UK-EU Summit
Harriet Cross Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I completely agree—the Conservatives and Reform should go around the country and explain to our constituents why they should pay higher prices. I think they would get a pretty universal response.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Our fishermen had been promised, and the EU had agreed, that annual access agreements would be reverted to from 2026, but, seemingly at the 11th hour, the Prime Minister abandoned our fishing communities, our fishing fleets and control of our seas by handing not a three, four or even five-year access agreement, but a 12-year multi-annual agreement to the EU. He sold out our fishermen to meet his self-imposed deadline for announcing the agreement and has shown that he will not stand strong for UK fishermen. Can he confirm that Parliament will have the final say on the fisheries deal, and that it will not be ratified elsewhere by unelected officials in Whitehall or Brussels?
The Prime Minister
The simple fact of the matter is that, under the agreement the Conservatives struck, it was much more difficult for fishermen to sell into the European market. We are making it much easier—it is 72% of their stock. Shellfish can be sold back into that market again, and we have set up a fund for our fishing communities. The alternative, which was to come off the current agreement and then negotiate every year with no certainty at all, would not be good for anyone.
UK-EU Summit
Harriet Cross Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I would not describe the hon. Gentleman as being confined to any island. I have already spoken about smart, controlled youth mobility schemes; the previous Government agreed a number of them.
This Government are exercising diplomacy in our national interest. We need only take one look at the trade deals that we have signed with the United States —[Hon. Members: “Terrible!”]—and India in the last fortnight to see that we are delivering for the British people. Conservative Front Benchers shout from a sedentaryposition about the US deal, but they can tell that to the workers at Jaguar Land Rover whose jobs have been saved by the deal.
I can tell the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) that I was in Scotland yesterday to talk to the Scotch Whisky Association about the enormous benefits for Scotland of the India deal. He should welcome that deal, not criticise the Government. Britain is back on the world stage, no thanks to the carping from the Opposition
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On the point about carping from the Opposition, I will.
Harriet Cross
The Minister mentioned that he was in Scotland yesterday, which is wonderful. As a Scottish MP, I am in Scotland every week, and I quite often meet people from distilleries, who have recently said that they are suffering because of the family farm tax that the Government have brought in. Their farmers are downsizing and not investing, which is reducing their supply of grain. Are the Minister and the Government proud of that legacy, and that contribution to the Scotch Whisky Association?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am very proud of the extra £25 billion that we have put into the national health service. Apparently, the ludicrous position of the Opposition is that they are in favour of the investment, but they will not tell us exactly how they would raise the money.
I put it to the Opposition: is there any country they actually want a British business to trade with? In government, the Conservatives promised a trade deal with India by Diwali—to be fair, they did not say which Diwali—but they delivered absolutely nothing for the British people. We secure an India trade deal, and they complain about it. We secure an economic deal with the United States—long promised by the last Government, but never delivered—and they do not like that. I like to be constructive, so can I make a suggestion to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith)? Maybe he should change his title to shadow Secretary of State for no business and no trade, because when it comes to the trade deals that we have negotiated, that is the Opposition’s position.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
We have had a strong debate this afternoon, with many contributions on both sides. I thank so many of my hon. and right hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) and for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who knows a great deal about this subject, as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and my hon. Friends the Members for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) and for Windsor (Jack Rankin)—what a fantastic set of knowledgeable contributions and real concerns about the impending EU surrender summit. It is in the spirit of such rigorous debate that this House finds its strength and purpose.
It has been less than a year since the general election. In that time, this Labour Government have tanked the economy, crushed British business, seen—as we have learned today—100,000 fewer people in employment, driven wealth creators overseas at the rate of one millionaire every 45 minutes, and shattered any signs of economic growth. I am afraid to say that the next item on this bleak agenda of declinism is the betrayal of the 17 million people who voted for this country to leave the European political union. This should come as no surprise to anyone, because those on the Benches opposite—and, I regret, some of those on the Benches to the left of me— voted against Brexit on no fewer than 48 different occasions.
If this debate is reminiscent of the past, it is because that is precisely where some Members wish to take us back to. Ever since they were seduced by Jacques Delors, the Euro-socialist, their hearts have never been in the mission of taking back control of our laws. Next Monday’s EU surrender summit formally marks the start of Labour’s plan to dismantle the powers of not just the Government, but this House, and push us back into the European Union as a passive rule taker. We Conservatives ask, “To what end? Why are the Government capitulating the very same hard-fought Brexit freedoms that permitted the signing of two trade agreements—notwithstanding their limited scope—in the past seven days?”
Had we followed the policies that Labour was advocating in opposition, this Government would never have been able to reach an agreement with the USA or with India. They would not even have been in the room; they would have been one of 28 member nations, resorting to asking—begging—Ursula von der Leyen to perhaps consider putting British interests first. We were right not to follow Labour’s advice then, and the Government would be right to listen to our advice now, yet it appears that they still have not learned. As we heard from many speakers this afternoon, the opportunities of the future will fall to those states that are agile—opportunities in areas such as artificial intelligence, genomics, space, the creative industries, financial and professional services, and the life sciences.
This country already has a good deal with the European Union. We have a mutually advantageous zero-tariff agreement that is valued at £184 billion in services and £174 billion in goods. Nothing is perfect, and where there are sensible measures—such as pursuing opportunities for mutual recognition—they should be explored. For example, one of the biggest frictions our businesses face today is the denial of the use of e-gates, which was imposed by the European Union out of spite. There was no such small-mindedness from us.
However, the problem we face today is that the Government have failed to come to this House and explain exactly, or at all, what the Prime Minister’s EU reset will look like. We have seen nothing on the Government’s negotiating objectives, their red lines or the supposed benefits, and we have not seen an impact assessment or even an interim update. Of course, I understand there will be finer negotiating details that the Government will not want to share, but that is very different from sharing absolutely nothing. That is disrespectful of Parliament, and forces this House to rely on leaks and read between the lines of Downing Street press handouts. If those leaks are to be believed, we know that Labour is planning on signing up the British armed forces to an EU army, binding our strategic military decision-making powers to bureaucrats in Brussels. [Interruption.] The Minister is very welcome to rule these things out—perhaps he will be more forthcoming than the Paymaster General was earlier.
When it comes to security, there is no bigger challenge than our borders—I think even the Prime Minister recognised that on Monday—but the UK’s request for shared access to a joint illegal migrant database has already been rejected by the European Union. So much for co-operation on security. Defence procurement must never be “pay to play”. I have no idea why the European Union member nations would cut themselves off from the UK’s excellent defence primes, unless this is once again a protectionist industrial policy cloak—and what twisted deal-making trades fishing rights for the French for working more closely together, as we have so many times, on Europe’s defence? We warned that Labour would betray our fishermen, and it has sadly proved us right by putting fishing rights back on the negotiating table.
Harriet Cross
My hon. Friend has referred to the betrayal of our fishermen. I wonder whether the Minister will take the opportunity to deny media speculations that the Government are about to consent to multi-year agreements. The fishermen want single-year agreements, which are the international norm. Can the Minister rule that out today?
Andrew Griffith
I am afraid the Minister is as talkative as a haddock when it comes to clarifying his objectives, but perhaps he will confound our expectations when he sums up the debate.
Just as the Prime Minister pretends to talk tough on immigration, by the same token he plans to open our borders to an EU youth mobility scheme. Perhaps the Minister will deny that, but it could mean millions from Boulogne to Bucharest. Limited volume schemes with comparable economies whereby the UK is able to decide who comes here are fine in principle. We have such a scheme with Australia, but Australia is 10,000 miles away and its economy is very different from those that we are discussing. The wrong type of youth mobility scheme would disadvantage young British workers who, thanks to this Government, are already struggling to get a foot on the ladder, whether for a job—unemployment is up again today—or to secure a roof over their heads in Britain’s housing market. What part of the Government’s objective involves making things harder for our young people?
What we do see is the Government proceeding at breakneck pace with the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. Beware of Bills with boring names, Madam Deputy Speaker! This is a Trojan horse, blank-cheque Bill giving Ministers the power to roll back Brexit, sign us up to EU rules and abandon imperial measurements for good, all at the stroke of a pen. It provides unchecked ministerial power to make us a passive rule-taker of Brussels diktat. Let me be clear. The Conservatives are certainly not opposed to co-operation with Europe as one among other markets—that much should be obvious from the hard-fought trade agreement that we obtained under the last Government—but we must not in any circumstances surrender our Brexit freedoms so that the Prime Minister can reassure his next law school reunion that he has undermined our sovereignty.
After the earlier equivocation from the Paymaster General, let me give the Minister—they have been chuntering all afternoon—a final chance to answer these questions once and for all. Can he reassure the millions of people who voted to leave the EU that his surrender summit will not betray their wishes? Will he confirm that there will be no backsliding on free movement or compulsory asylum transfers? Can he reassure taxpayers, or those who have lost their winter fuel allowance or whose benefits are set to be cut, that the UK will not be agreeing to any new payments to the EU? Is he able to confirm, for the benefit of our coastal communities, that there will be no concessions on fishing rights? Can he assure the House that there will be no rule taking, dynamic alignment, or extension of European Court jurisdiction? Will he pledge, in deeds as well as words, that there will be no compromise on the primacy of NATO as the successful cornerstone of European security?
If the Minister is not able to provide those assurances, this Government are betraying Brexit. All of the evidence that we have seen today suggests that they are limbering up for a surrender summit to damage Britain’s interests. They are determined to deal away our hard-fought freedoms, and we will lose control of our borders, our laws, our fish and our armed forces. I urge the Minister to come clean and to have the honesty to explain to this House and this country why Labour is preparing to surrender the right of the British people to choose their own destiny. We know that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses.
Trade Negotiations
Harriet Cross Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alexander
I simply do not recognise the aeriated contribution that the hon. Gentleman has made. He has an important and legitimate role in representing farmers in his constituency and more broadly, but I assure him that if he looks at the numbers, including the quota agreed by the previous Government, and the relatively modest shift in the tariff rate quota on beef that has been agreed today, his concerns will be allayed.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
I hope that the Minister will recognise why UK farmers might raise an eyebrow at the assurances that he has given to the House. They have been let down time and again since July through this Government’s policies on the family farm tax, the sustainable farming incentive, double cab pick-ups and fertiliser tax—the list goes on and on. Brooke Rollins, the US Secretary of Agriculture, said after the deal was announced that
“it can’t be understated…how important this deal is”
for American farmers, and that it will “exponentially increase” US beef exports to the UK. The Minister will understand why that raises concerns for our farmers. Will he assure farmers up and down the country that in any further trade negotiations with the US, their interests, livelihoods and futures will not be on the table?
Mr Alexander
It would be remiss of me not to start my answer to the hon. Lady with anything other than humble congratulations on her time in the London marathon. Having run it twice, I would have seen her at the starting line, but that would have been the last time I saw her. It was a minor consolation to me that my time was somewhat faster than that of the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). All that being said, she makes a serious point about British farmers. I assure her that the interests of British farmers, rural Britain and the wider agricultural sector is a constant feature of our thinking in Government.
Oral Answers to Questions
Harriet Cross Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray
Sorry, Mr Speaker. I lost the thread of that question about halfway through, but one thing I did take from it is that it was absolutely identical to the question from the Tory shadow Secretary of State. That tells you all you need to know.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
Economic growth is the Government’s No. 1 mission. These changes to national insurance contributions are being made in the context of a resilient labour market, with the estimated employment rate up 0.9 percentage points over the last quarter of 2024. We are creating jobs and opportunities through our plan for change and truly making work pay, to help raise living standards right across the UK.
Harriet Cross
The Labour Government’s decision to hike national insurance is a cost on businesses before they even open their doors. I have spoken to many businesses across my constituency in recent months, and all have said how worried they are about the changes. In response to my recent business survey, one large business said that it is now looking to cut up to 25 jobs because of the NICs changes, and that it is beyond belief that the Labour Government have decided to do this. Given that this example will be replicated in constituencies across Scotland, including the Minister’s, can she really stand at the Dispatch Box and say she believes in this policy, which so directly hits jobs, employment and growth across Scotland?
Kirsty McNeill
I do believe in this policy, in the same way I believe in all the announcements we made in the Budget. As is so often the case with Conservative Members, they will the ends of the Budget but not the means. If the hon. Lady wants changes to the public services that people in both our constituencies rely on, we need to have the revenue to pay for them. That is what this Budget was all about: cleaning up the mess we inherited and getting the investment into public services that is so desperately required.
Oral Answers to Questions
Harriet Cross Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Kyle
The Government are working to develop a world-leading science and technology skills base that will drive economic growth and opportunity for all. We are committed to expanding access and participation in science and technology education, and we are partnering with universities to build the skills and workforce across the United Kingdom.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Peter Kyle
This Prime Minister has delivered the AI opportunities action plan; this Prime Minister is deploying AI technology and productivity tools across Government; and this Prime Minister has brought in £30 billion in investment into digital and AI infrastructure since taking office. At the same time, this Prime Minister is sorting out the mess left after 14 years of Tory rule.
The Prime Minister
I am very pleased that my hon. Friend has raised this issue, and that we will be able to give employers more flexibility on maths and English requirements. This is really important, as many young people did not get the maths qualification they wanted but are very well suited for the future and want to play their part. They can now get an apprenticeship under our changes. These 10,000 extra apprenticeships are delivering for them, giving them a chance to contribute to our economy.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Farming is top of the agenda, as far as I am concerned. That is why we put £5 billion to support farmers in the Budget—[Interruption.] The Conservatives failed to spend £300 million on farming on their watch. We have set out our road map, which has been welcomed by the National Farmers Union, as the hon. Lady very well knows. It was described as “long overdue”; I wonder who did not do it before?