Draft Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2024 General Committees

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Rees, and to be in this room. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow on the Front Bench was incredibly polite, whereas I shall not be. What a mess! What an absolute mess this is for British business, and what a symbol of the failures of Brexit.

Over the past year, while serving on bodies such as the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill Committee, I had the pleasure, shall we call it, of looking at the great powers and freedoms that Brexit offered us to set our own standards on toy safety. But what today tells us is that it is through collaboration that we keep our children safe and our standards high. This mess, this uncertainty and all the money that businesses have had to spend over the past couple of years amount to an honest admission—and this is what I hope the Minister will give us later—that trying to set our own regulatory regime in an international global economy when our businesses want to compete and to sell across the world is completely counterproductive to the British interest and to British businesses. A smarter regulatory regime? We all knew that Brexit ultimately was just about more paperwork.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

Of course, the European Union does not represent the entire world and not every country in the world is a member of the European Union, so is the hon. Lady saying that the European Union should also forgo its right to set its regulations and should perhaps accept Codex as a standard to abide by?

[Stella Creasy]

I am not quite sure why the right hon. Member came up with that analysis. I am trying to make the point that we as a country, having left—[Interruption.] I would love to answer his question. I know that he has to chunter from a sedentary position because today is an embarrassment for him as somebody who also promoted the idea that, somehow, if we left the regulatory regime of the European Union, our country’s businesses would benefit. They have not, and this instrument today proves why, because it is about how people can trade together and how regulatory regimes interact with each other. The point about CE marking is one that any business could have told him before we left the European Union. This is not an argument for us to rejoin; it is an argument for some honesty about why having common frameworks and common standards matters.

The right hon. Member would do well to look at the explanatory memorandum and what it means when it says on page 4:

“This EU recognition is implemented in GB legislation”.

What it is actually saying is that our standards are lower than the standards that the EU has set, because through this statutory instrument the Minister is admitting that GB standards will already be being met if EU standards are met. The tail is not wagging the dog; the dog is fully in the doghouse, because the reality is that it is better for British business to have one set of regulations to comply with. There is less paperwork, not more.

The paperwork that came from Brexit shows the fallacy of the idea—the fantasy—that somehow we, a country of 70 million consumers, could set a separate regulatory regime and tell British businesses that they could still trade across the world without incurring additional costs or facing additional barriers, including additional non-tariff barriers, and friction. That is the reality of this SI. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow was being kind about it. It is an admission of failure when it comes to the freedoms that British businesses were promised.

In that sense, I have a number of questions for the Minister, because I think British business deserves some honesty about the lessons that can be learned from the mess created over the charter mark in the last couple of years. Will he be honest? Given that the explanatory memorandum says that if EU standards are met, GB standards will have been judged to be met automatically, is that dynamic alignment? Are we saying that if, for example, new toy standards are set by the European Union, we will expect British business to follow them in order to meet the standards set out in this SI? Are we dynamically aligning? If we are not, the Minister needs to tell British business what will happen if British businesses do not meet those standards. Is there a cut-off point? At what point do these standards fall away?

Will the Minister be honest? We have talked about a figure of £583 million in terms of the cost. Of course, that is the cost of not implementing a British standards charter, so this is not actually some great benefit to British businesses. This is an admission that all the time, effort and energy that went into trying to make the Brexit fallacy work in relation to British paperwork has cost them money, so actually, if we do not do this, we can save them money by not implementing the Brexit standards. But the impact assessment says that the total net impact for British business is actually £1.6 billion. Can the Minister clarify what the other £1 billion-worth of impact might be? Is it all that extra paperwork, the time, the cost and the business lost from trying to come up with two different charter marks to meet two different standards?

At what point did the Government recognise that this was in the British interest? How many stakeholder meetings were there? How loud did British business have to shout about the impossibility of trying to run two regulatory regimes at the same time? Why have we not learned the lesson from Northern Ireland on this? The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act was about a bonfire of 4,000 regulations. To date, only a handful have been deleted. There is a good reason why that is the case. That is why it is important that we support this SI today. It is better for British businesses to have stability and to have less paperwork if they want to sell both in the UK and to Europe. It is better to be part of a standards regime that, through this SI, we are saying is a high-standards regime, because we are saying that we want to meet those standards.

What else will the Minister admit we have learned? The retained EU law Act gives his Department multiple pieces of legislation to review. Right now, across Parliament, in rooms like this, there are people looking at retained EU law legislation and whether we should have variation, and finding, oddly enough, when we look at it, that we should not. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow says, it falls apart on hard contact with reality. It is better for British business to be able to share one set of regulatory regimes. What lessons have the Government learned from that experience, from all those stakeholder meetings and from all the money, effort and time that has been spent trying to come up with our own set of standards, when it was better for British business, toy safety and British consumers to share EU standards and be part of the CE mark? What will happen if those standards are not met?

The Minister will suggest that I am making an argument for remain, but this is not an argument for remain; it is an argument for sanity. That is what the British people deserve, given the damage being done by the hard Tory Brexit that is now being implemented in this country, and it is what this meeting needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is slightly above my pay grade, but I acknowledge what the hon. Lady said about my role. I have been here 18 months, and I am pleased to have been in the job, but I also have great respect for my predecessors.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow described what has happened as an unmitigated disaster for businesses. I would point out that the UK is now fifth in the global league table for trade; it was sixth, but we have just gone past France. We are the fourth largest exporter in the world; we were seventh, and we have again gone past France. We are third in terms of GDP growth, whether we look at the period since 2010, since the pandemic or indeed since Brexit. We are the second largest exporter in the world of financial services. We have the largest number of unicorns in Europe—businesses that have gone from start-up to a $1 billion valuation—and twice as many as France and Germany combined. So there are many, many positive things that the hon. Lady might reflect on rather than looking at the difficulties she describes for businesses.

I think the hon. Lady said that we should dynamically align with everything the European Union does and that that would be helpful for business. Let me point out some of the things that she would forgo if she took that approach: the move to digital labelling on a voluntary basis, which businesses greatly welcome; the changes we have made to things such as the working time directive, holiday pay and GDPR, and to the product safety regulations, which will make it easier for businesses to comply with those regulations; the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill, which will hold big tech companies to account to help small and medium-sized enterprises, in a completely different and we think much better way than the EU; free trade agreements with 73 countries, including Australia and New Zealand; and accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership and thus one of the largest growing markets in the world. None of those things would have been possible had we stuck in the European Union, as the hon. Lady wanted, or continued with dynamic alignment with European Union rules. She asked whether we will continue to dynamically align. We will take that on a case-by-case basis. The UKCA mark is still there where we decide to diverge from the European Union.

I did not get the hon. Lady’s point about the net benefit. The net benefit is set out quite clearly in the impact assessment: £64.8 million in the first year and £558 million over a 10-year period. I am happy to write to her if she wants to write to me—

[Stella Creasy]

rose—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Or she can come in now.

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the Minister. I am merely pointing out that the reason why those net benefits exist is about the option of keeping the existing CE mark, as opposed to moving wholly to the UKCE mark that the Government originally put out. The Minister’s own impact assessment suggests that for British business to have done that would have cost them £1.6 billion. That is why this is a fantasy, and that is why the question what happens if businesses diverge from these requirements comes into play. I hope the Minister will answer that, because it would be helpful to understand what the Government think will happen if businesses do, after all that, still want to follow his UKCE mark and pay that cost.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is the UKCA mark, by the way. The reality is that we will take this on a case-by-case basis. Where there are good reasons to diverge for a product or sector, we could use the UKCA mark and diverge from the European Union. We are not going to diverge right across the piece; we can have the best of both worlds. We can make it easier for businesses that want to trade across borders in the European Union and the UK, but we can diverge where necessary using the UKCA mark.

Before I conclude, I will give way to my right hon. Friend.

Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [Lords]

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 19th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Like everybody else, let me start with a moment of consensus. It was a privilege to be present for the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Damien Egan). On my visit to his constituency, I did not get to see the beacon that he mentioned, but that is clearly an oversight on my part and I hope to rectify it at some point. May I be the first to congratulate his sister on her wedding? Brothers who usurp their sisters are brave men, and only being elected to this place is a justifiable reason for doing so.

I am going to contradict my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) in that I think we have to talk about Brexit in this debate, not least because the Government have talked about Brexit in promoting the benefits of the CPTPP, and the people of the UK deserve better. They need to understand what is being offered to them and what is being done to reflect their growing recognition of the severe damage that this Tory hard Brexit has done to the British economy and to British businesses.

I rise to support not only the amendments tabled by my Front-Bench colleagues, but the concerns that have been raised about democratic oversight and scrutiny of those who might join the CPTPP. I will also speak to new clause 9, which I have tabled. I am pleased to say that it has support from across the House, including among people who disagree on whether Brexit has been a good idea. When so much fantasy has dominated the debate, it is about time we had some facts.

New clause 9 refers to the very real experience of British business right now of the damage that Brexit has done. Research suggests that £140 billion has already been drained from the economy; those trading opportunities and business opportunities have gone. The average Briton is £2,000 worse off, and in my London constituency people are £3,500 worse off. British businesses are crying out for support and help with trade. Research from the University of Sussex last year showed that only 6% were positive about Brexit, and seven in 10 manufacturers reported problems with their supply chain. That is why it matters that we look at the CPTPP.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am here not to oppose joining the CPTPP, but to hold the Government to account. It is Government Ministers, as well as their chums and various right-wing think-tanks, who promoted the idea that we should not worry about the damage that Brexit under their watch has done to our economy, because programmes such as the CPTPP were going to replace all those trading opportunities and be the hallowed ground that British business could look to.

The Trade Secretary herself said:

“Our accession to CPTPP sends a powerful signal that the UK is open for business and using our post-Brexit freedoms to reach out to new markets around the world”.

She is one of the milder advocates for the idea that not only has Brexit been a roaring success, but that the CPTPP will add to those trading opportunities.

“It’s no exaggeration to say that CPTPP+UK is an equivalent economic power to the EU-28”,

said Shanker Singham of the Institute of Economic Affairs. Goodness me, what a claim to be making. I tabled new clause 9 because I think British business and this place deserve to know the truth about the relative merits of such partnerships and the challenges to our businesses and communities, particularly small and medium-sized businesses struggling with the impact of Brexit, as well as whether help is indeed coming.

The honest truth is that nobody wants to name consistently the impact of this partnership deal, not even the Secretary of State herself. Mark Littlewood, who is also from the Institute of Economic Affairs, has claimed:

“The benefits to Britain will likely be significantly greater than some official estimates driven by static economic models.”

The challenge to that argument is that, when we ask anybody who promotes it what the actual data might be—where the evidence is that this will be the help needed by British businesses that are being clobbered by Brexit, with all the rules, regulations and tariffs they are now facing—we get the Facebook setting response of “It’s complicated”. That is not good enough for British business.

Even the Secretary of State tried that model with the Business and Trade Committee, telling it that she disputed the idea that the results or the benefits to British businesses of joining the CPTPP would be small, but she could not give an alternative model or an alternative number to give people some crumb of hope that they might actually solve the problems in their supply chain.

All we are left with are the claims of greatness—claims that disintegrate on hard contact with the here and now about what is actually being proposed and what actual damage has been done by Brexit. Here and now, British businesses find that Brexit border taxes are increasing, although I note that today in a written ministerial statement the Government have decided to rewrite some of those Brexit border taxes, which are due to come in at the end of April. So that is great for British businesses! That is stability and planning, when even the Government do not know how much they are going to charge people. The CPTPP is supposed to reduce the tariffs and non-tariff barriers we now face as a direct result of having left the European Union, because after all it is about reducing tariff barriers.

Let us look at the data we have to hand and whether we can really judge this partnership as offering that salvation. It has been claimed again, this time by The Daily Telegraph, that the bloc will represent 16% of global GDP, “leap-frogging the combined EU.” It is currently 10% of global GDP—but you know the Telegraph and figures—compared with 14% for the European Union. It is said that the CPTPP member countries have a combined population of 500 million and a GDP of £9 trillion. That is fantastic; we can be part of trading with them—nobody would dispute that that would be helpful to British businesses. There is a small reference point to take into account, however. Although the EU is of a similar size with a GDP of £11 trillion, the total value of our trade with the EU is £557 billion. That is 45% of our total trade, but that trade is falling as a direct result of Brexit, because it used to account for 55% of UK exports.

That is because, for all the smoke and mirrors and all the bluster about the CPTPP, there is a simple fact: geography matters. We can fight many things in life but air miles and transportation costs are not among them. Our ability to trade with our nearest neighbours easily and freely matters to British business far more than anything we could do with those further away. That is why the Government’s own impact assessment tells us that the CPTPP might only make 0.06% of difference to our GDP, or £2 billion. That is in part because we already have trade deals with most of the countries from when we had them as part of the EU. So only a further 0.33%—not 33%—of total UK trade will come under the new trade agreements.

The reality in all this and the conundrum we face is that this trade partnership will only really be a big deal if more countries join. I am sorry the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Sir Liam Fox) is no longer in his place. He was disappointed that the United States of America were not part of the CPTPP. It will only be the game changer that people talk it up to be if more countries join. Then we would be looking at the Indo-Pacific region. Right here, right now, that is not what we are signing up to and that is not what is being offered to British business. That is why scrutiny and looking at who else might join matters, but it is also why new clause 9 matters. It is not fair to British business to suggest that help is coming when help there is none.

Membership of the CPTPP bears no comparison to EU membership. The sum it will generate is just one fiftieth of what the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates Brexit has already cost the UK economy. Indeed, it estimates that leaving the single market means that our GDP will be 4% less over the next 15 years, and some have estimated that GDP has already reduced by 5% as a result.

In 2022, the UK exported £340 billion-worth of goods and services to the EU. By way of comparison, we exported £64 billion-worth of goods and services to the CPTPP countries. New clause 9 is about being honest with British businesses about where those markets lie and where they should invest their time. It is also about understanding that free trade is not just about tariffs; it is also about regulations and the non-tariff changes we face. It is about understanding that this deal could lead to a lowering of food standards and problems with our food supply chain. It could affect our ability to sign a sanitary and phytosanitary deal with Europe that might help remove those silly Brexit border taxes which mean that in a couple of weeks our constituents are going to be asking us why there are food shortages and food inflation and loads of lorries queued up at Dover trying to get to Sevington. It could lead to challenges for our environment, too: my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) rightly raised questions about palm oil and deforestation. There is an absolute irony in those who championed Brexit and who now champion the CPTPP not seeming to understand what the investor-state dispute settlement provisions are and the lack of democratic accountability and lack of control we might have. I do not know who is taking back control under those circumstances, because it is behind closed doors.

Clearly, we could have been working on other deals as a country that would have made a bigger difference to British business. That is why the amendments and new clause are so important. Our constituents demand that we ask those questions and get those answers from Government about the tariffs that are being retained and the impact that they will have, such as for British cheese producers. After all, Canada’s dairy industry is being protected—no Wensleydale for Winnipeg. The Trade and Agriculture Commission has warned of the potential increased costs of products due to tariff reductions, because UK producers will be held legally to higher sustainable standards. It is also about the rules of origin and details around what content is allowed.

Nobody is disputing that it is helpful to have content accumulation, because it helps with those difficulties within supply chains. Ministers have made much about that, but the reality is that had they spent as much time on the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, we would have far greater benefits for British business. That convention binds together more than 60 bilateral trade agreements within the Euro-Mediterranean area. It is not just the EU; it is much broader than that. There are 23 contracting parties, each with free trade agreements between them and a single rules-based origin protocol.

British businesses and those struggling supply chains could have got much more help, had we looked at what would really benefit them and just admitted the geography at stake in all this. We have short-changed ourselves and we are short-changing the British public if we try to claim that the CPTPP is in any way compensation for the damage that Brexit is doing.

In challenging those on the right who claim that the benefits of CPTPP will far outweigh the problems of Brexit—their hope and intention is that UK accession will kill off any likelihood that we will ever be part of the EU customs union or single market, as in that article in The Daily Telegraph—and that we could not have dynamic alignment, we have to recognise that that is just not true. There is plenty of evidence that whatever we did, we could rethink, and thank goodness for that. When things are at stake for British business, it is only right that we ask those questions. There is a process for changing regulations as we join the CPTPP that can be reversed if we can do a deal with Europe and work out what is in the best interests of British business. The only way we can do that is if we have the facts, and that is what new clause 9 is about.

Whether Members agreed with Brexit or opposed it, they should support new clause 9 and that ethos of having the data. If I am wrong and the CPTPP is the light at the end of the tunnel for British business, let us prove it, stand behind it and celebrate it. Nobody wants to see British business struggling as a result of Brexit with no help in sight. Every Member in this House should get behind the idea that we need good economic modelling. We should understand the extent of alignment, what new trade regulations on carbon pricing might do for British business and what is happening to trade volumes as a result of these partnerships. Without the new clause, we will not get that data. We will still get the Facebook answer of, “It’s complicated. We cannot really tell you.” All the while, global Britain is going-broke Britain—it is gutted Britain, with businesses across the country facing reams and reams of paperwork because of Brexit, with no end in sight, because this Government will not put British business first and renegotiate with Europe for a closer deal.

I am sorry that new clause 9 has not been selected for decision. I understand why, but I hope that Members will join me in demanding better for British business when it comes not just to trade deals, but to our relationship with Europe, because every manager of a small business in this country right now will be looking at all the paperwork, all the complications, all the further regulations and excessive costs and frankly the fact that the Government cannot even tell them what they will charge them on the Brexit border tax, and they will be coming to our constituency surgeries asking for help. We owe them the respect of having an answer.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

May I say what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy)? She makes an excellent case for rejoining the European Union. I could have scarcely put it better myself, and I hope her leader is listening. She makes some important points, any teasing aside, about the importance of economic data and of being able to model the impacts of the Government’s decisions.

I rise to speak to new clause 10, which is in my name, but first I would echo a number of voices from various parts of the Chamber that have expressed regret that we have before us a narrow Bill to ensure compliance with the requirements of the CPTPP, rather than a debate on the substance and fundamental principle. That is something on which, collectively, we could do much better.

Post Office Governance and Horizon Compensation Schemes

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

That is definitely what we are trying to do. No one should be in a worse position than they were in before the scandal happened. Where we can provide additional compensation, we will be able to do so, and that is what the process is set up to do.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Many of us will be concerned about the Department that oversees employment rights being one where thousands of people know that somebody is about to be sacked before they do. We would agree with the Secretary of State that the process is about giving the public confidence that when wrongs come to light, they will be righted. The challenge she faces is that the track record of recent decades is not good. It is not just about the Horizon scandal, but the nuclear veterans, Windrush, the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, the infected blood scandal and Grenfell. Time and again, it is the compensation schemes that become the story and a source of injustice. Rather than taking to Twitter, would it not be the right rejoinder for her to become the first Secretary of State to say, “We should put the management of compensation schemes involving Government out to an independent body so that everyone can have confidence”? I am sure she would find support from Opposition Members for that.

[Kemi Badenoch]

First, I have not said that thousands of people knew that Henry Staunton was being sacked; I said that there are thousands of people who work in the Department, and it could have been anybody who put that out there. It is important that we stick to what has been said on the record. The hon. Lady mentions that these scandals go over decades, and I remind her that the Horizon scandal started under a Labour Government; it is this Government who are beginning to fix it.

Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [Lords]

Stella Creasy Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

There will be a multiplicity of benefits for small businesses—for instance, the tariffs to which I have referred—but the agreement also contains a chapter that was specifically intended to help SMEs to take advantage of it.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State mentioned car exports to Malaysia. That, of course, will not make up for the millions of pounds that we now risk losing because of the suspension of the deal with Canada for the automotive industry. The Bill will do nothing to tackle that, because it is based on the accumulation of EU content that we need. Will the Secretary of State tell us what on earth she will do to fight for British car makers, given that we shall now have the worst of all worlds, and we are not even part of a “Canada-style deal” with Canada?

[Kemi Badenoch]

First, Canada is part of the CPTPP. Secondly, the rules of origin, to which the hon. Lady was referring, have still not been fully decided; that will come in March. We are working with our counterparts in Canada. I think the hon. Lady was confusing the discussions on rules of origin with discussions on cheese, which is an entirely different issue.

UK companies will enjoy greater market access in some of the nine countries with which we already have bilateral agreements. Let us take Mexico. Under our current bilateral agreement, chocolate producers must pay a tariff of about 25%, but on accession that will drop to zero. We also said at the outset of our negotiations that we would like our businesses to benefit from the key trade quotas that this agreement offers. I am pleased to tell the House that we have secured access to those quotas as part of our negotiations. That means, among other things, that we have secured better access for UK dairy producers selling to Canada, Japan and Mexico, and it probably explains why Minette Batters, the president of the National Farmers Union, has said that the agreement could provide

“good opportunities to get more fantastic British food on plates overseas.”

I am sure that all Members here today would warmly welcome such an outcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

We support accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. We have concerns about the Bill and will be seeking additional safeguards, but we will not seek to divide the House this evening.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, have said, the Bill is overshadowed by the apparent collapse of bilateral FTA negotiations with Canada, one of CPTPP’s most important members. There has been no statement to the House, and I read the transcript of the Secretary of State’s evidence to the Business and Trade Committee and saw no reference to the collapse of those negotiations. As I understand it, there has not even been a written statement to the House. This is one further sign of the Government’s cavalier approach to trade.

[Stella Creasy]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, because this really matters. With £750 million-worth of British car exports at stake, the Canadian Trade Minister, Mary Ng, has said on the record that she is “disappointed” the talks have fallen apart. The Ministers shouting “fake news” need to be clear and honest with the British workers whose jobs are at stake. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need some honesty from the Government? If they think the talks have not fallen apart, can they tell us when they will start again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Mangnall]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has made that point and I thank him for all the work that he does on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. He is right to raise the fact that we have such high standards, and that by joining organisations such as this, we will not only serve as an example to others, but show how it is possible to create productive and profitable markets.

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way and appreciate that he feels very strongly about this issue. Will he clarify this for those listening—that the animal welfare standards that we abided by as part of the European Union are not those we are going to see in Canada, Australia or New Zealand? Indeed, we are allowing those goods to be imported tariff-free as part of deals such as this, but we are about to put a whacking great tariff on consignments and import safety checks on food coming in from Europe. Does he recognise that we are sending different messages about the value of animal standards?

[Anthony Mangnall]

I refer the hon. Lady to my previous remarks on the TAC report on CPTPP. She has made a point about Australia, and it is fair to give an answer on that. None the less, the point is that we are still safeguarding ourselves against hormone-injected beef and chlorinated chicken. Yes, there are variable standards around the world; we have to recognise that not all trade deals are Christmas trees on which to hang baubles and everything else. We can lead by example. Our standards are the highest in the world, and there is nothing to say that they are not a key persuader for other countries to follow suit in showing how there can be successful markets on that front.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

First, let me say that we on the SNP Benches are also not looking to divide the House. I thought that I might get the opportunity to pre-empt the jibe that is often made about how my party is against trade deals, but the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) got there first. I saw that those on the Labour Front Bench also took a sideswipe with their rather nonsensical jibe. I freely admit that we have yet to find a deal signed by this Government that we are happy to support. Fundamentally—I say this again—we are in favour of good trade deals and we are not in favour of poor trade deals. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Totnes is very, very excitable. For the purposes of Hansard, he is asking me to name one, but the sad fact is that I cannot name one that has been signed by this Government. Trying to help those on the Treasury Bench and Back Benchers understand the difference feels a bit like Father Ted trying to explain to Father Dougal the difference between cows that are small and cows that are far away.

In common with the shadow Minister, we are not saying that there cannot be some advantages of the CPTPP deal, but what we could not be clearer about is that, taken in their totality, all the trade deals signed to date—or even those that could have been signed had negotiations not failed to get off the starting block, or those that have hit the buffers in recent days—are a very poor substitute for the trade deals that we have left behind. In the manner in which it chose to leave the European Union, the UK managed not only to create trade borders with 27 other countries, but, unfathomably, to create one with itself, when it created a trade border down the middle of the Irish sea between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

In the CPTPP, we have essentially swapped the four freedoms in Europe of goods, capital, services and people, in a market of half a billion people with a GDP of over £15 trillion, which was right on our doorstep and which already took over 40% of our exports, with a much lesser deal, with a combined economy of almost half the size, on the opposite side of the world, which currently takes only 8% of our exports. A great deal of growth would need to happen in that market—somewhat implausibly I have to say—even to come close to matching what has been left behind.

The economic benefits of joining the CPTPP are pretty small. I know the Government do not like these figures being repeated—which seems as good a reason as any to go on and repeat them—but the UK Government’s own impact assessment indicated the long-run increase in GDP would be £2 billion, or 0.06% of GDP. The OBR even had it as 0.04% in the long run. As John Maynard Keynes said:

“In the long run we are all dead.”

In a written answer to me dated 11 September last year, the then Minister of State for International Trade, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), said that the impact assessment, where the £2 billion figure had come from, had

“been independently scrutinised by the Regulatory Policy Committee”.

I went and had a look at what the Regulatory Policy Committee had to say in order to get an idea of what “the long run” might actually mean. The Committee’s document said:

“When compared to projected levels of GDP or trade in 2040 without the agreement, the FTA’s main impacts (based on central estimates and in 2021 prices) are that…UK Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is expected to increase by £2.0 billion.”

What the Minister said in his reply will therefore be correct, just not for a further 16 years or so. In the meantime, we have a real, immediate drop of 4% in GDP resulting from Brexit, leaving our economy permanently driving with the handbrake on.

I understand that the Government intend to adhere to the Sewel convention on this occasion and will seek the legislative consent of the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies for the Bill. The Government should do that for every piece of legislation that comes through this place, not just performatively whenever they are confident of getting a positive response. While the benefits of free trade are obvious, there is also an obvious benefit to having tariffs in place. Tariffs serve a purpose; they are not just about protectionism, as some would have it.

I was encouraged to hear the Secretary of State say that we would never compromise on animal welfare standards, but one sector where that is in real danger of happening is the egg production sector. I see the Minister for Trade Policy wrinkling his brow. He and I have had an exchange on this before. The sector is worth over £1 billion to the UK economy. Tariffs exist currently to protect the industry from imports from mass-producing jurisdictions such as India and Mexico, which have lower standards than we insist on for our domestic producers, and that our consumers rightly demand.

The Minister responded, again not inaccurately, that the UK does not import many eggs. Well, eggs are quite fragile. It is difficult enough sometimes to transport them from the shops back to our kitchens intact, let alone right around the world—but of course the egg products that we are talking about are liquefied or even powdered egg products, which once put into a shipping container can be transported around the world at comparatively very low cost. It would not require a huge amount of displacement in the market to get a foothold if those products were allowed in under the terms of the CPTPP. Let us be under no illusions: for all that it is a £1 billion domestic industry, once egg producers are gone, they are gone and they are not coming back, so there is a real risk of harm and of our standards being undermined whatever level we choose to set them at domestically, because the tariff that was there to maintain a block on imports that did not meet those standards will effectively have been taken away.

[Stella Creasy]

I am not sure that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) quite understands what is about to happen with the border target operating model that fits alongside the legislation. A health check certificate and a consignment charge will be required for eggs and egg products imported from Europe, with no equivalent health check or standard required for eggs imported from CPTPP countries, thus creating an imbalance and making the scenario that the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) is talking about more likely, because of the way in which eggs are produced in this country in collaboration with Europe.

Draft Employment Rights (Amendment, Revocation and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2023

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 General Committees

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Efford, as we discuss a very important piece of legislation—I believe it is the first statutory instrument to come forward under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. The Minister says that there are countless pieces of bureaucracy retained from our relationship with Europe that the Government want to get rid of. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston has done an admirable job in deconstructing the entirety of this statutory instrument. I have a few simple questions that I suspect my constituents, many of whom will be affected by the draft regulations, because many of them are in low paid, zero-hours, flexible work.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me for making an obvious point, but while I am delighted to be accompanied by many Government Members, I am wondering whether her Opposition colleagues have better things to do than to come here to discuss this “very important piece of legislation”?

[Stella Creasy]

I wonder about all the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues of the female persuasion, who also appear to be missing from the Committee. That matters because I have some very simple questions for the Minister about the regulations, and it is rather notable that I am the only woman here to speak. The hon. Gentleman wants to play games; I want discuss the practicalities of the legislation and how it will affect the daily lives of our constituents. I hope we all recognise employment protections matter. After all, the reason why we have employment protections is that, although there are some brilliant employers who work very closely with our constituents to make sure they get the best out of them, unfortunately some employers are exploitative and not the kind of people we want to encourage. We have these rules because exploitation does not stop at our borders, and one of the reasons we signed up to common frameworks was our recognition that those bad employers could spread bad practice. Now that we have left the European Union and the protection that came from those frameworks, I have some questions for the Minister.

I welcome what the Minister said about the continuation of the rights under the Moreno Gómez case to do with taking full holiday entitlement outside of one’s maternity period, but he will recognise that that case is relevant to his introduction of rolled up holiday pay. There was a very good reason why that court case ended in the decision that it was not fair to ask employees to take rolled up holiday pay. Women taking maternity leave were particularly affected by that and the impact of having their normal holiday pay calculation being affected by taking maternity pay.

I know the Minister did not talk specifically about that, but could he clarify the provision? There are women who work term-time hours or who are on zero-hours contracts who may now find themselves wondering what it might mean for them if their employer decides to extend rolled up holiday pay. Unfortunately, some employers were still doing this, but it was illegal and therefore people had rights; now, they will not have a right to resist it.

That brings me to my second question for the Minister. The regulations will be brought in from January next year. If our constituents are now being told that they are going to have rolled up holiday pay, what right do they have to challenge that if they feel it is not in their interests? My hon. Friend pointed out this is a transfer of £250 million a year from employees to employers because, frankly, rolling up means missing out on the hours that people are working. That is why the European Court of Justice felt it not fair to enforce the policy. What rights do employees who signed contracts on the basis that they were not going to have rolled up holiday pay and who are now facing it have? Will the Minister set those out?

What legal challenges is the Minister expecting? After all, one of the reasons why good employers do not use rolled up holiday pay is that if they get the calculation wrong, they leave themselves open to legal challenge and having to expend the amount of time and effort and energy that that takes up. It is better to have a process that records people’s entitlements as they go along, even if it is a little bit more complicated, than to be landed with problems further down the line, whether from someone going on maternity leave, or from somebody who ends up working a lot more days than was perhaps intended in their rolled up holiday pay, because they are on a zero-hours contract and something happens—like Christmas. It is a great time of year for the Government to be looking at taking money out of the pockets of employees and putting it back into employers’ pockets. People who work extra hours on zero-hours contracts might find they are entitled to more holiday, but a rolled up holiday pay policy will not cover that. What is the process for resolution?

We have talked a lot about our concerns for employees, but what about employers? If they get it wrong, what protection do they have under the draft regulations? I think that really speaks to the minister’s understanding. Why did the Court come to that decision? It was not that rolled up holiday pay was seen as a terrible European plot; it was recognised that it probably was not in people’s best interests because it created more problems than it resolved. This Government have taken a different approach. Did the Minister read the original judgment and decision? Why does he feel that this is in the better interests of the British public, who will now have to deal with the complexities the policy will introduce and deal with the inequality in power between themselves and their employer? Why does he disagree with the European judges who felt that, overall, this practice was not in the best interests of either employers or employees.

I hope the Minister understands where these questions are coming from. It is our surgeries that people will come into saying, “Hang on a minute! I’ve lost a day or possibly even weeks of holiday pay as a result of changes that you as an MP didn’t really get a chance to vote for.” This is being presented to us as a “like it or lump it” thing. I am sure that my colleagues, male and female, will get used to that, because the retained EU law Act has given the Government sweeping power to do just that and affect our constituents lives in these very practical, and probably not very welcome, ways in the year ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not accept that. Again, that speaks to the fact that the only organisations quoted in last week’s debate and today’s are the unions, such as the BMA. But I think what the if I can deal with his point, if I may, I think the

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about part-year workers, there is no doubt that there is a £150 million saving for businesses, but he also talked about parity, and this is about parity. It is about two workers working in slightly different patterns but working the same hours every year having the equal amounts of holiday pay. That is what this is. Many people would consider the judgment that led to a difference to be unfair, a perverse outcome. What we’re legislating for here is fairness across the board, whether people work a part-year or a full year.

[Stella Creasy]

The Minister is being a little bit uncharitable, given that a number of us have raised the impact on employers of the complexity of the scheme. What we recognise is that not every employer is a good employer, so both employees and employers are at risk from bad employment practices. It does not have to be a battle. I am troubled by an employment Minister who seems to think we have to pick a side. Some of us want best behaviour on both sides.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is quite the opposite. We do not pick a side; we try to help both sides and to achieve a balance. That is where we are. I never hear about that balance between both sides from the Opposition; all I hear is about the impact on workers and on unions. In the debate last week, not once did I hear once about the 4 million working days lost to strikes, the 2 million operations cancelled, the hospital appointments cancelled, or the £3.5 billion impact on the hospitality sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think we are back to the same place. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the £1.2 billion is largely the administrative costs of maintaining a recording position. What he wants to move to would cost a cost employers £1 billion. That is an interesting point.

Raising concerns that I think are scaremongering, The hon. Gentleman said that in future employers would be able to keep records “if they like”. That is not the case, and he knows that. Why would he say that kind of thing? Employers are required to make and keep adequate records. He knows that from the legislation. He also raised some concerns about change expressed by one of the unions, but it is not a change, because these measures have not yet been implemented in the UK economy. Again, he raises those concerns that somehow this is detrimental to health workers, but that is not the case. Does he accept that?

In terms of the points on rolled up holiday pay raised by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Walthamstow, the Government believe the existing safeguards are proportionate in addressing current concerns about impacts on workers from rolled up holiday pay. Employers are already required to provide an opportunity for workers to take leave, and we have heard through our stakeholder engagement that this is taking place. We also have safeguards in relation to the 48-hour working week, where a worker cannot work more than 48 hours a week unless they choose to opt out.

In terms of consultations, employers will have to tell their workers if they intend to start using rolled up holiday pay, and this payment will have to be clearly marked on the worker’s payslip. If employers need to make changes to terms and conditions, they must seek to reach an agreement with their workers or their representatives.

I think I have covered most of the points raised—I am sure I will be told if I have not. Our standards and our workers’ rights were never dependent on membership of the EU—indeed, the UK provides stronger protections for workers than are required by EU law. For example, we have one of the highest minimum wages in Europe, and on 21 November, the Government announced that we will increase the national living wage for workers aged 21 and over by 9.8% to £11.44 an hour. That will certainly help the hon. Lady’s constituents, some of whom may be low paid, as she said.

Our regulatory system is recognised globally, but we want to raise the bar even higher and deliver on our ambition to become the best regulated economy in the world, as we embrace our newfound freedoms outside the EU. By doing so, entrepreneurial businesses will have more opportunity to innovate, experiment and create jobs, and importantly, workers’ rights will be protected. This will cement our position as a world-class place to work and to grow a business.

[Stella Creasy]

I asked a specific question about the impact of rolled up holiday pay on women who take maternity leave. The Minister confirmed in his statement that the protection that holiday pay should not be calculated during maternity leave was there, but he did not clarify what this would mean if a woman came back to a role, for example, and was then told she was on rolled up holiday pay.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am happy to address that point, too. The hon. Lady talked about people being notified about their leave entitlement, and I did refer to that in my response. Indeed, employers are required to provide an opportunity for workers to take leave in any circumstance, and we have heard through our stakeholder engagement this is taking place. If there are specific points she wants to raise, I am happy to respond in writing.

[Stella Creasy]

A woman on maternity leave does not accrue holiday pay because she is on maternity leave, so her holiday pay, if it is then being transferred into rolled up pay, could mean that she is at a disadvantage because she was on maternity leave; there is nothing to calculate her entitlement. I am sure that the Minister thought about this. I am sure that he thought about the protections for women on maternity leave. What would a woman’s rights be if she was then moved to rolled up holiday pay?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will not clarify the position now, but I am happy to write to the hon. Lady. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Employment Rights (Amendment, Revocation and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2023.

International Men's Day

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) on how he approached this topic and for his powerful speech. Men do face critical challenges because they are men—and young boys too—whether it is about mental health, violence or family breakdown. Too often this debate is seen as if there has to be an equal ledger of suffering before we will acknowledge those challenges. We do everybody a disservice if we ignore those concerns in favour of culture war arguments about whether James Bond could be a woman or whether Andrew Tate is what every man would be if they could get away with it, or if we simply snigger. I agree with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in so many ways, and I am so pleased to see him here today and able to contribute.

I want to take up the hon. Member for Don Valley’s challenge and talk up a particular group of men for which the term is too often loaded with negative connotations: dads. It is such an important role, but so often the butt of a joke: deadbeat dads; absentee fathers; daddy daycare; dad bods; dad jokes; sugar daddies; baby daddies; “Who is your daddy?” Our images of fatherhood are rarely ones we would wish people to replicate. Think of those famous fathers: Darth Vader; Homer Simpson; Phil Dunphy in “Modern Family”; Kevin in “Motherland”; Don Draper; Uncle Phil in “The Fresh Prince of Bel Air; Jim Royle; “Citizen Khan”; Logan Roy; Tony Soprano; Frank Gallagher—thank God for Bandit in “Bluey”. If they are not trying to take their kids over to the dark side or bullying them into a life of crime, the message is overwhelmingly that the mental load of parenting is something mothers deal with, while dads are hapless, indifferent, sidelined or, at best, cash machines.

However, a wealth of evidence tells us that dads spending time with their children leads to better outcomes. If children spend more time with their fathers at the age of nine months, by the age of three they show more positive emotions. Increasing a father’s role in a kid’s life leads to higher educational attainment and lower behavioural difficulties for both boys and girls in primary school. Indeed, the educational effect is even more profound when it comes to maths—something I know the Prime Minister is concerned about—regardless of gender, ethnicity, age in the school year, or household income. But a recent study in Scotland showed the challenge: a quarter of working dads said that they were “almost never” satisfied with the amount of quality time they got to spend with their kids—a pressure that is particularly profound for fathers of very young children.

We spend so much time in this place telling women how to be good mums. On International Men’s Day, it is time we redress the balance. The secret is that it is the same for both parents: it is about being present for kids, day in, day out, every day and all day. That is really hard in a country that does not talk about it—especially when it comes to dads—let alone value it enough to make it financially possible and socially acceptable for all.

I want to thank all those leading the change and leading the charge for fathers: Elliott Rae and the amazing MusicFootballFatherhood; Street Fathers, led by Colin James, which is helping young men make the transition from boyhood to manhood in my constituency; the Men’s Sheds project, which helps dads and men to connect and talk; the Fatherhood Institute, MANUP? and CALM for the work they are doing to tackle male mental health challenges and the dad stereotypes that the hon. Member for Don Valley set out.

Our men and boys and what they need from their dads are at the heart of so much in our society. They need dads of the involved kind—not the controlling kind, the violent kind, or the absent at work kind. The kind who does not turn around 20 years later to say, “I was away so much when my kids were growing up. I don’t know them at all.” Not the ones who say, “Ask your mum,” rather than asking themselves how they could do something and role-modelling it for their kids.

For that to become the norm, we need a Government and a country that does not think that is woke, but wise. But the last time Parliament debated how to support fathers was in 2019. The word “patriarchy” is on the record more times than “paternity”; it is a word we do not refer to unless we are talking about the Father of the House. Yes, we have a women’s mental health strategy, and that is very welcome, but as the hon. Member for Don Valley pointed out, we do not have a men’s mental health strategy. The Government’s own childcare strategy only talks about how it would benefit mums. The hon. Member for Don Valley is right: we should be asking how it benefits both parents. This year, the Government published a written ministerial statement pledging to make it easier for fathers to take flexible leave and parental leave, but that did not make it into the King’s Speech—unlike pedicabs.

Today is chance for us to collectively to reclaim “dad”; to challenge the idea that men are too stupid, too weak, too absent, too deadbeat; to help the dads working three jobs on poverty pay, never getting to see their kids grow up; and to help them be the dads that our kids, our country, and their mental health need them to be.

I have a very simple start for the Minister: how can we actually make parental leave work for dads? We know that one in 10 women experiences post-partum disorders and depression, but actually one in 10 dads experiences post-partum anxiety, which starts when the baby is born and does not stop. A 2008 study found that lower levels of cognitive development in children were associated with having a depressed dad. We should want to tackle men’s mental health problems in their own right, but also recognise that by doing so and being explicit about it, we will also help many more people around them.

So many dads are not spending the time they want with their kids because they just cannot afford to do so. More than three times more women than men claim parental leave pay. On average, new fathers take just two weeks—the statutory minimum entitlement—which is a pitiful amount of time to be able to bond with their child. That amount of leave increases only among the very wealthy. Only men with a household income of £200k or more take an average of 10 weeks.

[Dame Maria Miller]

It is interesting that the hon. Lady has brought up the amount of time that men take off for parental leave. There is also data that would suggest that even when more paid parental leave is available, it is not taken up because of a fear that both men and women feel: if we take time off around pregnancy, we are in some way letting people down. The hon. Lady, as somebody who has had children, may recognise that. Men feel the same way. It is more than simply having that offer of money; we also need an attitudinal change towards people taking the time off in the first place.

[Stella Creasy]

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Lady, whose remarks prefigure mine. Money does matter. When 43% of men say that financial hardship prevents them from taking additional leave, it matters what they get paid, in the same way that when women do not get proper statutory maternity cover, it affects our decisions. However, we also know that 17% of men cite pressure from their employer. Women’s careers get written off; men’s relationships with their children get written off. Nobody is winning in our current environment.

We need to increase the amount of time men are entitled to, but we also need to change the way we do this. We need to stop it being about men versus women and share the cost. I hope the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) will agree that it is about time we stopped making this issue something that just the mum’s employer has to deal with. If we want shared parental leave, we should share the cost of providing parental leave between both the mum’s employer and the dad’s employer so that everybody has a vested interest in helping to support that family, ensuring that the employers who benefit from it also contribute to it. Let us be honest: the dad’s employer benefits when the mum takes on the load.

Let us end the mum penalty that means women feel their careers pay the price. Let us challenge the idea that men taking care of their children and stepping up to share that responsibility is something shameful that they should do in such a way that nobody notices they are gone.

The hon. Member for Don Valley is also right to say that it is not just about financial cost. Elliott Rae has a fantastic campaign about “parenting out loud”. Women know that when they do that, they get judged; men need to do it to show a different way forward. What does he mean by parenting out loud? Rather than hiding parental responsibilities, men in leadership positions should talk about those responsibilities and role model how to combine them with the work they do, whether that is leaving work to go to a school parents evening or working from home to help to cover doctors’ appointments.

That is why when Ministers attack working from home or flexible working, it is not just mums whose opportunities they are closing down, but dads—as well as the next generation—who miss out on the impact of the extra hours they could spend with their children without having to commute. The good news is that we have empirical research on that. During the pandemic, men doubled the amount of childcare they were doing. The Fatherhood Institute recognised that it would take double that time—an extra eight hours—to get the same benefit of the father-child relationship. Parents can either spend two hours on a train getting to and from work or two hours helping our child to learn to read. I know which I think would be better for economy, better for their mental health and better for our society.

Whenever we take our vision of fatherhood from those value it least, men miss out. We would not frame our debate about financial exclusion based on the antics of Bernie Madoff, so why do we let those men who boast that they have never changed a nappy or that they were in the pub when their kid was born decide how dads rear their children? We should stop lauding men who do anything as if it is a surprise and they should be congratulated. They are the men who want a medal for taking their child to swimming. Instead, we should start asking how men can be the dads they want to be—present and equal in looking after their children, 24 hours a day, day in and day out—because that is what it takes to raise a child who will thrive. When we do that, the evidence is that it is good for men’s families, men’s relationships and our economy. On this International Men’s Day, we should finally let dads be dads.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 11th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

I have already explained the reasons why we have changed the approach and I am happy to repeat them for my right hon. Friend. He should know that I am not somebody who gets pushed around lightly. The fact is that I went in, looked at the detail and decided that this was the best way to deliver this. I stress again that this was not the Prime Minister’s decision. As a Secretary of State, I have to be responsible and look at what we can make sure is deliverable. This is the best way to get my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) what he wants. It may be different from what was put on the Floor of the House, but if he wants what I want, which is ending EU interpretative effects by the end of this year, ending the supremacy of EU law by the end of this year—[Interruption.] He is not in the room. He is very welcome to send me the list of things that he wants repealed, but this is the way to get it done.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The biggest problem with this Bill is not the haste and chaos that has come with it, the failure to be able to identify what is EU retained regulation or the fact that it risks the Windsor agreement; it is that even with the changes the Secretary of State is now proposing, the Government are giving themselves power over 4,000 areas of public policy and taking back control from MPs over what happens next on them—that has not changed. The Secretary of State says that she is across the detail. Given the attitude that she has expressed today towards this Chamber, the process and the role of MPs, if she is serious about scrutiny and democracy, will she accept the amendment standing in the names of Lord Hope, Lord Anderson, Lord Hamilton, who is a strong Brexiteer, and Lord Hodgson, also a Brexiteer, that will give this place the ability to have the final say, whether laws are being revoked, rewritten or reformed? Will the Secretary of State accept that amendment—yes or no?

[Kemi Badenoch]

We can always discuss amendments. The ones I am supporting are the Government amendments, which provide the certainty and clarity that Members in both Houses have asked for. What I am doing is a more transparent process that provides a lot more clarity. The fact that everyone can now see all the laws on the dashboards and the things that we are removing shows that we are coming to this process in good faith. I would appreciate Opposition Members doing the same.