Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,804 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
The point is that we want to be forward-looking, and our concern is that this provision is very much backward-looking. My hon. Friends have talked about future trading partners and things like the CPTPP—things we might miss out on by being backward-looking. Does the hon. Member agree?
I rise to speak in support of amendments 23 to 25 on the enforcement of product regulations. Let me be clear: no one here is arguing against the need for robust enforcement of product safety or regulatory compliance. However, we must consider the broader context. Clause 3—indeed much of the Bill—is a classic example of what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place has rightly criticised as “skeleton legislation”. The Bill delegates sweeping powers to Ministers to create regulatory frameworks entirely through secondary legislation, with little to no detail included in the Bill itself, yet here in clause 3, we are being asked to give authorities that have not yet been named real and potentially intrusive enforcement powers for regulations that have not yet been written. That should give us all pause for thought. Subsection (1) allows Ministers to designate anyone as a “relevant authority”, and subsection (3) gives those authorities the power to investigate, monitor and even mitigate non-compliance. We then come to subsection (4), which grants those authorities the ability to appoint inspectors armed with powers to enter premises, seize goods, demand information and even order the destruction of products. These are serious powers. They may well be appropriate in specific, proportionate contexts but the point is that we do not know what those contexts will be because the Bill does not tell us. How can we, in good conscience, grant enforcement powers for rules that have not been set to people we have not identified in a system that Parliament will have very limited opportunity to scrutinise? This is not a narrow, technical concern; this is a constitutional one. As the DPRRC in the other place said in its report: “Skeleton legislation signifies an exceptional shift in power from Parliament to the executive”. This is not something that this House should hand over lightly. Our amendments do not reject the need for enforcement powers in principle, but as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire said, the wording of clause 3 needs to be clarified. Who are these authorities and what are their functions? In our amendments, we seek clear information, which is vital. There will be significant costs to businesses, so the powers must be clear. We all support product safety, but I urge the Committee to support the amendments and, in doing so, uphold the role of the House in setting the law, not just rubber-stamping it once the details have been decided behind closed doors.
It is still not entirely clear from subsection (3)(c) and (d) what that “something” is. Rather than just referring to those provisions, will the Minister clarify what “something” means, instead of referring it back to the relevant authorities, when we still do not know exactly what they will be required to enforce?
The UK is a world leader in protecting marine environments, particularly around the British Overseas Territories, but tragically that reputation will be trashed when Labour surrenders to Mauritius one of the most important marine protected areas around the British Indian Ocean Territory. While Mauritian fisheries Ministers have been pledging to issue fishing and trawler licences for those waters, Labour Ministers have given no assurances about future protections, and have just made vague comments on working with Mauritius on a new MPA. Can the Minister state if the proposed treaty will have any guaranteed protections in place? Will she confirm what was said in a legal letter to British Chagossians—that their right of return is not guaranteed? Surely that would be a total betrayal.
We have had a strong debate this afternoon, with many contributions on both sides. I thank so many of my hon. and right hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) and for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who knows a great deal about this subject, as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and my hon. Friends the Members for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) and for Windsor (Jack Rankin)—what a fantastic set of knowledgeable contributions and real concerns about the impending EU surrender summit. It is in the spirit of such rigorous debate that this House finds its strength and purpose. It has been less than a year since the general election. In that time, this Labour Government have tanked the economy, crushed British business, seen—as we have learned today—100,000 fewer people in employment, driven wealth creators overseas at the rate of one millionaire every 45 minutes, and shattered any signs of economic growth. I am afraid to say that the next item on this bleak agenda of declinism is the betrayal of the 17 million people who voted for this country to leave the European political union. This should come as no surprise to anyone, because those on the Benches opposite—and, I regret, some of those on the Benches to the left of me— voted against Brexit on no fewer than 48 different occasions. If this debate is reminiscent of the past, it is because that is precisely where some Members wish to take us back to. Ever since they were seduced by Jacques Delors, the Euro-socialist, their hearts have never been in the mission of taking back control of our laws. Next Monday’s EU surrender summit formally marks the start of Labour’s plan to dismantle the powers of not just the Government, but this House, and push us back into the European Union as a passive rule taker. We Conservatives ask, “To what end? Why are the Government capitulating the very same hard-fought Brexit freedoms that permitted the signing of two trade agreements—notwithstanding their limited scope—in the past seven days?” Had we followed the policies that Labour was advocating in opposition, this Government would never have been able to reach an agreement with the USA or with India. They would not even have been in the room; they would have been one of 28 member nations, resorting to asking—begging—Ursula von der Leyen to perhaps consider putting British interests first. We were right not to follow Labour’s advice then, and the Government would be right to listen to our advice now, yet it appears that they still have not learned. As we heard from many speakers this afternoon, the opportunities of the future will fall to those states that are agile—opportunities in areas such as artificial intelligence, genomics, space, the creative industries, financial and professional services, and the life sciences. This country already has a good deal with the European Union. We have a mutually advantageous zero-tariff agreement that is valued at £184 billion in services and £174 billion in goods. Nothing is perfect, and where there are sensible measures—such as pursuing opportunities for mutual recognition—they should be explored. For example, one of the biggest frictions our businesses face today is the denial of the use of e-gates, which was imposed by the European Union out of spite. There was no such small-mindedness from us. However, the problem we face today is that the Government have failed to come to this House and explain exactly, or at all, what the Prime Minister’s EU reset will look like. We have seen nothing on the Government’s negotiating objectives, their red lines or the supposed benefits, and we have not seen an impact assessment or even an interim update. Of course, I understand there will be finer negotiating details that the Government will not want to share, but that is very different from sharing absolutely nothing. That is disrespectful of Parliament, and forces this House to rely on leaks and read between the lines of Downing Street press handouts. If those leaks are to be believed, we know that Labour is planning on signing up the British armed forces to an EU army, binding our strategic military decision-making powers to bureaucrats in Brussels. [Interruption.] The Minister is very welcome to rule these things out—perhaps he will be more forthcoming than the Paymaster General was earlier. When it comes to security, there is no bigger challenge than our borders—I think even the Prime Minister recognised that on Monday—but the UK’s request for shared access to a joint illegal migrant database has already been rejected by the European Union. So much for co-operation on security. Defence procurement must never be “pay to play”. I have no idea why the European Union member nations would cut themselves off from the UK’s excellent defence primes, unless this is once again a protectionist industrial policy cloak—and what twisted deal-making trades fishing rights for the French for working more closely together, as we have so many times, on Europe’s defence? We warned that Labour would betray our fishermen, and it has sadly proved us right by putting fishing rights back on the negotiating table.
I am afraid the Minister is as talkative as a haddock when it comes to clarifying his objectives, but perhaps he will confound our expectations when he sums up the debate. Just as the Prime Minister pretends to talk tough on immigration, by the same token he plans to open our borders to an EU youth mobility scheme. Perhaps the Minister will deny that, but it could mean millions from Boulogne to Bucharest. Limited volume schemes with comparable economies whereby the UK is able to decide who comes here are fine in principle. We have such a scheme with Australia, but Australia is 10,000 miles away and its economy is very different from those that we are discussing. The wrong type of youth mobility scheme would disadvantage young British workers who, thanks to this Government, are already struggling to get a foot on the ladder, whether for a job—unemployment is up again today—or to secure a roof over their heads in Britain’s housing market. What part of the Government’s objective involves making things harder for our young people? What we do see is the Government proceeding at breakneck pace with the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. Beware of Bills with boring names, Madam Deputy Speaker! This is a Trojan horse, blank-cheque Bill giving Ministers the power to roll back Brexit, sign us up to EU rules and abandon imperial measurements for good, all at the stroke of a pen. It provides unchecked ministerial power to make us a passive rule-taker of Brussels diktat. Let me be clear. The Conservatives are certainly not opposed to co-operation with Europe as one among other markets—that much should be obvious from the hard-fought trade agreement that we obtained under the last Government—but we must not in any circumstances surrender our Brexit freedoms so that the Prime Minister can reassure his next law school reunion that he has undermined our sovereignty. After the earlier equivocation from the Paymaster General, let me give the Minister—they have been chuntering all afternoon—a final chance to answer these questions once and for all. Can he reassure the millions of people who voted to leave the EU that his surrender summit will not betray their wishes? Will he confirm that there will be no backsliding on free movement or compulsory asylum transfers? Can he reassure taxpayers, or those who have lost their winter fuel allowance or whose benefits are set to be cut, that the UK will not be agreeing to any new payments to the EU? Is he able to confirm, for the benefit of our coastal communities, that there will be no concessions on fishing rights? Can he assure the House that there will be no rule taking, dynamic alignment, or extension of European Court jurisdiction? Will he pledge, in deeds as well as words, that there will be no compromise on the primacy of NATO as the successful cornerstone of European security? If the Minister is not able to provide those assurances, this Government are betraying Brexit. All of the evidence that we have seen today suggests that they are limbering up for a surrender summit to damage Britain’s interests. They are determined to deal away our hard-fought freedoms, and we will lose control of our borders, our laws, our fish and our armed forces. I urge the Minister to come clean and to have the honesty to explain to this House and this country why Labour is preparing to surrender the right of the British people to choose their own destiny. We know that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire made numerous important points—I reinforce the point that this group of amendments looks to a future with a less benign Secretary of State—and made the case that the current Secretary of State agrees with her. Amendments 14, 15, and 16 seek to remove the sweeping powers currently granted to the Secretary of State under clause 1(1). As drafted, the clause gives a single Minister an almost unrestricted mandate to define and regulate product standards, ostensibly to reduce risk and ensure efficient and effective operation. The terms are vague and the power to define them is left entirely to the Executive. This is not a technical tweak. It is a fundamental constitutional concern. Clause 1(1) effectively hands Ministers a blank cheque to legislate by decree, bypassing the scrutiny and consent of this House. The amendments would delete the subsection and make the necessary consequential changes, thereby restoring the proper balance between Executive action and parliamentary oversight. This is not about obstructing Government action. It is about ensuring that when Ministers act, they do so within clearly defined limits and with the approval of Parliament. Regulations that affect businesses, consumers and the public at large should not be made behind closed doors in Whitehall. They should be debated and decided in public, by elected representatives. By supporting amendments 14 to 16, we reaffirm a vital constitutional principle: that it is Parliament, not Ministers, who should define the scope of regulatory power. The changes would not weaken the Bill; they would strengthen it by embedding accountability and transparency at its core. I urge colleagues to support the amendments.
The amendments in this group serve a clear and vital purpose: to prevent the automatic alignment of UK product regulations with EU law and to reaffirm our sovereign right to set our own standards. As it stands, clause 1(2) would allow Ministers to make UK regulations that correspond “to a provision of relevant EU law” in the area of environmental product standards. In plain English, that opens the door to copying and pasting EU rules into UK law via statutory instrument without full parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment 3 would remove subsection (2) entirely, closing that back door. Amendments 4, 5, 7 and 21 target other provisions that risk tethering us to EU frameworks. For example, clause 2(7) would allow compliance with certain EU laws to automatically satisfy UK requirements. That is not sovereignty; it is outsourcing. This is not about rejecting co-operation with Europe. It is about ensuring that any alignment is a result of a deliberate and transparent decision made here in Westminster, not an automatic consequence of vague enabling powers. As my hon. Friends the Members for West Worcestershire and for Chester South and Eddisbury have made clear, the British people voted to leave the European Union to take back control of our laws. That control must not be quietly handed back through ministerial shortcuts. New clause 4 is especially important. It would introduce a safeguard in the form of an independent review panel to assess any regulation made under the Bill that aligns with EU law. Where a Minister chooses to align, the panel would have to report back, within two years, on the impact on growth, trade and industry. Crucially, Parliament would then vote on whether those EU-aligned rules should remain in force. No regulation should persist by inertia. How can the Minister possibly object to a review after two years? The amendments would not isolate us; they would empower us. They would ensure that when we choose to align with international standards, we do so on our terms, with full accountability. That is the essence of post-Brexit governance. We assert that UK regulators answer first and foremost to the UK Parliament, not to Brussels and not to Whitehall alone.
I am genuinely curious. The Minister says that new clause 4 would take away powers. Can he explain why he would possibly object to the introduction of a review panel within two years? Surely there cannot be any objection.
I assume that the code of conduct you mentioned will be voluntary. I would be interested to hear what parliamentary enforcement the code, or indeed the wider constraints referred to in new clause 4, will receive.
Amendment 17 speaks directly to our country’s values of enterprise, innovation and economic freedom. The proposal would insert new subsection (4A) into clause 1, placing a clear duty on Ministers that, whenever they exercise regulatory powers under the Bill, they must do so with the aim of promoting investment, fostering innovation and encouraging economic growth. In short, the amendment would ensure that regulation is about not just managing risk, but unlocking opportunity. It would put growth at the heart of our regulatory framework—an aspiration that I know the Government will want to support. Regulation and prosperity are not mutually exclusive. As a Conservative and, indeed, a former businessperson, I understand that wealth is not created by Government; it is created by the ingenuity of businesses, entrepreneurs and investors—but Government can either enable that ingenuity or suffocate it. This is a pro-growth Government, so they should be in favour of the amendment, which would ensure that every regulation made under the Bill is shaped with a constant awareness of its economic impact. The amendment would require Ministers to ask: does this rule support innovation? Could it be more flexible? Will it help British firms to compete globally? Too often, regulations—however well-meaning—have imposed hidden costs, stifled small businesses or driven innovation offshore. The amendment would guard against that by making growth a guiding principle, not an afterthought. It also reflects the unique opportunity we have post Brexit. No longer bound by one-size-fits-all EU frameworks, we can craft smarter, more agile rules that play to Britain’s strengths. Proposed new subsection (4A) would serve as a beacon in the Bill, signalling that when we regulate, we do so to empower, not to encumber. Take, for example, emerging technologies, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire has already mentioned. If we are setting safety standards for a new sector, the amendment would prompt Ministers to do so in a way that attracts investment, supports start-ups and keeps the UK at the forefront of innovation.
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. The future of successful economic growth is dependent on not just new industries, but ensuring that traditional industries, and both large and small businesses, can thrive and prosper in a post-Brexit scenario. Amendment 17 would align the Bill with the pro-growth agenda and send a clear message to investors and innovators: Britain is open for business.
Perhaps my hon. Friend was about to make this point, but does she agree that the amendment would give the Government the opportunity to demonstrate to the world their commitment to and understanding of innovation agility, and the necessity to ensure that not just at Government level, but right across Whitehall, all our legislation considers how we can improve growth, innovation and ingenuity at all times?
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Ms Vaz. Opposition amendments 20, 6 and 22 to clause 2 are crucial to safeguarding our sovereignty and global outlook in the Bill. As drafted, clause 2(7) and (8) would allow UK regulations to treat compliance with EU law as sufficient for UK product standards. In effect, the Government are writing a blank cheque for automatic EU alignment into our product rules. The assumption that European Union regulations should be the starting point for our own safety standards is simply extraordinary. Did we vote to take back control only to hand it straight to Brussels by default? Our amendments demand a global perspective. If the Bill lets EU rules count as meeting UK requirements, high-quality standards from trusted partners around the world must be treated equally. As the shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), has pointed out, the Bill features the “overweighting of references to EU standards versus comparable standards from the United States and Commonwealth friends”. —[Official Report, 1 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 221.] Why should a spanner approved in Berlin get a free pass in Britain, but one approved in Boston or Tokyo face extra hurdles? Regulators in the US, Canada, Australia and Japan—allies with rigorous standards—deserve the same respect as EU regulators.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his wise words. I agree that it makes no sense whatsoever. A noble Lord in the other place put it well, saying that we should be “open to the best standards globally”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC56.] accepting that goods made in high-standard, well-regulated economies like the US, Canada, Australia, Japan and the EU are safe for our markets. In fact, the UK’s own Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency already recognises approvals from such countries to get innovative products to market faster. Why not apply the same principle here, if this is truly about economic liberalism and global free trade from a pro-growth Government? Why do the Government not support the amendments? By broadening recognition beyond the EU, we would reduce duplication and costs for British businesses that export and import worldwide. We would also bolster our sovereignty by making our own decisions about which international standards serve UK interests, rather than reflexively mirroring Brussels. The Government claim that subsection (7) is merely about “recognition”, not automatic alignment. But recognition should not be exclusive to Europe; it must extend to any standard that meets British safety and quality benchmarks, whether it originates in Brussels, Washington, Canberra or beyond. Our amendments would ensure equal openness to global standards and end the special status of EU law in the Bill. This is a sensible alternative: a truly global Britain that maintains high standards without tethering itself to EU rules alone. I urge Government colleagues to accept these sensible amendments.
The Minister is still not being clear with us about exactly why he objects to broadening the scope of the Bill to include the valuable jurisdictions that I mentioned. Instead, he is constraining the Bill to being about only the EU.
The Minister talks about impact assessments and so on, but does not the framing of the Bill mean that the current Government and any future Government can ignore any impact assessments and carry on regardless? There is no parliamentary scrutiny and there are no meaningful safeguards.
I ask the Minister to speak slightly slower; I am partially deaf and am really struggling to hear him. I am grateful for his forbearance.
We share the hon. Member’s view that we should all be ambitious for the United Kingdom. There is no ideology on our side. We are simply seeking a global perspective rather than a constrained perspective.
I rise to speak to clause 3 and Opposition amendments 23 to 25. Clause 3 deals with the enforcement of product regulations, but as it stands, it embodies a vast Executive overreach that undermines accountability and business confidence. The Opposition believe in clear and limited rules, not vague powers that spook entrepreneurs. Our amendments would inject much-needed clarity and proportionality into clause 3. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire set out, amendment 23 presses for a definition of the so-called “relevant authority”. The Bill hands out new regulatory powers without even specifying who will wield them. Is it to be the Secretary of State, local trading standards officers, a new quango or devolved Administrations? Nobody knows. Businesses deserve to know who might come knocking at their door to enforce these rules. We need clarity about which authority is in charge, so that there is accountability instead of a free-for-all. Secondly, amendment 24 highlights the Bill’s vague enforcement functions. Clause 3 would empower unnamed authorities to monitor, investigate and secure compliance with wide-ranging product regulations, but it sets no clear limits or guidance. That open-ended mandate could invite over-zealous enforcement. We all support product safety, but regulators must not have a blank cheque to harass businesses. The functions and scope of enforcement need to be defined with precision and targeted at genuinely dangerous non-compliance, not wielded arbitrarily. Trustworthy business owners should not lie awake at night worrying that some inspector will suddenly decide to make an example of them for a minor technical breach. Thirdly, amendment 25 addresses the sweeping powers of inspectors. As drafted, the Bill will even allow inspectors to enter homes and seize products on the say-so of a Minister’s regulation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) warned in a previous debate that a future Minister, on a whim, could create legions of inspectors with the rights to barge into people’s homes or businesses and to confiscate property. We must ensure that enforcement powers are proportionate to actual risks, and that innocent consumers and traders are protected from unreasonable intrusion.
Amendment 26 relates to the alarming creation of new criminal offences in clause 3, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire has already set out. Clause 3(9) to (11) would let Ministers create or widen criminal offences and penalties by regulation, bypassing full parliamentary scrutiny. As my hon. Friend has set out, this is an absolute travesty, and it is extraordinary to believe that Government Members will support it. The clause is an affront to the principle that criminal law is made by the people’s elected representatives in primary legislation, not by Ministers slipping provisions through the regulatory back door. Even the House of Lords Constitution Committee has fiercely criticised the approach, reiterating that using delegated powers to create crimes is “constitutionally unacceptable”. It urges that these subsections should be removed from the Bill entirely. We simply cannot allow a situation where business owners wake up one morning and find that a new statutory instrument has turned some technical regulatory breach into a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment. I urge Government Members to think about the provision.
I agree with my right hon. Friend that this is a very serious moment. It might appear to be just a line in a Bill, but it could have far-reaching consequences that are far greater than Government Members are considering at the moment. Parliament must debate and decide such grave matters, not rubber-stamp them after the fact. Taken together, our amendments champion a pro-business climate. Effective regulation should not mean endless state interference. We can secure compliance in smarter, targeted ways by information sharing and using civil sanctions for minor breaches, rather than unleashing these unbridled powers. I urge Ministers to accept amendment 26 or, at least, to provide iron-clad assurances for the record.
I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s point about expert witnesses. Like the relevant authorities we spoke about earlier, and which also come into clause 6, there is no clear definition of who those experts will be. The hon. Member is taking it on trust that they will indeed be experts.
I defer to the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge of metrology organisations around the world and recognise his expertise. However, from a legislative perspective, the Bill does not rely on metrology experts being the relevant authorities. If metrology experts had been defined as the relevant authorities, I think we would be significantly less concerned. The hon. Gentleman lays out the exact expertise that we would all love to hear. My issue is with the lack of clarity in the Bill.
Thank you, Ms Vaz. It has been fascinating to understand more about the science and history of measurement from the hon. Member for Erewash. I will speak on clause 5, and specifically in support of Opposition amendment 27, which implements a crucial safeguard to prevent regulatory overreach in the sensitive and highly impactful area of metrology. Clause 5 grants the Secretary of State sweeping powers to make regulations about units of measurement and the way that goods must be marketed, weighed or labelled. Let us be clear: we all agree that accuracy in measurement is important. However, we must also be clear-eyed about the extent of the powers being handed to Ministers under this clause—powers that go far beyond maintaining standards and veer dangerously into heavy-handed interference in markets and consumer choice. The Government want us to believe this is just housekeeping, but let us remember that these powers enable the Secretary of State to change what units are permitted, how goods are packaged and what must be printed on labels, without primary legislation and with minimal scrutiny. Amendment 27 offers a clear, reasonable boundary by seeking to ensure that any use of those powers is necessary, proportionate and accountable to Parliament. What is the threshold for intervention? Are we comfortable with the idea that, under the current drafting, a future Minister could outlaw certain traditional measurements or enforce rigid labelling regimes with sweeping economic consequences? What is more, businesses are already under pressure. Small producers, corner shops and importers are the people who will be forced to re-label products, change packaging and absorb costs if metrology regulations shift unpredictably. Without clear safeguards, clause 5 becomes a weapon against small business certainty and economic growth. Amendment 27 would ensure that changes made under the clause are transparent, justified and time-bound, where necessary. We are not anti-regulation; we are pro-accountability. We believe in making rules that support competition, protect consumers and foster innovation, not in granting sweeping authority without oversight.
Does the Minister not agree, though, that amendments 10 and 11 are morally necessary to uphold the role of Parliament as the supreme legislative authority in the United Kingdom?
I beg to move, That this House recognises that the Conservative Party stands by the result of the 2016 referendum to leave the European Union (EU); calls on the Government to stand by that decision at the summit with the EU on 19 May 2025, to put the national interest first and not to row back on Brexit, for example by re-introducing free movement through a EU youth mobility scheme, accepting compulsory asylum transfers, creating dynamic alignment between the UK and the EU, by submitting the UK to further oversight from the European Court of Justice or by joining the EU’s carbon tax scheme which will lead to higher energy bills; further calls on the Government to stand by the will of the British people by ensuring that no new money is paid to the EU, that there is no reduction in UK fishing rights, that NATO remains the foundation of European security and that the UK can continue to undertake strategic and defence agreements with non-EU partners; and also calls on the Government to put the negotiated outcome to a vote in the House of Commons. It gives me enormous pleasure to open this debate on one of the subjects that has been central to this House since I was first elected in 2017. It is a debate that is necessary this week, because we know that next week, the EU and this Government are going to meet in London to discuss the next steps in our arrangements. Before that agreement is reached, it is important that this House receives some clarity on what this Government are fighting for, what they stand for and what their red lines are, because even at this late stage, this House is unaware of the Government’s intentions. I do not know whether you remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, but there was a very good TV programme in the 1980s called “Quantum Leap”. In it, an American scientist, Dr Samuel Butler—[Hon. Members: “Beckett!”] I stand corrected, and I apologise to the House. Dr Beckett stepped into the quantum leap accelerator and vanished, and awoke to find himself in strange new forms that were not his own. Every time the Prime Minister speaks, I think, “Which body has he leapt into now?” Is it the Prime Minister who spent his early life chastising all immigration law on the grounds that it was racist, or the Prime Minister who has a new-found love of strict immigration rules? Is it the Prime Minister who promised to protect winter fuel payments, or the one who immediately cast them away? Is it the Prime Minister who promised to protect farmers, but immediately did the opposite; the Prime Minister who said he knew what a woman was, but then changed his mind; or the Prime Minister who said he would not put taxes on working people, but then promptly did? The Prime Minister does not know what he stands for or which way he looks, and that is a very difficult thing in negotiations. Our position is simple: there can be no going back. The Conservative party fought long and hard to take control of our laws, our borders and our money, and with those powers, we succeeded in securing 70 new trade deals and the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe. The naysayers, gloomsters and dismal voices on the Opposition Benches said that it would come to nothing, but in 2015, UK trade—[Interruption.] I look forward to correcting the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), who chunters from a sedentary position.
No. In 2015, UK international trade stood at just over £1 trillion a year, but by 2023, it stood at £1.6 trillion a year—all in spite of Brexit. Our concern is that this Government have proven themselves to be really terrible negotiators. We have previously heard the Administration talk about the need for ruthless pragmatism; one can only wonder whether that is the same ruthless pragmatism that gave us the Chagos deal. When I was a history teacher, we used to say that the worst deal in history was the one that the Lenape people of north-east America did with the Dutch settlers. As the House will recall, they gave away Manhattan island for 60 guilders and a handful of beads, but at least they got 60 guilders and a handful of beads—they did not spend £18 billion of their own money on giving away their territory, as this Government have. I wonder whether it is the same ruthless pragmatism that immediately gave out £9.4 billion in above-inflation pay rises to the unionised sectors in return for nothing at all—no agreements on productivity or reform. Is it the same ruthless pragmatism that gave us the collapse of the £450 million AstraZeneca deal, the botched steel mess that we all had to return during recess for, or the missed opportunities of the US tariff arrangement the other day? Our concern, of course, is that this will happen again.
I always have respect and time for the hon. Gentleman’s wisdom, but I feel I must correct him. The Government are not hard Brexiteers—they are just Brexiteers today. Tomorrow, who knows? What we know is that they were against leaving the EU, and then they changed their minds. Those people who change their minds on such fundamental issues may well change them back—they may well turn on a sixpence and do it again. The fact of the matter is that the Government have entered these negotiations with no clear objectives, and with red lines so thin and washed-out that they can be quickly discarded. However, today is an opportunity for the Labour party to come clean about what it wants and what it is doing, because Labour Members will have to vote on our motion, which sets out our red lines. Those red lines are very clear and precise, and in keeping with the will of the British people.
It is freedom of movement for young people, is it not? What we are asking for today is for the Labour party to set out what its clear position is. In a moment, I will explain why that is very important. The fact is that up until this point, we have seen chaos in these negotiations. That will be easy for the Labour party to understand, because on 24 February, we heard the Home Secretary rule out a youth mobility deal—the Government were not going to do it and were not looking into it. At the beginning of March, though, the Postmaster General suggested in a Westminster Hall debate that he was open to such a deal, but then on 24 April, the Postmaster General ruled it out again. [Interruption.] I mean the Paymaster General—would the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) like to be Postmaster General? Okay, Paymaster General it is. He ruled it out on 24 April, but then at the beginning of May, he once again ruled it in. This does not end with the youth mobility scheme. On 23 January, Labour Ministers ruled out joining the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean area. Three days later, the Chancellor said that the Government were looking at it, and then on 3 February, the Government ruled it out again. The Government do not know what they are doing; they do not know what they want to achieve, have no objectives, and have very blurred red lines. There is an emerging sense that this will be a good deal—a good deal for the EU, in which the balance of benefits will run against the UK. Despite the fact that the Government do not wish to give a running commentary —they are content to give a running commentary to the press—it seems that the EU’s demands are being met in this negotiation, but because the UK has no demands, its demands cannot be met.
I am glad to be the one to break it to the hon. Lady that we already co-operate with Europe on defence, and have done so for a very long time. She will know that the cornerstone of our defence is—and always has been, since the second world war—NATO. Now is an apt moment to remember that, because today is the 85th anniversary of the first speech that Sir Winston Churchill made as Prime Minister, given from that Dispatch Box, or, rather, from the Dispatch Box that was there before the Chamber was bombed. It was his “blood, toil, tears and sweat” speech. It is obviously incredibly important that we co-operate with our European partners on defence, but that is why we do. We spend 2.5% of GDP on defence—and the Opposition would like to spend 3%, and more—largely to help defend Europe, and we know of no reason, because the Government have not given one, why NATO is insufficient for that task.
I would say that if the terms of the deal are that the UK must pay to have access to that fund, we must ask very serious questions of our European allies about why we should have to contribute when we are already committed to their security. If the Government choose to go down that route, it is for the Government to explain why that should be the case. The truth is that NATO must continue to be the cornerstone of our defence, but over the weekend there were reports in The Sunday Times that the EU might be inserted into our chain of command, which would be a very significant change.
From a sedentary position, the Paymaster General says that that is absolute nonsense. I am pleased to hear it, but the right hon. Gentleman has not yet had an opportunity to tell the House that. It was clear that someone in the Government, or within the EU, was briefing journalists over the weekend that this might be true. [Interruption.] I think the right hon. Gentleman needs to take responsibility for his special advisers. If there is to be a defence pact, it is for the Government to explain why it would make us safer.
My right hon. Friend has a great deal of experience of these matters, and he has made a series of very important points, but it is for the Government to explain why this would be in the interests of the UK. The summit is taking place next week, and so far the Government have not done so.
When I first arrived in the House, the leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party was advocating leaving NATO and giving up Trident, so I will take no lectures from those on his side of the House. My party is committed to 3% defence spending, and I think that those defence contractors in his constituency would very much like to see a Conservative Government spend some of that money in his patch.
My hon. Friend’s experience in these matters speaks volumes. The truth is that we must be absolutely certain that this will not be just another scheme for funnelling money into French defence companies while keeping it away from defence companies in other jurisdictions.
I fully agree with my hon. Friend. The fact is that the UK has made a disproportionate, but necessary, contribution to European defence for many decades. I think that we were right to do so, and I would support our doing so into the future, but it is only right for our friends to recognise that contribution and to treat us not as an external power coming to parlay, but rather as a close and long-term friend whose loyalty has already been proved many times over. It would also be good today to have clarification from the Government of their position on EU lawmaking. I was lucky enough to have a call with my friend Sir William Cash this morning. It was an unusually brief call, lasting only 20 minutes. [Laughter.] Sir Bill put it very clearly to me: he said that in any new arrangement with the EU it was important for us to see no EU lawmaking, no jurisdiction for the European Court of Justice and no attempt to reapply the principles of EU law in our courts, because one principle of our departure from the EU was that we would take back control of our money, our borders and our laws.
The hon. Gentleman has made a very good point. It is one that he has made often in the House, and I look forward to his making it to the Minister in a few moments’ time. On the subject of fish, we are clear about the fact that there should be no multi-year deal, because that would reduce the UK’s leverage in future negotiations with the EU. We should have 12 nautical miles of exclusive access. That is what our fishermen want, and it is what the Conservative party supports. There should also be fair distribution of quota schemes, and no trade barriers during disputes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has made the position very clear. This is an opportunity to defend the UK’s fishermen, and to build on the deal that we had previously from the Brexit negotiations. We should not be giving up the freedom of our fishermen.
Ain’t that the truth! Here is an opportunity for the Government to give guarantees and securities to our fishermen.
We are the party that took fishermen out of the common fisheries policy, which is something that fishing communities wanted. We very much hope that this Government will not concede the rights that were hard won in those negotiations.