EU-UK Summit

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and to take part in this debate this afternoon. Having been first elected to this place in 2019, I feel I missed out on the meaningful votes and the main Brexit wars of a few years ago. However, I had the privilege, for the whole four and a half years of the 2019 to 2024 Parliament, to be a member of the European Scrutiny Committee under the wonderful chairmanship of Sir William Cash. His choice to retire before the last election leaves this debate and indeed the whole House of Commons poorer. I am sure that he would have had many points to make in the debate.

The reason that I refer to the European Scrutiny Committee is the detailed work that Committee did to truly understand the way that EU law pre-Brexit and indeed post-Brexit, and the involvement of the European Court of Justice post-Brexit, still pervaded our nation, our country and the way that many of our laws were made.

After Labour won the election last July, the Government took the deeply regrettable decision to disband that Committee. We lost not just that parliamentary scrutiny, which would have been invaluable in considering the deal that we are debating today, but the expertise of the Clerks and the expert advisers who served that Committee, and who often ensured that parliamentary debate on all matters between ourselves and the European Union was well informed.

If the Government do anything after this new deal has been struck—a deal that I do not support and that I believe sells out the decision of 17.4 million people in 2016—it should be to re-establish the European Scrutiny Committee, so that each and every one of those rules that we will now take is scrutinised line by line, and reported to the whole House and the relevant Select Committees. Then, whatever side of the Brexit debate we fall on and whatever our view of the world may be, we can all understand where those rules have come from and what they mean to our constituents and our country.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I am slightly perturbed that the hon. Member says, “whatever side of the Brexit debate we fall on”. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) said, Brexit has happened. We are now in the real world of today, in which there is a war in Ukraine and huge issues because of the energy crisis, and it is absolutely vital that we work with partners across the world, whether that is through the India trade deal or this one. Can he not acknowledge that we are now living in a different world and that the word “Brexit” is of no use to us any more?

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for her intervention, but I am not sure that I fully agree with her analysis. This deal is relitigating Brexit. It is reintroducing dynamic alignment and a role for the European Court of Justice in many ways that we thought we had put behind us after the last Government delivered on Brexit, which meant that we left the European Union.

[Sam Rushworth]

Inevitably, in any deal, you have to put something on the table in order to get the benefits of that deal. Could the hon. Gentleman give me an example of a UK trade agreement where the UK has not had to put something on the table?

[Greg Smith]

Clearly, in any trade negotiation an agreement is made between two countries. The difference with a negotiation on, for example, our accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, or the trade deal-lite that the Government managed with the United States and the Trump Administration, or indeed the India trade deal, is that there is no dynamic alignment. No foreign court will be the arbiter of UK law, UK standards and our sovereignty.

The principle on which I believe people voted for Brexit was that we would be in control. There was a very good reason why the Vote Leave campaign came up with the “Take Back Control” slogan; it resonated with the British people. However, that slogan will only ever mean something if we actually are in control. This deal, which we saw being announced with some glee by the Prime Minister the other day in the Chamber of the House of Commons, gives control in many areas—certainly on agrifood and the carbon trading mechanism—back to the European Union, and takes it away from this House and this Parliament.

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

The hon. Gentleman talks about control, but that result was mainly motivated by immigration. After the Brexit vote, annual migration tripled to 900,000. Does he call that control? Also, does he welcome the fall in net migration to 400,000 that was announced today? If he does, would he call that reasserting control on migration?

[Greg Smith]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was a leave voter himself, as I know many traditional Labour voters around the country voted for Brexit. I certainly voted for Brexit and campaigned for it. I think the hon. Gentleman is making some presumptions as to why people voted. My central pitch when knocking on doors in that referendum was the point around control and sovereignty, and that it would be this Parliament that set our laws. Dynamic alignment blows a huge hole in that.

I will touch briefly on a couple of other factors that have come up in the debate. There is a point that is made that somehow Brexit has been economically damaging. In the Government’s own rationale—[Interruption.] It is always good to have an audience laughing, but I am going to quote from the Government’s own rationale. They talk about declining trade and so on from 2018. I hate to break it to them, but we had not left the European Union in 2018. The withdrawal Act did not come into effect for years after that. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that in 2018, for example, UK food exports were £10.6 billion. Guess what had happened by 2024? They had gone up to £11.34 billion. We need a little greater clarity in this debate where we get the dates right and compare apples with apples, rather than apples with pears.

[Alex Ballinger]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Greg Smith]

I have given way several times. I may well come back if time allows, but I am aware of the time limit that you have set, Ms McVey.

My constituency could pretty much not be further from the sea, but we do enjoy a lot of fish in Buckinghamshire. I am very much aware of just how angry fishermen around the country are, particularly Scottish fishermen. Yesterday, I debated with SNP Members on the BBC, who confirmed how angry fishermen in Scotland are at this deal. Once again, it is important that we look at some facts. The crude trade gap for fish is actually about 274,000 tonnes in the EU’s favour. The key point I make to those who argued that the deal is somehow good because it means we can export more fish to the European Union is that we cannot export that which we have not been allowed to catch in the first place. I would invite hon. Members that have made that point to reflect on it a little more.

[Sam Rushworth]

“Angry, disappointed and betrayed” are the words that the chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations used to describe the Brexit deal that the hon. Gentleman voted for. Why did he vote for that deal?

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is trying to relitigate the past again. The deal that the last Government did would have seen us able to take back full control of our waters in a year’s time. Instead, we have a 12-year deal that gives the EU rights to our fishing waters. That is the point to be angry and dismayed about, not a deal that could have returned total control of our waters next year.

This is not a good deal for the United Kingdom and it is not a deal that honours the referendum result. I invite the new Government to reflect, reverse course—they have managed it on winter fuel and they can manage it on this—and think again. If they cannot do that, at the very least they should reintroduce proper scrutiny of EU law having direct effect in this country through a full-time Select Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Rushworth]

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

[Greg Smith]

It has been reported in the media that a very senior president of one of the biggest regional fisheries committees in France said:

“We couldn’t have hoped for better…We are very satisfied and relieved. This changes a lot of things. If we no longer had access to British waters, we would have suffered a significant loss of revenue.”

In whose interest does the hon. Gentleman think the deal was actually struck?

[Sam Rushworth]

Those people are clearly delighted that the situation that the hon. Gentleman previously voted for has continued. That is how international trade works: we buy things and we sell things. Supermarkets such as Asda, Morrisons, Marks and Spencer; producers such as Salmon Scotland, the British Meat Processors Association and Dairy UK; the defence sector such BAE Systems; British Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Confederation of British Industry are all lining up to say this is a good deal for the economy, so I think many people are confused by Opposition Members, who have nobody backing their side of the argument. Deep down, I think they know that this is a good deal for their constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Greg Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will, but as we are running out of time it will be the last time.

[Greg Smith]

As the Minister is talking about pragmatism and the national interest, perhaps I can set him a very brief maths test. On dynamic alignment on carbon trading, the EU’s carbon price today is £58.84 per metric tonne, while the UK’s price is £38.13. Does that increase or decrease costs on British business?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

If we are not part of the emissions trading system, we will not be able to get an exemption from the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which would cost British business £800 million. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants British businesses to pay those taxes, he should be honest with the electorate about it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) spoke about bringing down costs. Things such as the export health certificate—£200 per consignment —were meaning that we were talking about thousands of pounds to get some lorries to move. Those are the kinds of things that we can sweep away.

It must be said that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), speaking for the Liberal Democrats, provided a measure of balance to what was said by those sitting to her right. Nevertheless, I have to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset that if the Conservatives and Reform are in one position, and the Liberal Democrats are in another, it suggests that we have got the balance absolutely right.

I will conclude because I am conscious of the time. I know that we have gone over the allotted time, Mr Vickers, and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow needs to sum up the debate. We have made our choice—a ruthlessly pragmatic choice in negotiation. Our choice is that we are going to lower bills and have a situation that is great for jobs. We are getting more tools and information to secure our borders. If Opposition Members wish to be against that, good luck to them.