The deal done by the previous Government would have expired next year. If we want the investment that the industry desperately needs, the stability of terms matters. With 80% of our catch exported—70% of that to the EU—the new deal offers a chance for that stable future for our fishing communities. It is the same with energy. The deal done by the previous Government would have expired next year. As the Prime Minister pointed out, we have been aligning in practice since we left the EU; we just have not had any say in what happens. We have aligned because the standards are high, and because asking businesses to follow two different sets of rules is a recipe for more regulation, not less. Anybody who doubts that needs to look at the record of the last Government.

I stand here as a red against red tape, welcoming the ruthlessness with which the Government have acted. The previous Government tried to introduce the UK charter mark, which they then admitted would cost British business billions of pounds to implement. They then promptly stated that if businesses had met EU standards, they had met British ones too. What a mess! The Product Regulation and Metrology Bill is currently going through Parliament, and I am sure that the Minister will want to update us about what the deal will mean for the Bill and its terms of trade.

Conservative Members will decry the idea that we are rule takers. We were under them, but under this deal we will be consulted. We will have to abide by a dispute resolution system. Conservative Members act as if that is some new phenomenon—something we have never had as part of any other trade deal or, indeed, as part of their trade deal with the European Union. Thankfully, we can look to a non-mythical creature—but one that is certainly at risk—the puffin, to see what the reality might be, because last year the EU took the UK and Holyrood to court for banning sand eel fishing in the North sea and Scottish waters, as they wanted to protect that vital food source for the puffin. That is a noble aim that we can all get behind. The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague had to decide whether the ban was a reasonable measure and, as a result, rule on our ability to determine fishing in our own seas. The courts upheld that decision to protect puffins and did so on the basis of the European Court of Justice—a process that the previous Government had signed up to already and that is part of the future negotiating deal.

Conservative Members talk of sovereignty as if it is some lump of plasticine that we can hand out, but the truth is that the new deal upholds our ability to make our case and to work with our neighbours within a reasonable framework. It is five years since we left, and we are still talking about and affected by the decisions that Europe makes. We are just not in the room where they are being made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice]

That is the point—my hon. Friend is bang on. There is a sizeable number of people under 30: it may be 60 million or 70 million—who knows? We have huge pressure on our housing, a determination to increase wages for British citizens, and pressure on our healthcare. Just a couple of weeks ago, the British people clearly expressed their opinion in the local elections and backed Reform UK’s net zero immigration policy. They said, “Actually, we quite like that,” which is why, of course, we did so well. The ability to listen to the British people’s concerns may have been lost.

[Sir John Hayes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Tice]

I would be delighted to give way to my neighbouring MP.

[Sir John Hayes]

I can confirm that I have never met an Australian or a Canadian in Boston or in Spalding. Leaving that to one side, is not the real threat even more sinister than the hon. Gentleman suggests? We have, stubbornly, a huge number of young people who are not in education, employment or training—in fact, the trend is slightly up. It is a tragedy that those people are either trapped without jobs or not learning to get them. They will inevitably be competing with people from abroad for their early opportunities to work. We need to back young people. I fear that, unless we get absolute clarity on the length and character of the scheme, it will threaten those young people’s chances.

[Richard Tice]

That is absolutely right. In my constituency, young people want better and better-paid jobs. They do not want wages to be suppressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

That is for you to say.

[Sir John Hayes]

If I may say so generously, I choose to go for my holidays in north Norfolk and Whitby; I do not need a passport to go to there. It is very pleasant. I think the hon. Lady would be enriched by that kind of experience.

[Rachel Blake]

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has a wonderful time on his holidays. I will be spending much of the upcoming recess in the UK at the seaside, and I hope that other people who want to take their holidays in other places will be able to benefit from the EU summit. I am sure that businesses in the UK tourism and hospitality industry will strongly welcome the benefits from tackling the red tape in that sector.

I will probably unite the whole room when I say that I look forward to more detail on the youth experience scheme. I want to know how our young constituents across the country will be able to go to places in Europe to learn about their culture, economy and history as part of their own education. It is important to see some detail on that scheme.

I also want to hear more in future summits about how cabotage and carnet will be made easier—which, again, will help the haulage industry. I hope that they will be discussed at future summits, to secure the vitality of our touring orchestras, many of which are based in my constituency, and to ensure that touring artists get over to Europe and that the west end remains a thriving centre of culture in the UK.

I am grateful for the chance to reflect on the summit. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow and the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness, who secured the debate, on how we might move forward.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Joseph Chamberlain, one of my great political heroes, said that in “great deeds, something abides”. Perhaps the greatest deed of my parliamentary lifetime was our decision to leave the European Union, made greater still by the fact that it was a decision taken by the British people against the advice of most of their political leaders from across the spectrum. Suddenly the people spoke—and they spoke clearly—about their intentions, contradicting the long-standing prejudices of most of the British establishment.

What endures of that deed is our right to self-government, which lies at the heart of our short debate today. It is the affirmation of parliamentary sovereignty. That matters, as we all know, because our legitimacy is afforded to us by the choice that people make to send us here, and the fact that we are answerable to them in a way that those who exercise power in the European Union are not—they have never been directly accountable. It is true that we elected MEPs, but almost no one knew who they were. I did not know who the Tory MEPs were, let alone those from other parties. Former MEPs will often say that they had little contact with the people in their constituencies and that their postbag overall was a fraction of what we receive in a single week, let alone over a longer period. Interaction is at the heart of the legitimacy that I have just described, but with MEPs it just was not there.

Of course, much of the governance of the European Union was not done by people who had been elected, for the character of the way rules are made there rests on a very different connection between bureaucrats and elected people. The sovereignty secured by the referendum result is something precious, something that should be valued by every single Member of this House, regardless of their party.

What does this deal do in respect of that sovereignty? I have reservations about the youth mobility scheme, not because I do not think that there are people in Lincolnshire who want to take advantage of it— [Interruption.] I did not say that, by the way; I did not say that. I will not defend the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), other than on this basis: the exact figures for his constituency show 13,596 people living there who come from eastern Europe, central Europe or further afield—Bulgaria, Romania and so on. The influx of those people over a short period of time has had a dramatic effect on the character of that part of Lincolnshire.

On immigration more generally, free movement had a devastating effect on this country. It displaced investment in domestic skills, without doubt, and it also changed workplaces—I think it drove down wages, for example, because many people who came were not unionised and were not able to make their case to their employers with the same confidence that domestic workers rightly do. It also stultified our economy by fixing it in a labour-intensive, low-skill profile. That was bound to damage productivity and make us less competitive. What we needed to build was a high-skill, high-tech economy to compete internationally, and free movement damaged that prospect.

The fear about the youth mobility scheme or the youth experience scheme—it keeps changing names, which in itself leads to a certain degree of scepticism; I will not put it any more strongly than that—is that it will bring people here who will want to work and to compete with our young people in Lincolnshire and across the constituencies represented in this Chamber today. That may be in seasonal jobs, part-time jobs or first jobs for people getting into the labour market. So I have profound doubts about it.

We wait to see the detail, because it may be that the Government share my view; I hope they do, but I can understand entirely the reservations of my neighbouring MP, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness, about it. Indeed, as I have said, they are reservations that I share.

I will not speak about fishing, because others already have, except to say that fishing is always a bargaining chip in these negotiations. It was Edward Heath, allegedly a Conservative Prime Minister, who sold out the fishermen when we first joined. You will not remember that personally, Ms McVey, because of course you are a very young person—we are back to talking about young people, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and others did earlier—but you will know of it, and know that that too was a last-minute deal. Edward Heath was so desperate to join the European Union that he was persuaded at the last minute, as we were about to enter it, that he needed to trade off our fishermen’s rights.

Fishing is certainly a concern, but so too is this issue of regulation, because—

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

I call Sadik Al-Hassan.

[Sir John Hayes]

I was still speaking, Mr Vickers.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

Sorry—I was told you had finished, Sir John.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

Well, none of us would want to deny ourselves the chance to listen to Sir John. Back to you.

[Sir John Hayes]

I wondered whether the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) was going to finish my speech for me, Mr Vickers, but I am not sure it would have been quite in the same vein as that in which I intend to continue.

We have talked a bit about the youth mobility scheme, or the youth movement scheme or the youth experience scheme—call it what you will. Of course, it is true that some young people want to go abroad, but many more young people from abroad will want to come here, and we spoke a little before you came, Mr Vickers, about the consequences of that.

Things have changed since we left the European Union. The principal change internationally has been the greater need for national economic resilience, epitomised in the covid pandemic and then the European war in Ukraine that followed. Never has it been clearer that Britain needs to become increasingly resilient, and that means protecting our industries to some degree. It certainly means manufacturing more of what we need and growing more of the food that we consume in this country. Shortening supply lines will have many benefits, environmental and other but, fundamentally, it is about taking a national view of our economic interests.

Of course Britain co-operates and collaborates with others; but, as I said to the hon. Member for Walthamstow when she opened the debate, there is a world of difference between co-operation and governance. In a sense, that has permeated considerations of this subject since we started them back in the late 1950s. For a long time, many of those who favoured European governance pretended that it was a matter of logistics rather than principles, of details rather than essentials and, as we heard again in this debate, of co-operation rather than governance. Fundamentally, however, it is about the difference between supranational Government and collaborative measures—treaties and so on—between sovereign nations. That is at the heart of this debate.

It is unfortunate that when we joined the European Union—as you will remember, Mr Vickers, because you were a campaigner against it even in those distant days—it was labelled the Common Market. There was no sense there that we would be giving up our sovereignty—no sense that it would have any effect on our political structure or system of Government. It was just a trading association.

How things have changed. I know the hon. Member for Walthamstow welcomes that change, because she fought the Brexit referendum result in an honourable, but none the less stubborn way, if I might say so. I wonder whether she is as stubborn now.

[Ms Creasy]

It is always flattering when people talk about imitation. The right hon. Gentleman’s argument was about the difference between co-operation and governance. What is it about Europol and our ability to share information and work together to tackle crime and hold to account those who harm our constituents that he finds distasteful enough that to support not working with Europol? His Government chose, on his argument, not to work with Europol. I believe that that has damaged our ability to tackle crime, and this summit will address that. What was so distasteful about that body that he could not co-operate with it?

[Sir John Hayes]

I say to the hon. Lady—not in a way that is patronising or pompous at all—that I can speak with a bit more authority about that than she can, because I am a former security Minister, currently a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I was once responsible for countering serious organised crime in Government, so I came across a lot of the need to co-operate and share data.

The hon. Lady will remember that we were never part of the Schengen arrangement, although we did have access to the Schengen database. We were never part of European governance over security, although we did share information with European partners. She will also know that the key security relationship for us is the Five Eyes relationship with countries beyond the European Union—America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. That is the core security partnership but, of course, we co-operate with other countries across the globe. To be frank, that is not really about governance, is it? That is about exactly the kind of collaboration that, as I described, has always been part of the way that this country has dealt with its affairs internationally. [Interruption.] I am not going to take another intervention because I know that even you, Mr Vickers, are beginning to tire—even of me.

I will therefore move rapidly to my concluding remarks, which concern this issue of trade and regulation. It is undoubtedly true that, in my constituency—I think a Member who is no longer in their place asked me to offer a balanced view of this—exporters in the horticultural sector will benefit from smoother transitions at ports. However, it is also true that there is a risk that that will encourage us to import more food at a time when we need to export less. We need to grow, make and consume more of our own food. Yesterday I was at a meeting with the all-party parliamentary group on the UK fresh produce network, which I chair, and a major haulier, farmer and grower said that he feared that that was the problem with this deal. I meet farmers, growers and hauliers in my constituency every single week, such is my diligence, and they are most concerned about the possible impact of that additional ability of the Europeans to flood our markets with foreign food.

I will end with this: Joe Chamberlain also said that we should

“carry on even to distant ages the glorious traditions of the British flag.”

In the end, this is about just that. It is about how one sees the nationhood, and how one regards the national interest. There are those on the left—although I do not say that they are in this Chamber—who are affected by doubt about nationhood, and some even afflicted by guilt about our past who do not see the national interest in the way I do. I do not think that that includes the Minister, by the way, as we will no doubt hear when he speaks. But in the end, we do have to come to the logical conclusion of Brexit and all that has happened since: the national interest ought to be the supreme consideration of any Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

As I said in an intervention, the chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations used the words “angry, disappointed and betrayed” to describe the previous Government’s Brexit deal. That was a deal that many of the Conservative Members here voted for, so I am rather bewildered as to why the biggest criticism of the new deal with Europe is that it continues a deal that they voted in favour of.

[Sir John Hayes]

Many of us on these Benches were not happy with the direction of travel of previous Conservative Governments—let us put that on the record. We did not support the EU. I have never supported the EU; I first campaigned to leave it when I was a student, when we had only just joined it. The hon. Gentleman is right that we did not agree with that situation, and this deal perpetuates it for 12 years. If it was bad then, it is worse now.

[Sam Rushworth]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s candour, and I share his views on the previous Conservative Government. I would say, however, that to have a grown-up negotiation, we have to put something on the table to get something in return. Clearly, the previous Conservative Government felt that putting that on the table was a price worth paying for some greater benefit. The new deal puts nothing extra on the table.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Rushworth]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is disagreeing with the shadow Home Secretary, because I was quoting his words.

Is it not also the case that Brexit ended our co-operation on policing and ended intelligence-sharing? I welcome the fact that, with this deal, the Government have negotiated access to EU facial imaging data to help to catch people smugglers and dangerous criminals, and to increase co-operation to track down rapists, murderers and drug lords. Is that not also something the European Union has put on the table that Britain benefits from?

[Sir John Hayes]

The National Crime Agency and the security services work co-operatively with our neighbours in Europe, and always have. That co-operation has perpetuated since Brexit, as it did before. A lot of it, of course, happens under the radar by its very nature, but it is not true to say that we do not have that kind of collaborative relationship with other nations where our national security—and theirs—is concerned.

[Sam Rushworth]

I am sure the Minister will answer that point in his summing up, but it is my understanding that we do not have access to facial recognition technology, which is really important to help us to better police our borders. This is the simple reality: the Brexit that we were promised did not do the things that people promised it would do. That is why we need a reset in relations.

[Ms Creasy]

I wonder what the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) might say to apologise to my constituent, who has now been waiting, I believe, for over 12 years for justice to be done in the case of her son’s murder in Greece, and for those responsible to be extradited. The abolition of the European arrest warrant under Brexit has made that harder, which is a real example of the damage done by the previous Government’s approach to crime and security.

[Sir John Hayes]

indicated dissent.

[Ms Creasy]

The right hon. Member is shaking his head. I invite him to meet Sharon Matthews—she is an extraordinary woman who has fought for justice for her son, Tyrell. Brexit has made that harder.

[Sam Rushworth]

It is so obvious that improved co-operation with all the countries just 20 miles off our shore can benefit our security and trade. That is what the reset is seeking to do. It is not dragging us back into Europe—I think that is nonsense, and I am not hearing any credible person say that.

The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) says that he holidays in north Norfolk, and I will be joining him there this summer—[Interruption.] Not personally, I hasten to add; I mean that my family will be there this summer too.

[Sir John Hayes]

We should meet up.

[Sam Rushworth]

Perhaps we could rehash this debate.

We are not here to represent just our own interests; we are here to represent the interests of our constituents. I have constituents who will benefit from the new arrangements, such as on e-gates, and I am also grateful that the measure on pet passports has been negotiated, particularly for those who rely on guide dogs.

In conclusion, it is time to stop playing the greatest hits of 2019. That made people popular at the time, but we have moved on; we have left the European Union, and now it is time to have a mature, sensible and co-operative relationship with our neighbours. That is what will protect British jobs and help our constituents to enjoy cheaper food and a better quality of life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

My hon. Friend is right. I will cite a very good article in The Spectator last week by Oliver Lewis, who was the deputy negotiator for the Brexit deal and the trade agreement. He wrote rather wearily about recognising the terms that had been agreed by the Government, because they were the terms that the previous Government continually resisted in negotiations. His point, which echoes that of my hon. Friend, was that the way the EU works is to force agreement on headline principles, which, over time, are translated into concrete policy. Where a thin end of the wedge can be driven in, as it can be with this agreement, more and more follows. That is what we should anticipate.

It is worth pointing out how thin the terms of the agreement are and how much detail remains to be worked out. We have conceded a set of principles that will allow ever closer alignment and submission to the regime that we painfully left some years ago. We see coming submission to the European Court of Justice, an agreement on rule-taking, a return to the single market in agribusiness, as my hon. Friend mentioned, and paying money into the EU budget.

Those were the explicit things that all parties in this House committed to ending when we agreed the outcome of the referendum. In 2019, both main parties agreed to abide by them, and in 2024, they agreed to abide by them and explicitly ruled out submission to the European Court of Justice, paying money and returning to the single market, all of which has now been agreed in principle by the Government. It is only a set of principles, but they are bad principles; they represent the betrayal of Brexit and of our manifestos. I will not go through the specifics, because other Members have done so very well, but I will quickly point out how thin these agreements are.

On e-gates, there will be some benefit for the Dordogne-visiting community that some of us have in our constituencies, but it is not a great achievement. Indeed, it is not even an achievement for this summer, so although I hope the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is enjoying his holiday in France, I do not think he will have benefited from the deal. He will probably have gone through an e-gate anyway, however, because there are already many e-gates that British citizens can use when going to and fro. That arrangement will still need to be negotiated, with each member state operating its own independent policy.

We have discussed food, and I will not go on about that other than to say that we have agreed to take the EU’s laws but we do not have any detail yet. Because we export so little, any benefit from a reciprocal arrangement will greatly benefit the EU at the expense of our exporters.

[Sir John Hayes]

To illustrate that point, looking at the figures the UK is the EU’s biggest export market. We receive about €51 billion of goods from the EU and return about €15.4 billion, so there is no doubt about where the balance lies. To emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend, the problem is that so much of this is smoke and mirrors. When we hear about realignment being dynamic or about subsidiarity, as we used to hear, those are terms that are used to disguise exactly the kind of pernicious detail that he set out.

[Danny Kruger]

I absolutely agree. I am afraid that the argument against EU membership, which was the trade imbalance, remains and has only grown with time.

I will not talk about our unhappy fish; we hear enough about those poor creatures. On defence, there has been no detail in the plan other than an expectation of that new procurement arrangement and that we will be financially contributing to that. There is also no detail on the carbon trading arrangement other than a clear expectation of higher taxes and rule-taking through the emissions scheme. On free movement, we are still unclear. The statement talks about terms to be mutually agreed. What those terms might be—how many people will be coming, what commitments of support there are for them on housing, public services and benefits, and what happens if they refuse to leave—all remains unclear. I am very worried about the direction of travel.

The good news, to conclude, is that none of that is real. Those are all headline principles. Although the expectation is that the EU, having forced our famously legalistic Prime Minister to sign up to a set of agreements, will then induce him to believe that they are binding commitments and that he will have to honour them in practice, I implore him not to. I also implore the Minister to consider that we do not have to fulfil those terrible terms.

Lastly, on the economy, although people talk about the decline of trade since Brexit, trade was declining substantially long before. The EU is a declining corner of the world’s economy and the direction of travel has not changed much. The fundamental point is that Brexit has economically been largely a non-event. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said, the underlying realities have remained largely untouched by it. Obviously, our economy was badly hit by covid, the Ukraine war and subsequently by the very bad Budget, and I admit, by some economic mistakes made by the last Government—let us be honest—but fundamentally the problems have not been related to Brexit.

To invoke some heroes of the last Parliament—particularly John Redwood, the great economic prophet of recent times—John Redwood shrugs at Brexit but Bill Cash rejoices because, fundamentally, it was not an economic decision that the British people made: it was about the restoration of sovereignty. It restored the possibility of good government to our country. I am afraid we did not get good government immediately after Brexit, and we certainly do not have it now. Many mistakes have been made and continue to be made, particularly by this new Government, but we now have the opportunity to govern ourselves in a way that will bring about the prosperity of the British people.

To quickly acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), we still have not fixed the ongoing saga of Northern Ireland, and I deeply regret that the arrangements there persist in that most unsatisfactory way. The new agreement is clearly a declaration of intent to move back within the orbit of the EU and ultimately to rejoin.

I end by echoing the call from many hon. Members on both sides, and I honour the hon. Member for Walthamstow for her support. It is very important that we restore the European Scrutiny Committee and I hope that the Minister will agree.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) on securing this important debate.

I represent a city that has phenomenal ties to Europe. Edinburgh was made by Europeans and continues to be a big European player, but that predated our membership of the EU, and it endures after Brexit. I am in my late 30s, staring middle age in the face, and throughout my adult life there has been a continual movement of increasing confrontation, aggression and mistrust in the relationship between the EU and the UK. I hope that this summit marks the point at which that movement stops, and we stop the continued degradation of this most important relationship.

Let me be clear: I am not saying that the pendulum should swing back towards rejoining the EU, no matter how much everyone says that. There are people out there who say the pendulum should swing that way, but I and my party say to those people that they should not fall into the trap that the Brexiteers do: to become too nostalgic, and long for something in the past rather than facing the future. We do not need to go back to our previous relationship with the EU; we need to reset it for modern times. That is what the announcement from the Government and the EU does.

Whatever the structures of our relationship with the EU, on the big, global issues of our time there is huge overlapping strategic alignment. Whether on the role of technology and data, on when we talk about confronting climate change and the energy transition, on the rise of China or on the menacing role of Russia, we very much share strategic interests with the Europeans, and need to work with them to achieve our goals. That is why I welcome these important steps to reset that relationship, particularly on defence and security but also on agrifood, SPS and energy. As other hon. Members have said, it is fantastic to see those steps, and they are particularly important for Scotland.

I am delighted to deliver on the promises that I and the Labour party made to my constituents at the election. It is perplexing that there are no SNP Members at this debate to discuss our relationship with Europe, because they have spent the last 10 years arguing for greater access to the energy market for Scotland, for a youth scheme, for access to Erasmus, and for greater access to EU markets for Scottish food and drink, and those are exactly what this agreement stands to produce. This is exactly what they have been calling for all these years, so of course they have called it a surrender. People say that Reform deals in grievance; let me tell you, it has nothing on the SNP.

In the brief time I have, I want to talk specifically about border security and home affairs. As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I think that there are some significant steps in the announcement that will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) said, be central to the Labour Government’s mission to make the streets safer. Dealing with things such as upstream migration and practical solutions to returns, record sharing and cybercrime are utterly critical. Let us be clear: assertions of national sovereignty mean nothing to cross-border criminals. We have to deal with the problem at source. International crime, especially immigration crime, is by definition a cross-border phenomenon and so requires a cross-border response. That means co-operation with neighbouring countries that face the same issues.

Ten years ago, before being elected, I was the justice and home affairs attaché at the British embassy in Paris. We dealt with things such as Europol, European arrest warrants and data sharing on criminals, having a massive impact on the people represented by the House of Commons. I know the importance of those concrete measures that do not grab headlines but that make a real difference to people’s lives. We dealt with the UK-France channel and in those days, 10 years ago, we did not have small boats—they were not something that we had to worry about—but we obviously do now. Something changed in the interim. We need to work out what that was, and address it. I argue that, as we have discussed, the lack of the Dublin convention makes it structurally much harder to deal with the small boats crisis. Nobody in this room would argue that our constituents are not demanding that we deal with that crisis.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Member is right that there are all kinds of existential threats that face this country and other countries too, but the Government’s job is to deal with the effect of those threats as they alter life here in Britain. Co-operation is part of that, but in no way does it absolve national Governments from taking responsibility for those threats in relation to national and local priorities. Mass migration is a good example; I regard it as the greatest existential threat, among many. That has to be dealt with in this country.

[Chris Murray]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the point of a Government is to deal with the challenges that the country faces at the time. That is why I would argue that it was insane to stand like King Canute on the shores of this country asserting that a Rwanda scheme was going to work, when it clearly, patently would not—as all the expert advice said. If we want to deal with the issues that migration brings, access to Eurodac—the fingerprinting scheme—the Schengen information system and the Dublin regulation would make a concrete difference to the immigration threats and challenges that we face. I would argue that simply asserting that we are losing sovereignty any time anyone tries to deal with the issues constructively and substantively does not achieve the point that the right hon. Gentleman was trying to make.

We are running out of time, so, to briefly sum up, we cannot assert control and crackdown on crime without those kind of instruments. I am pleased to see that the agreement deals with that. Can the Minister give us any information on what the plans will be on SIS 2 and Eurodac, and specifically on the Dublin convention? As we have heard, I may be joined in asking that by the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who clearly wants to see us join it too.

As a Member for Edinburgh and the Edinburgh festivals, I have to raise the point that touring musicians and actors contribute massively to the economy and the creative industries, which are one of the UK’s greatest strengths. The city of Edinburgh puts on the biggest ticketed event in the world after the Olympics, every year, with the Edinburgh international festival and fringe.

As a beneficiary of Erasmus, I add my support to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). There is a situation in this country where middle-class children get to do international travel. As a languages graduate, I absolutely support that, but we need to spread it. There are many children out there who want those opportunities, and we should be facilitating that. So can we make sure that it is as broad as possible?

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) for arranging this debate. Maybe it will be the start of cross-party working on the EU.

The people of Halesowen voted to leave at the Brexit referendum of 2016 because they believed the promises that were made by the Brexit campaign, but what they got from the last Conservative Government was a botched Brexit deal, half-baked and deeply damaging. I am proud to come to the debate as we welcome a landmark trade deal with the European Union, one that delivers real benefits for British businesses, workers and families. Labour promised to fix the damage left by the Tories’ failed Brexit deal, and this week that is exactly what we are doing.

For years, Britain was held back: 21% fewer exports, rising food prices and businesses drowning in red tape. But this week, that changed. The deal marks a new chapter, ensuring that Britain is stronger, fairer and more competitive on the world stage. It is a game changer for the west midlands, and for my constituents in Halesowen. Nowhere will the benefits be felt more than in the Black Country, an area built on industry. The deal cuts red tape on over 1,500 products, slashes costs, and secures greater certainty for local businesses.

Manufacturing makes up 14% of jobs in my area. It is a massive employer, but in the last 30 years the Black Country has lost over 30,000 jobs in the sector. We were once the engine room of the British economy, but while promises piled up, investments passed us by. This deal, on top of the deals Labour has secured with the US and India, will get our economy turbocharged once again. It is about supporting British steel, protecting jobs, and our future as a manufacturing powerhouse. Labour has cut £25 million a year from tariffs, which will help our steel industry to compete on the world stage and will save steelmaking jobs. It is about bringing down energy costs because we know how critical that is for households and businesses alike. This deal dodges a £7 billion carbon tax, and Octopus Energy tells us that it will bring down household bills and provide relief to normal consumers.

[Sir John Hayes]

I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) to talk about the imbalance in food exports and imports. The EU sells us far more than we sell it. Are we not moving to a less globalist age—a post-liberal age—in which countries will need to be more economically resilient, as I described earlier? We need to shorten supply lines and so on. On that basis, why would we want to make it easier for people from abroad to sell goods to compete with our farmers and growers?

[Alex Ballinger]

We have been talking in this debate about some of the advantages to British agriculture and the British fishing industry of access to the European market. Of course, it will be fantastic for the people who have been welcoming this deal, and the deal will also be very much welcomed by the many consumers in Halesowen who will see prices on their supermarket shop fall as a result of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

I disagree; it is too little. Whatever the Government have said, it is too little for the Liberal Democrats. We would have gone further, although I certainly welcome the progress that has been made.

Times change. We know that joining a customs union would unlock vital new opportunities for British businesses and boost our economy in a meaningful way. In fact, even a deep alignment deal would boost growth by 2.2%, which could result in a £25 billion windfall for the public purse, and that would fall short of the benefits that a customs union would provide.

In the years 2020 to 2024, the net change in the number of small and medium-sized enterprises in the UK decreased by 25,495. Since 2019, UK businesses have also had an average closure rate of over 12%, outstripping the rate of new businesses starting up. I have heard about the challenges that businesses have experienced due to Brexit red tape, which is a direct impact of the Conservatives’ pitiful negotiation. Successful high street businesses that have operated for four decades tell me that the last 18 months have been the hardest period that they have experienced, due to the exponential increase in import duties and registration fees.

I have also been told time and again by small businesses in my constituency about the damage of Brexit. Far from seeing the freedom promised by the Brexiteers, we have instead seen an exponential increase in bureaucracy, resulting in business-owners spending many arduous hours sorting through additional paperwork, including complex regulatory differences for animal products such as wool.

Those are not isolated cases. Over a third of surveyed UK businesses have reported extra costs that are directly related to changes in export regulations due to the end of the EU transition period. We are glad that some of these issues will be addressed with the new trade agreement. However, the Government must be bolder. We will continue to urge them to be much more ambitious with regard to trade and the economy, and we will ask them to use this agreement as a first step in seeking a new customs union with the EU.

While we know that the long-term wellbeing of the UK is about being back in the heart of Europe, that requires strengthened trading agreements and a customs union. Closer ties with Europe are also key to our national security. We have long argued for closer alliances on defence in the face of Putin’s imperialism and Trump’s unpredictability, and we welcome the fact that the Government have committed to a defence agreement. However, I hope that the Minister will agree that that must be just the beginning, and that we must be far more ambitious in strengthening our economic and security ties with our nearest neighbours.

The Liberal Democrats have also repeatedly pushed the Government for a youth mobility scheme between the UK and the EU, so we are glad that the Government have seen sense and will look to introduce a similar scheme, whatever it might be called. We know that a youth mobility scheme is good for business, good for education and good for opportunity. Polling shows that two thirds of the UK population are in favour of a youth mobility scheme.

Red tape at the UK-EU border has prevented schools and children across the country from taking part in overseas educational trips. I think many Members would agree that such trips are a memorable and enriching part of a school career; however, according to the School Travel Forum, between 2019 and 2023 such opportunities reduced in number by 30%.

There are so many reasons to welcome and champion a new programme for young people. Given that the scheme the Government have indicated they will support would mirror existing capped arrangements that the UK already has with 13 countries, including Australia, New Zealand and Canada, I urge them to move with more urgency and to bring forward details and a timeframe for the implementation of such a scheme.

The Minister and I both know that a youth mobility scheme is not a return to freedom of movement. Will he confirm that the Government, who have shown good intention in introducing such a scheme, will not be sidetracked by scaremongering from the Conservative party and the Reform party, and that he will give his full commitment to the introduction of the scheme?

When I asked the Prime Minister on Tuesday for a timeline, he assured me that the Government will move quickly. However, given the thousands of students who hope to travel to Europe to study, the thousands of small hospitality businesses in this country that are struggling to recruit short-term staff and the musicians burdened with huge levels of bureaucratic paperwork, I reiterate my call here today. Will the Minister set out a timeline for the introduction of such a scheme, which will ease travel?

[Sir John Hayes]

I believe in British jobs for British young people. Should the hospitality industry not first be looking to employ the very large number of young British people who are not in education, work or training?

[Sarah Olney]

That is an excellent point; the issue is that the hospitality industry frequently seeks to recruit people for short-term work, which is often seasonal. Those jobs are not the kind of jobs that young people who are looking to build a career are necessarily interested in taking up, because come September or October they would be out of work and would have to look for something else. That is the barrier to young people in this country taking up some of those roles. There is no doubt that those industries are experiencing huge shortages of workers and a youth mobility scheme could go some way towards addressing that, thereby helping to ensure the viability of businesses in those industries and keeping them going, and keeping the jobs that they provide in our local communities.

Over the last five years, the empty promises spouted by the leave campaign have become increasingly clear as the damage caused by Brexit has unfolded. The Liberal Democrats welcome this step towards reversing some of the damage caused by the last Conservative Government, and we will continue to urge the current Government to go further and to be bolder in their ambitions for our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point. There are clearly barriers that it would be in both sides’ mutual interest to remove. That should not be difficult to do, but the fact is that it has been difficult. I speak as someone who spent seven very happy years working in a European institution before deciding, on the basis of that experience, that Britain could do better. Sadly, after Brexit, the European Union’s negotiating position seemed determined to treat the United Kingdom less favourably than most other third countries, with which it did not have such a strong trading relationship.

That brings me to what is clearly the greatest betrayal of all in these documents, which is the effective surrender of this Parliament’s right to decide what laws apply and do not apply in this country. Last July, the Prime Minister promised that he would not accept any deal that meant laws being introduced without the consent of Parliament, but it is clear that he has found a way round that promise by agreeing that the UK will immediately adopt new EU laws in a range of areas, but after the pretence of a vote in which no is not a genuine option.

Worse, judgments about whether Britain complies with those new EU laws will be adjudicated by the EU’s own European Court of Justice, so the key difference between this and the puffin case that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) referred to is that cases involving dynamic alignment would, by definition, be matters relating to whether the UK is complying with an EU law. As the ECJ is specifically set out as the arbiter on questions of EU law, it will be able to rule on those matters, so it will become the arbiter.

[Sir John Hayes]

My hon. Friend comes to the nub of the issue, which I described as the debate about governance —it might be said to be a debate about jurisdiction. There is a kind of schizophrenia on the Government Benches: some Members want to say that this is a fundamental change, and a step back towards where we once were—that is clearly what the Liberal Democrats want—while others say that it is a matter of detail and simply a different kind of agreement. Essentially, however, the issue of governance and jurisdiction lies at the heart of this debate. I simply invite my hon. Friend to affirm the fact that on the Conservative side of the Chamber, whatever we have said in the past, we are now absolutely clear that the national interest will always be the supreme consideration of this party and a future Conservative Government.

[Mike Wood]

My right hon. Friend is clearly right, and the national interest cannot be served by a dynamic alignment that effectively requires us to automatically take on other people’s rules. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister either could not or would not tell us what measures would be open to the EU in the event that Parliament chose not to adopt a new EU law under paragraph 27 of the common understanding. Can the Minister do better? Would remedial action be restricted to suspending parts of this agreement, or could it result in a broader trade dispute?

Labour fought Brexit at every turn over the last nine years. The Prime Minister backed a second referendum; he stood on platforms calling for us to stay in the EU, and demanded we entered into a customs union that would have made the trade deals reached since Brexit impossible. Now he says that he wants to make Brexit work, but his version of making Brexit work is about dragging Britain backwards.

This deal is not about fixing Brexit; it is about reversing it and undermining it. Let us be absolutely clear: this deal resubmits the UK to foreign courts, foreign laws and foreign control. We will pay into EU budgets, follow EU rules and even have our food standards determined by Brussels. We will be paying into EU schemes with no say on how those funds are spent, and taking EU laws with no say over what they are—the worst of both worlds. No vote. No veto. No voice. Taxation without representation. The Prime Minister complains—[Interruption.] Sorry, is the hon. Member for Walthamstow trying to intervene?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The scheme will be time-limited and capped. I will make two points on that. First, it will be introduced in the context of the Government’s pledge to reduce net migration over the course of this Parliament. Secondly, I see it in the same way as the 13 schemes that already exist and are working perfectly well. I do not detect from Conservative Members—although one or two Back Benchers might have a different view—any particular desire to undo those agreements. Nobody is remotely suggesting that because we have a youth mobility arrangement with Uruguay, for example, we have freedom of movement with Uruguay. That would be absurd.

The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings knows I respect him. We often spar across the Dispatch Box in the House. As ever, he put his finger on a fine historical parallel when he quoted Joseph Chamberlain at the start of his speech. Over a century ago, at the start of the 20th century, Joseph Chamberlain began a debate about trading arrangements that the British public thought would increase the cost of food. That led to a landslide Conservative defeat in 1906 and no pure Conservative Government for 16 years afterwards. Joseph Chamberlain’s campaign on trade caused absolute havoc on the right of British politics. Does that sound familiar?

[Sir John Hayes]

Let us save Joseph Chamberlain’s reputation, if we can. Joe Chamberlain was an almost legendary figure in the city of Birmingham. In the first half of his life, he gave that city slum clearance, clean water and unparalleled welfare standards. Later, when he came into Parliament, he began as a radical and ended up as a supporter of the Tory Government. In his age, Chamberlain represented was the defence of what he saw as the national interest. I cited him because, as I said, I believe that the national interest should be supreme. May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I suspect that is what the vast majority of his constituents and mine think, too?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I would not disagree at all when it comes to Joseph Chamberlain’s record in Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of his belief in the national interest, but I am sure that he respects the sincerity of my belief as well. We take a different view as to what actually constitutes the national interest.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) talked about the huge benefits of the deal for the farming community. I am sure that the reduction in trade barriers will be welcomed.

I have been passed a note written by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place. I will make two quick observations. First, the SPS agreement will be of great benefit in reducing the level of checks across the Irish sea. Secondly, I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman on the other method issues he raised.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) raised the issue of fish. First, we have stability; and secondly, 70% of our catch is exported to the EU market, and that will be able to be done far more easily. To make sure that our fishers have the opportunity to take advantage of that greater market access, £360 million will be made available to upgrade the fishing fleet.

I give credit to the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) for his candid assessment of the previous Government as having made a lot of mistakes. On that, he and I agree 100%. But as I said to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, the red lines—not rejoining the single market or customs union, and on freedom of movement—have very much been observed.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) that this should not be about nostalgia. It is about making a forward-looking, hard-headed and ruthlessly pragmatic assessment of what is in our national interest now.