Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and for the role he has played in these proceedings. Yes, I give him the absolute assurance he seeks. There is an important role for the House to play in looking carefully at precisely what has gone on. That is why, on behalf of the Government, I very much welcome the work that will now be done by the JCNSS and the ISC. Both those important Committees have an important role, and I am sure that hon. Members across the House will want to make other contributions as part of that process.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

What a mess. We have three questions for the Minister. First, what conversations has he had with all relevant parliamentary authorities—that might include the Speaker’s Office—about plans to tighten vetting or ongoing monitoring of researchers and staff to ensure this does not happen again?

Secondly, in the witness statements released by this Government, there is a reference to the use by the previous Government of “back channels” to attempt to dissuade the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) from raising concerns about Confucius institutes. What is the Minister’s understanding, based on the evidence, statements and any other information available, of the meaning of “back channels” in that context? Does it refer to the previous Government’s Whips Office, Government officials or somebody else?

Thirdly, given that the Prime Minister’s spokesperson still refuses today to say that China is a threat to Britain’s national security, would the Minister be comfortable with Labour MPs accepting meeting requests from representatives of the Chinese Communist party or any nations allied to China?

Middle East

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his words in relation to Alaa Abd el-Fattah and for his long campaign to raise that important issue. On the two doctors, what I can say is that the cases have been raised. I do not yet know what the status is, but I will do my best to find out and get a better answer to him as quickly as we can.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Beneath all the peace rhetoric, the brutal Hamas regime were openly executing people yesterday, and refused to give up their weapons. Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that he is going to remove them by force if necessary, and he refuses to accept a state in the west bank. It may be naive, but cannot both sides of the House unite in saying that we are absolutely, completely committed to creating a Palestinian state in the west bank? That is their God-given right and it is the only way we are going to end the cycle of despair and violence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I associate myself with the tributes paid to Lord Campbell across the House, and I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I also welcome the release of all hostages and several hundred Palestinian detainees, but we must remember that more than 10,000 captives—some prisoners, but many held without charge—are still held in Israeli prisons. I hope that the Government will work towards the release of the innocents being held. The rebuilding and the interim and final governance of Gaza must be Palestinian-led, not led by western actors. The Palestinians have suffered over two years of relentless genocide and decades of Israeli siege, occupation, military violence and oppression. I totally agree with the position that Hamas must play no role in the future governance of Palestine, and there is no excuse for what happened on 7 October, but one of the root causes that is preventing a two-state solution from becoming reality is the unlawful—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please get to his question?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Will the Prime Minister confirm to the House when the Government will be in full compliance with the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on not doing anything that helps perpetuate the unlawful occupation?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue about some of the hurdles and barriers that are put in the way of those wanting to deliver aid, and we are working with others to scale up the volume and speed with which aid can get in.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

That is the way to do it. I hope the rest of the Members on the Conservative Benches are paying close attention, because that is how they defend the indefensible Conservative peers.

I have detected one other thing in this debate. There seems to be a concession that there will not be a democratic second Chamber—I have not heard that properly yet, so perhaps the Minister can clarify in his summing up. That was implied and suggested, and I have not heard anything thus far that contradicts it. Perhaps we could hear the Minister say that that idea is now gone, because I do not think that there will be any more reform than this. I think this is it; I said in the earlier stages of the Bill that this is as far as Lords reform goes in this Parliament. The great, Gordon Brownian vision of a senate of the nations and regions is totally for the birds. It is some sort of fever dream; it is not going to happen. This Bill is all that this House will do about Lords reform.

I find the amendments to be a snivelling, contemptuous bunch of amendments. They demonstrate the Lords’ contempt for parliamentary democracy and for the democratic will of this House—us, the Members of Parliament who are democratically elected to represent the people of this country. This House passed the Bill with a large majority, and for all its faults, this Government said that they would pass it. It was a manifesto commitment, so they should be allowed to get on with it, but since then, the Lords have done everything possible to thwart the Bill. Barely had we finished voting before the Conservatives in the House of Lords commenced their “save the aristocrat” campaign. For them, the principle of democracy through birthright was something that had to be defended and protected.

Since the Bill went down the corridor, those peers have tried to delay it through filibustering, keeping the Lords up half the night and stacking the Bill full of amendments. It only has two pages, but they spent 52 hours and 10 minutes debating it; it only has four clauses, but 154 amendments were tabled to it. Defending the hereditaries was much more important to the House of Lords than addressing things like poverty, growing the economy or global conflict. I paid real attention to its Hansard, and some of the contributions were truly bizarre. The oozing sense of entitlement from our upper and ruling classes was simply extraordinary.

The thing that got me was when those contributions started to get a little threatening—I think the Minister implied this. The noble Lord True warned that if the purge went ahead, we would face very aggressive procedural action, which could involve filibustering, wrecking amendments and, even worse, the parliamentary nuclear option of more ping-pong. He said that this toff rebellion would only be stood down if a goodly number of the hereditaries were to remain. I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am positively quaking in my oiky boots. The prospect of a be-ermined banshee charging me with a vintage claret jug and snuff box practically terrifies me half to death.

The thing is, these peers really do believe that they were born to rule—that their role in our legislature through birthright is a gift that we should be eternally grateful for. They have now returned the Bill with these amendments, with the main one being to keep the aristocrats in place until death or retirement by rewarding them with a life peerage. That is not getting rid of the hereditaries; it is giving them a retirement plan. After seeing these amendments, I just wish that we could introduce even more amendments ourselves. I would table an amendment that would get them out tomorrow. I would also be thinking about stripping them of their lands and titles. [Interruption.] I have got more—maybe a little bit of re-education, such as a couple of shifts in Aldi or Lidl, living on the living wage for a week or, even worse, having them speak in regional accents just for a day. Given that these peers have made this about public contribution—given that that is so important to them—how about handing over some of their mansions and castles for social housing? There is a suggestion for how they could be publicly useful.

I know that I am being a little bit comical, Madam Deputy Speaker, but what this does is endorse the view that the House of Lords is the most embarrassing, bizarre legislature anywhere in the world. This weird assortment of aristocrats, be-cassocked bishops, party donors, cronies and placemen feel that they can continue with impunity, and they are probably right in that assumption. The aristocrats will soon be gone—I do not think there is any real desire to defend them any more—but the other members of that circus will continue unabashed. They will continue to develop, grow and thrive. The House of Lords is increasingly going to become a House of patronage—a plaything for Prime Ministers.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Mr Wishart, we are debating the amendments, not your vision for the future of the House of Lords. Perhaps you should stick to the amendments.

[Pete Wishart]

Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am getting a little bit carried away.

The amendments would ensure that the aristocrats remain in the other place, but they will not succeed in that aim—I think we have all sort of agreed on that; it looks like they are gone—but the rest of the strange assortment of people who we find in the House of Lords will still be there. It will become a House of patronage from the Prime Minister, and we are already beginning to see that. Some 57 new Labour peers have been introduced to the House of Lords since the last general election, and we have heard from The Guardian that dozens of new Labour peers are about to be introduced. That does not seem like a Government who are keen on even more House of Lords reform; it seems like a Government who want to create a new set of Labour Lords at the expense of the hereditaries, and the public are thoroughly and utterly sick of it. Only 21% of the British public approve of the House of Lords in its current condition. Most want to see it abolished. Certainly nearly everybody wants to see the hereditaries gone, and I support them in that vision. The Labour party promised, 115 years ago, to abolish the House of Lords. I think it will take at least another 115 years before we see the next set of reforms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, was it right to say to me that I was going off topic when it came to a small Bill with a number of Lords amendments, when it seems like the hon. Gentleman is doing exactly the same thing? From what I recall, practically everybody else has done that, too.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Just to be entirely clear, it was the property rights element of the hon. Member’s contribution that I thought was beyond scope. I think all Members—the House will be conscious that I have not been in the Chair very long—might like to stick to the scope of the amendments and what we are actually debating this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

That is the tension that I am trying to bring out. Who would seek to frustrate such an agenda—the Lords might, in their current form. I find it exciting—and this is a warning—that a majority in this House, gained from 33.7% of the vote on a 59.7% turnout, which is almost exactly 20% of the adults in this country, can remove their opposition from the other place. Labour Members may not agree with the hereditary principle, but who else does not get elected in the other place and cannot be removed by elections? It is the life peers. I say honestly, the lack of respect you might have for a millennia-old principle, I have for a lot of the backgrounds—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have plenty of respect for it.

[Jack Rankin]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point I am trying to make to those on the Government Benches is that if a Government can expel their political opponents from the other place because the majority in this place says they are not elected, while placing no limit on the Prime Minister’s patronage, so can a new Government—so take the compromise. Be careful what you wish for.

Government Resilience Action Plan

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

I congratulate the hon. Member on his wonderful tartan tie, which has caught my eye today—he is the best-dressed man in the House. He is absolutely right about attacks on the health system. It is frankly outrageous that people out there would seek to disable parts of the NHS as a means of extortion, and it is really important that we do everything we can to defend the NHS and stop patients from being subject to delays in their treatment because of these outrageous attacks.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his statement this afternoon.

UK-EU Summit

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I regret that in an earlier exchange the Prime Minister, who is still in his place, may have inadvertently misled the House. The point of contention is the arbitration mechanism for an SPS deal and dynamic alignment. The text says:

“The SPS Agreement should be subject to a dispute resolution mechanism with an independent arbitration panel that ensures the Court of Justice of the European Union is the ultimate authority for all questions of European Union law”,

which, of course, this is. The Prime Minister said that the Court goes back to the arbitration panel; it does that to convey its binding decision, so he is guilty of sophistry at best, and potentially something worse.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. He will know that it was not a point of order, and not a matter for the Chair, but he has put it on the record.

[The Prime Minister]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not descend into silly language, like the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), but this is an important point. He and I get on, and I do not think—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

Of course it is European law—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I think that right hon. Members have had the opportunity to get their points on the record. We have had in excess of an hour and a half on the statement from the Prime Minister, and I think we should move on to the next business.

UK-EU Summit

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Taylor]

Does the hon. Gentleman not see the fragility of a European defence that is dependent on key items of American hardware, which he correctly identifies that we do not have, and which it will take decades for us to replicate, operate, integrate with our systems and train people on? Does he not see the fragility of our defence if President Trump or another incoming US leader says, “Actually, you’re on your own. We don’t care about the defence of Ukraine”?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. While I am in the Chair, interventions will be shorter than that.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that point, but the best thing for all European nations is not to try to build our own EU defence capability, but to strengthen NATO. There is an argument that we are somehow doing this through the EU so that it can strengthen NATO, but I do not think that is really the ambition of the bureaucrats in Brussels. They have a flag and a Parliament, and they want an army—a Euro army. That is what people periodically talk about, particularly the Germans and the French. They want a Euro army, but that would send the wrong signal to President Trump. Yes, we need to develop those capabilities, but let us develop them through NATO.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hayes]

I think Sir John wanted to intervene.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Member has said “you” twice, and now says “Sir John”. It is a very long-established convention that Members do not refer to right hon. and hon. colleagues by name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I do not intend to introduce a time limit, but Members will be aware that there are in the region of 25 people wishing to speak. They might like to consider how long they will spend on their feet, so that as many colleagues as possible can get in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

I will start with a few words about the context of the debate. Clearly, the accusation—as though it were a negative—is that the campaign for Brexit had a sort of nostalgic, backward-looking spirit, and that those of us who supported it did so in that spirit. There is something in that, because we were talking about restoring British sovereignty; there was a sense that something good had been lost and needed to be brought back. All good revolutions are in a sense backward-looking; the bad revolutions are the progressive ones, while good revolutions restore what was lost. That is what Brexit was about.

Nevertheless, despite that point, which I do concede, fundamentally the case for Brexit was forward-looking. It was about putting this country in the best possible position to meet the challenges of the 21st century. This century demands agility, and the independence that sovereignty can allow. Obviously, there must be co-operation and close working in partnership—Britain has always been an outward-looking country—but nimbleness and agility will be needed in the highly contested new world that we are in. That is what Brexit was about, and on a number of hugely significant occasions since Brexit, we have already seen why our independence was so necessary. We saw it in our covid response, and in the context of Ukraine and our defence policy, and we see it now in our trade. Indeed, we have done since Brexit. We have seen it in the UK’s negotiations with the US, which we can compare with those undertaken by the EU in recent months.

On trade, as I said in an intervention, the challenge is often made that Brexit has harmed our GDP because it brought about a loss in productivity. The reverse is true. Trade with the EU has grown since Brexit, and it is not the case that we have suffered detriment because of that. Trade is growing between the UK and the whole world, including the EU, but it is growing more with non-EU countries, which makes the point about why it was so necessary to reclaim sovereignty over our trade policy. I echo the concerns raised by Conservative colleagues about what is being planned for next week, in terms of dynamic alignment on trade, and I call on the Minister to rule out a back-door alignment arrangement with the EU. We have seen worrying hints of that. I look forward to his response.

The case for Brexit was not primarily about trade. Of course, that is a very important matter, but let us acknowledge, as I think we all do, that really people were voting to take back control of our borders and our laws. Those two vital issues remain contested because this Government never believed in Brexit and do not understand the call of the people for independence and sovereignty in those two key respects.

On borders and immigration, I recognise the case for a youth mobility scheme. In principle, the abstract case for a reciprocal arrangement in which young people can spend a few months or a year working in another country is a good thing. The hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) said that it was a nice thing to do. Nevertheless, we see the value of such schemes only when there is a reciprocal arrangement and comparable numbers are coming and going. The same argument applies to the Indian trade deal and its reciprocal arrangement on national insurance. The fact is, many more people will take advantage of the so-called reciprocal arrangements by coming to the UK than will go either to India or to the EU, so we would not have a level playing field. As with free movement, this youth scheme would be another way for many more people to come to this country, undercutting British workers and continuing the stagnation of wages that we have suffered from for so many decades.

On laws and taking back control, I am concerned about the threat of European Court of Justice oversight of the trade arrangements, and potentially of the new veterinary agreement and deals on meat and dairy. I very much hope that the Minister will definitively rule out any extension of ECJ oversight. The fact is—we see this in the Government’s rather mealy-mouthed amendment to the motion—that Labour does not believe in Brexit.

I really honour the Green party for its amendment, because in that we hear the true voice of the pro-European movement. It is almost a parody. It suggests that free movement and rejoining the EU are what the country needs and would be in the national interest. Indeed, it suggests that it would be a way to counter the hard right. Have Green Members seen what is going on in Europe? The extension of the principles of ever closer union, deeper alignment and concentration of power at the European level is stoking the far right across Europe. The fundamental reason why the Conservative party has always been so successful, historically, is that we have spoken for those people who otherwise would be outraged. Reform has been doing well—by the way, I do not associate Reform with the far right—because it speaks for those outraged members of the public, many of whom used to vote for us and for the Labour party, who feel that their Parliament has let them down and politics has left them behind. That has happened across Europe in a much more dangerous way, so if we are serious about countering the danger of the right, we should be absolutely clear about there being no suggestion of any return to the EU.

Let me finish on Reform. Its Members are not here any more, but there we go. They have a rather amusing amendment to the motion, which simply replaces the words “Conservative party” with the words “Reform”. They are piggybacking somewhat on our good work, in a desperate search to be relevant and to catch up with the Conservative party, which is leading the way on this agenda. It is a bit of a problem, and two things occur to me: first, that they cannot even write an amendment of their own and they have to rely on us—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Member might reflect on the fact that the amendment to which he refers was not even selected, so he should not even be speaking to it.

[Danny Kruger]

I will therefore end just by saying that the amendment tabled by Reform, which I appreciate was not selected, demonstrates that we are on the same page and I deeply regret their opposition to what we are trying to do.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Reform Members are not here, so I will answer that point. They are not on the same page as us because their amendment, which was not a proper one, did not fit on the same page of the Order Paper!

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced parliamentarian and knows that he should be addressing the Chair, not facing the back of the Chamber.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker—that was a lapse on my part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I am now instating an immediate three-minute time limit. I call Luke Charters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Coleman]

Before we leave young people, Opposition Members have said that we are not doing enough for our young people and that a scheme would cause problems. Does my hon. Friend welcome the fact that yesterday the Prime Minister said that we must put British young people at the front of the queue for skills and training? The Government have already committed £625 million for training up 60,000 young engineers, chippies and brickies—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order.

[Mr Charters]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. A youth mobility scheme could be sensible and pragmatic and lead to opportunities across the continent.

Let me briefly touch on defence. Last week, I held a Westminster Hall debate about the benefits of a multilateral defence bank. I was pleased to have with me the founder of the Defence, Security and Resilience bank, Rob Murray, who is an inspirational ex-Army officer. I really believe that the UK could anchor a multilateral defence bank at the heart of any future defence pact with Europe. That is the single most transformative lever that the Government could pull to fortify our collective security, acting as an industrial deterrent to Russia. I would welcome my hon. Friend the Minister thinking about that running into next week.

Finally, I will touch on holidays. Over the next few months, hard-working families across the country will travel to airports up and down the UK to go away for some hard-earned summer sun. Since leaving the EU, many of us have landed at a foreign airport to see a huge queue and waited with envy as others pass straight through. I would really welcome it if, as a small gesture to give back to the grafters of this country, we could look at a new arrangement with the EU to ease airport congestion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. May I respectfully suggest to the hon. Lady that she needs to be very careful in the language that she chooses to use about the Prime Minister?

[Julia Lopez]

I was deliberately careful to adhere to the rules of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I hope my intent was clear.

Let me be clear. I do not think that the Prime Minister is a straight dealer. He says what suits him, poses as a man of decency and hopes—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I suggest the hon. Lady withdraw her comment, in which she has accused the Prime Minister of not being straight.

[Julia Lopez]

If that is outside the boundaries of what is acceptable, I will withdraw the comment.

My second lesson is that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses. We have already seen it in this Parliament, from the Chagos islands to the backroom deals with the unions. It is ideological naivety dressed up as serious and sober diplomacy. Labour thinks that signing a deal is the same as securing a good one. It is not, and all that will become clear.

Let us remind ourselves that Brexit was never a rejection of Europe and its people. It was a demand for democratic control over our laws, our borders, our trade and our future.

Ukraine

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I think it important that we are able to fully fund the increase in defence spending, and that we were able to explain where the money is coming from straight away. We need certainty and security in our economy. We should not lose sight of the fact that if we lose security in our economy, all our budgets will be affected and we will all be a lot poorer for it, which is why we have taken the approach that we have. Fiscal rules are important and we will stick to them, but we will look, with others, at innovative ways of ensuring that we can raise the necessary money as we go forward.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

For the final question, I call Jim Shannon.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

On the principles, the hon. Gentleman is right, and I am so pleased about the jobs in Northern Ireland. As for the bobbing, when I came here 10 years ago, I saw the joint gym session that we go through in these statements, particularly long ones. It is something to behold, but I suppose it keeps us all a bit fitter and a bit healthier, which has to be a good thing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement this afternoon.

US Steel Import Tariffs

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

If one observes the comments made by the Chancellor last night, or by the incoming British ambassador in Washington, it is clear that we are ready to engage in a thoughtful, pragmatic way with the new Administration in Washington, and we want to broaden and deepen the trading relationship. I observe that under the first Trump presidency, bilateral trade between the United States and the United Kingdom increased, and we have ambitions to see that continue.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Minister for his responses.

UK-EU Relations

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the UK’s relationship with the EU. On Monday, in Brussels, the Prime Minister attended an informal retreat with the 27 EU leaders and Presidents von der Leyen and Costa. This marked a clear step forward for this Government’s reset of the UK’s relationship with the EU. He is the first British Prime Minister to join a meeting of European Council members since the UK left the EU. The Prime Minister discussed the common threats that the UK and the EU face, and the value that closer UK-EU co-operation on security and defence could bring. These were points that he also discussed earlier in the day, when he met the Secretary-General of NATO.

With the EU’s 27 leaders, the Prime Minister outlined a number of steps to increase co-operation on shared threats, including cross-border crime and illegal migration, while delivering growth and security at home. He called on Europe to step up and project strength, to keep up the pressure on Putin, alongside sustained military support to Ukraine, to put it in the strongest possible position this year. He set out a strong case for European security and defence: an ambitious UK-EU security partnership; a deeper role for Europe within NATO; the continued importance of small groups such as the joint expeditionary force; together with a continent-wide increase in defence investment. The Prime Minister was clear that the UK would play its full part in European defence and was ready to work together with the EU.

On Tuesday, we announced that the UK will welcome the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission to the UK for the first UK-EU leaders’ summit, which will take place on Monday 19 May. This first summit will provide an opportunity to further strengthen the relationship between the UK and the EU, for the benefit of all our people.

On Tuesday, I attended the UK-EU forum in Brussels to discuss the shared challenges and opportunities facing the UK and the EU, opposite my EU counterpart, Maroš Šefčovič. I made the case that this Government will be guided by what I am calling “ruthless pragmatism” —working in the UK’s national interest to make people across the UK safer, more secure and more prosperous. The Government’s position is that it is in the British national interest to improve our economic, safety and security relationships with our nearest neighbours. We reject the ideological approach of the past and will take a hard-headed assessment of the British national interest.

As the Leader of the Opposition recently said:

“We announced that we would leave the European Union before we had a plan for growth outside the EU.”

She said:

“Those mistakes were made because we told people what they wanted to hear first and then tried to work it out later.”

This Government will end that chaotic, dogmatic decision making. We should be guided by the principle of mutual benefit, finding collaborative solutions to our common problems. We should be open-minded to proposals that deliver better outcomes for the British people, within the manifesto on which this Government were elected.

This Government have been clear that we are not hitting rewind. We are not undoing Brexit and we are not rejoining the single market or the customs union, but we are looking to make Brexit work in a ruthlessly pragmatic way. That is the spirit that we are taking into the discussions with the EU—not a zero-sum game, but a win-win for both sides, with people across the UK and the EU benefiting. Yesterday I met my EU counterpart, Maroš Šefčovič, and discussed how we can best work together to enhance co-operation in areas of mutual benefit. We are committed to staying in regular contact as we progress this work.

This Government were elected on a mandate to increase national security through strong borders, to increase people’s safety and to increase prosperity through growth. Our European friends have mutual interest in those priorities. It is those priorities that form the three pillars of the reset in our relationship: security, safety and prosperity. And I am pleased to say that on all three of those issues we are making progress. And work is happening right across Government, from the Prime Minister to the Chancellor at the Eurogroup and the Foreign Secretary at the Foreign Affairs Council.

There have been nearly 70 direct engagements between UK Ministers and their EU counterparts since we came into government, and we look forward to many more, including at the upcoming UK-EU summit. Some people make the false argument that we need to choose either America or Europe, but for this Government the UK’s national interest is paramount and demands that we work with both.

The Prime Minister made the point on Monday evening that the world today is very different from that in 2016, and even in 2024. In this time of change, this Government are stepping up to build alliances in a bid to make people safer and more prosperous. That is the core of our national interest, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I thank the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his contribution. Of course NATO remains the cornerstone of our security; that has been a cross-party position for decades. He asks about plans and red lines. I refer him to our manifesto, which was put to the people last year, that contains those clear red lines of no return to freedom of movement, the single market or the customs union. He can see in that examples of what the Government are seeking to negotiate.

The hon. Gentleman talks about negotiating international agreements. There are many people from whom I would take advice about international agreements, but I hope the House will forgive me if the Conservatives—the party that managed to send hundreds of millions of pounds to Rwanda and all they got in return was sending some volunteers and most of their Home Secretaries there—are not at the front of the queue for giving advice on how to negotiate international agreements.

I give some credit to the Leader of the Opposition, who strikes a markedly different tone on this issue from that struck by the hon. Gentleman today. She admits freely that the last Government left without a plan for growth, and that, frankly, they ended up making it up as they went along. I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not begin his remarks by repeating that apology. Perhaps he has a different view than the one taken by his leader.

The hon. Gentleman talks about the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, but he was part of a Government who negotiated a role for the European Court of Justice in the Windsor framework. He talks about standards. This Government are committed to the highest standards, whether that is on product safety, employment rights or consumer rights. We believe in a race to the top on standards, not the race to the bottom that would be the dream of the Conservatives.

As the Government move forward, our test is the national interest. It is about making Britain safer, more secure and more prosperous. There is another test for the Leader of the Opposition, however. I see that she has put out a social media video about tests, which is worth a couple of minutes for mild entertainment if nothing else. The test for her is whether she will face down the ideologues in her party. Is she going to show some political courage and back the national interest, or is she just going to back down in the face of the ideologues in her party? On the basis of the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, I am not optimistic.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend, but the reality is that he has inherited a deal with the European Union that has knocked about 4% to 5% off our economic output each year. Certainly, the Business and Trade Committee heard in Brussels last week a clear message from the business community that we need to be as specific and as ambitious as we can be ahead of the reset summit with the President of the European Commission. What plans does the Paymaster General have to bring together the British business community and, indeed, the trade union community so that the Prime Minister can go into his summit with President von der Leyen clear-minded about just how ambitious our wealth creators want him to be?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The Chair of the Select Committee is entirely right about the involvement of civil society, trade unions and businesses. I am sure that he will have seen the comments of the managing director of food at Marks & Spencer only today, who said:

“We wholeheartedly support the Government’s plan to negotiate a Veterinary Agreement; the benefits would be significant, there is no discernible downside, and we will offer whatever help we can to aid the negotiations.”

There was a time when the Conservative party was on the side of business—clearly no more.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I welcome much of the statement’s content—that the Government are serious in their commitment to resetting our broken relationship with the European Union—but what the Liberal Democrats want is action. The European Union is our closest neighbour and largest trading partner. I sense that the Minister knows that we have to get on with repairing the trading relationship which was so badly damaged under the former Conservative Government, so please let us get on and do it. The botched Brexit deal has been a complete disaster for our country, especially for small businesses, which have been held back by reams of red tape and new barriers to trade, costing our economy billions in lost exports. The Minister talks of pragmatic negotiation. Surely what is pragmatic is to drop the Government’s red lines and agree a new UK-EU customs union. It would be the single biggest step that the Government could take to unlock growth, and I cannot think of anything more pragmatic. Liberal Democrats will continue to call on the Government to do the right thing.

We are also disappointed by the Home Secretary’s comments at the weekend on ruling out a youth mobility scheme. Does that represent the Government’s stance? A youth mobility deal would be good for our economy, especially our tourism and hospitality sectors, while providing young British people with the opportunity to work and study abroad. It would be a win-win. Not only that, it is what the British public want. New polling shows that two thirds of the UK population are in favour of such a scheme. Does the Minister not agree that introducing a youth mobility scheme is exactly the kind of pragmatic negotiation that the Government should be prioritising?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and if we look back over recent decades, there have been many people in this House who have had the benefit of studying abroad. As my hon. Friend has also pointed to, though, the red lines upon which this Government were elected are fundamental.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Paymaster General for that statement.

Storm Éowyn

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for advance sight of his statement and for his thoughtful presentation of it. As he said, Storm Éowyn may well have been the strongest storm to hit the United Kingdom in 10 years. Sadly, it is a sign of what is likely to come. I am praying for those who are grieving those who have died, and I pay tribute, alongside everyone else in every corner of this House, to all who worked throughout the weekend to support others, often at great cost and even risk to themselves.

Back home, communities such as Patterdale, Flookburgh, Cark, Shap, Tebay, Crosby Ravensworth, Witherslack and Bouth saw many homes, businesses and community centres lose power. Like others, I am incredibly grateful to the engineers at Electricity North West and the wider community groups who have worked tirelessly to reconnect residents and support those without power. I want to mention the Commodore Inn at Grange over Sands, the Kings Arms at Stainton, the Watermill at Ings and the Kings Head at Ravenstonedale, which provided shelter, food and drink to residents hit by the power cuts.

Storms are becoming more commonplace and severe, and the damage that they leave behind all the more troubling and increasing. Four days on, tens of thousands of homes across the British Isles are still without power, and transport networks remain badly hit. The Government’s failure at the recent Budget to guarantee funding for flood defences beyond this coming financial year is a cause of great anxiety for communities such as mine, who are often the first to be hit by extreme weather events. It also strikes me as extraordinarily short-sighted. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster demand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts this right, and quickly?

Farmers are our crucial ally in the fight to build more storm-resilient communities. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster get the Treasury to ringfence funding, in addition to the environmental land management budget, to support farmers to protect our villages, towns and cities through natural flood management? Farmers are also major victims of these storms, with crops and livestock tragically lost and equipment destroyed.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a two-minute limit.

[Tim Farron]

Have I gone over it?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

By some 10%. Perhaps he will make this a very short final sentence.

[Tim Farron]

Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ensure that resilience funding goes to the farmers who need it? Finally, will he meet the electricity companies to consider how they can improve the resilience of power lines?