UK-US Trade and Tariffs

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

As a former Treasury Minister, the right hon. Gentleman will know the kind of work that goes on to make sure that such assessments are made. The announcement came late last night; it is only last night and this morning that we have had the chance to respond to it. He will also appreciate that the impact on the UK is about not just the direct relationship between the US and the UK, but what happens in the wider global trading system. How other countries choose to react to the US announcements will be the determining factor for the impact on the UK, and we do not know that at this stage.

I promise to keep the House updated, and to update the right hon. Gentleman personally, if he wishes, at any stage on our work to assess the impact on the UK. For all Members of Parliament, this should be a time for reassurance, for calm heads and for giving clear information to British business on how we will navigate these difficult times. That is the correct message to send out from Parliament.

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

If those on the Opposition Front Bench are still trying to propagate the arguments of 2016, I suggest they are a bit drunk on chlorinated chicken. We need to get real. Celebrating a tariff of 10% rather than 20% is like a person celebrating the fact that when they were mugged, only their wallet was taken, not their watch as well. The British public deserve better.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for talking about our relationship with Europe, because who knows what President Trump will bring next week? We do five times more business with the European Union than with America. It is in our interest to have a close and stable trading relationship with Europe, but right now, that is up for grabs, too. What do the tariffs mean for the Secretary of State’s negotiations on the European reset, and for the summit in May?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. Let me be clear again: no one is celebrating the position that the country found itself in this morning. We recognise the differential for the UK, but all of us in the House—Members from all parties—are disappointed by the announcement from the United States, and are seeking to provide a way through.

I know that my hon. Friend feels very strongly about this matter, but I reiterate to her that we do not have to make a choice between the US and the EU. They are two key, long-term and important trading partners, and security and defence partners as well. The EU summit next month is a key event. Our aspirations remain for an ambitious EU reset on trade, to rectify flaws in the agreement made by the previous Government. Our objectives are clear and were all in the manifesto on which Government Members stood for election and won. They remain a key priority. I assure my hon. Friend that the alignment in Government between the EU reset and the US negotiation is very strong.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Stella Creasy Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

With the very best will in the world, I think the hon. Lady can do a great deal better than that. As hon. Members have said, this House can legislate. If there are dangerous products, bring those use cases here, and I believe that across the House we will legislate rapidly to protect our constituents’ safety. However, our constituents did not send us here to pass a 15-page Bill full of skeleton powers to give the Secretary of State an unlimited ability to regulate without having to consult this place.

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

The challenge for many of us who were here during the previous Parliament, when the hon. Member was in office and had the power to diverge, is that we watched what happened and we saw the cost to British business. That is why the previous Government decided in the end to abandon the British charter mark, is it not? Would he care to tell the House how much proceeding with his plans would have cost British business? It was £1.6 billion, in case he does not know. British businesses need to hear that we get it. They do not want more paperwork; they want less.

[Andrew Griffith]

I am genuinely intrigued, and I shall sit here and listen to the hon. Lady’s speech later on. Does she want divergence? Does she want us to use our Brexit freedoms, or does she seek to go back to being a rule taker and converge?

We have not heard a compelling argument from the Secretary of State today as to why these powers should be granted. It is right that we in this House adopt the precautionary principle, and if the Secretary of State, or the Minister in winding up, can give us some more compelling use cases, I am sure we would consider that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Wheeler]

I can think of several—for example, the lack of regulation around the e-bikes and e-scooters on our streets that are causing fires. We are in a fast-moving environment, and we are creating a framework that will future-proof our system.

[Ms Creasy]

I want to help my hon. Friend out, because he was not here when the previous Government introduced the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which deleted more than 4,000 laws and used statutory instruments to replace them. The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who was a Minister at the time, is nodding his head as if that process was acceptable. He is now challenging a colleague who was not here at the time by saying that somehow it is not acceptable now, but it was acceptable then. My hon. Friend is right to be concerned and slightly sceptical about the Opposition’s sudden agreement that statutory instruments are perhaps not the best way forward.

[Michael Wheeler]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. We are dealing with a regulatory black hole that was left behind, and the absence of a framework is letting down the consumers and people of this country—[Interruption.] I was about to say that I am sure we would all agree on that, but that is potentially a stretch in this debate and in this Chamber.

I hope that we do agree that consumers should be able to buy products online without worrying about their safety, and that product standards should not be bypassed or compromised on any platform, digital or otherwise. However, research by the Office for Product Safety and Standards found that 81%—eight in 10—of products for sale on online marketplaces between 2021 and 2022 failed to meet safety standards, which underlines the need for the Bill. We cannot allow companies to circumvent essential safety standards, presenting a public health risk just because they sell their products online.

However, the Bill is not just about safety, critical though that is; it is also about ensuring fairness. We simply cannot continue with a product safety regime that enables online marketplaces to undercut bricks-and-mortar retailers, or that allows rogue traders to out-compete responsible retailers with unsafe, low-quality products. That is unfair on consumers, reputable manufacturers and the small high street businesses that must compete with the online giants. With online sales already making up over a quarter of total retail sales in 2023, we must level that playing field now, providing our high streets with a long overdue boost to their competitiveness.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I hope to offer a course correction from the Opposition’s attempts to fight many things today, not least the concept of geography and what is in the interests of British businesses. In this debate, we are watching the last gasps of the Brexit delusions that have fallen on hard contact with the paperwork reality. That is what this piece of legislation is about; it is about making it easier for British businesses who have been harmed by the previous Government’s approach to their basic needs. This is not about free trade. What came about as a result of Brexit was not free trade, but mountains and mountains of paperwork.

I want to focus on that in my speech, but I cannot let go of what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) said. She was, as she says, a Whip on the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023—my goodness me, I welcome a sinner that repenteth. In that Act, the Government were going to rip up more than 4,000 pieces of legislation overnight without any parliamentary scrutiny, simply because they had the word “Europe” in them. That included things like airline regulations, because of course what we needed were our own separate regulations so that a plane would have to take a different course in mid-air. That was the Brexit benefit.

Under the previous Government’s watch, more than 2,000 statutory instruments were laid before the House as a direct result of retained EU law. I welcome opposition parties’ commitment to parliamentary scrutiny, but I simply say that some of us on that Bill Committee tried to offer arguments about the importance of parliamentary involvement in such decisions, and they fell on deaf ears. I will come on to that.

Now that Opposition Members have suddenly discovered that statutory instruments might not always be the best way to look at such things, I hope they will be able to focus on what really matters here, because British business needs us to do that. British business needs us to clear up the mess created by the previous Administration and their approach to Brexit. That is what this legislation does. It is common-sense politics.

[Mr Holden]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Creasy]

I will, if the right hon. Gentleman can tell me which of those 2,361 statutory instruments he now regrets forcing through this House.

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Lady is making an interesting point. The key point with that carry-over of EU law is that all the regulations had already been debated and had already gone through Parliament. All we were doing was replacing like with like. With this Bill, the Government are introducing huge Henry VIII powers to create brand-new legislation, perhaps around production regulation, but on who knows what else? Who knows what impact it will have, and on which countries? That is the difference. We are removing parliamentary scrutiny, rather than just carrying over old EU laws into current UK law.

[Ms Creasy]

There are so many things to unpack there, not least the right hon. Gentleman’s recognition that our previous regulations as part of the European Union were perhaps not that bad. With rules on bicycle safety, for example, perhaps it was pretty sensible to say that if something was safe in the UK, our colleagues in Europe might also be looking at it and we could share the burden of working out good regulation. That is not what happened with the retained EU law Act or with divergence, and it does sound like he needs to look at divergence. Thankfully, I have some statistics for him—I know he will be delighted to hear them.

Before we move on, let me just say this. Opposition Members have not spoken for British business today, although I accept that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), did try, and I recognise his expertise in toy manufacturing. He will recognise that we are talking about thousands of British businesses that are affected by regulations. What rules will those businesses have to follow to be able to sell in a market that makes their business sustainable? Some 12% of businesses in this country will be affected by this legislation, not because there are new rules, but because if we start to diverge from existing regulations, they will face a choice. Do they continue to follow European legislation so that they can sell into a larger market, or do they try to follow UK legislation, EU legislation and maybe Japanese legislation as well, with all the paperwork that comes with that?

[Graham Stuart]

rose—

[Ms Creasy]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman; I can see that if I do not, he will have a heart attack.

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but I shall survive. Given the time that she has spent in this House, I am surprised that, like some newer Members, she may have been taken in by the Government’s wording. The Bill gives Ministers such blanket powers. Sure, they can align more with EU regulation, as she desires; equally, another Government or Minister could go the opposite way and do all the damage she is talking about—needlessly differing from Europe purely out of ideology—and the House would have no say in it. Surely, the hon. Lady must be more like the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) and share with her colleagues the need to restrict Ministers’ powers.

[Ms Creasy]

I tried in vain to make exactly such arguments to the right hon. Member when he was a Minister telling me that European legislation was not good enough for this country. [Interruption.] I now ask him to let me finish my speech, because I want common sense in this legislation, as I think Ministers do. We need to stand up to those who puff and spout about Europe as though somehow it is a bad thing to make it possible for British businesses to trade with our nearest neighbours post Brexit. For the avoidance of doubt, this is not an argument about rejoining the European Union.

[Jerome Mayhew]

rose—

[Ms Creasy]

I will, if I may, continue with my speech, but I shall take an intervention a bit later.

Our colleagues in Northern Ireland know the practical consequences of divergence—the obsession with the concept that somehow we have always to be different, which is somehow believed to be sovereignty. They will know what the “not for EU labels” mean. They will know, too, the impact that that has had on them and their colleagues. Neil Johnston, director of the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium, recently told the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee about just that. He described how suppliers have to have separate print runs for labelling, and how the requirements in shops for posters and edge-of-shelf labelling are massively burdensome for small businesses. We end up with a sausage roll that we cannot take across the border between Castlederg and Castlefin simply because of the way that the previous Government undertook Brexit.

[Sammy Wilson]

I wonder whether the Member has read the schedule to the Bill. Agri-food products are not covered.

[Ms Creasy]

I hope the right hon. Member can understand that my point is about divergence—about what happens when we try to ask businesses to run two different regulatory regimes out of a mistaken ideology that somehow we cannot find a way forward. That is what this piece of legislation will do. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield wanted to tell us that British businesses were better off as a result of the “Brexit freedoms”. Well, the numbers and statistics tell us the exact opposite. I am talking about not just the fall in GDP or the fall in trade that is predicted, but the thousands of businesses—16,400 of them—which have given up exporting to the European Union because of the additional paperwork and the additional regulatory regime.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am so pleased to have eventually got through to the hon. Lady. She heard the Minister at the Dispatch Box say that this was not about dynamic realignment. Am I right in understanding that her view of this legislation is that it is 100% about EU dynamic realignment?

[Ms Creasy]

The hon. Member is completely wrong. I hope that he will give me a chance to make my speech before getting too excited about the word Europe.

He should try to understand what we are talking about here, which is British businesses and the regulatory certainty that they need from their Governments. My goodness, if we think how a Tory hard Brexit has hit British businesses, we should also consider how it has hit small businesses, which simply could not afford to comply with multiple regulatory regimes. We do know that we live in uncertain times, and that the threat of tariffs will kill what little business our firms might have left.

As the OBR pointed out to us last week, if global trade disputes escalate to include 20 percentage point rises in tariffs between the USA and the rest of the world, it will reduce GDP by a peak of 1% and reduce our current surplus. In that environment, we owe it to British businesses to talk common sense and to talk about what they actually want, which is a reduction in the Brexit red tape that they have had to deal with. We have been here before—on the practical insanity that Brexit generates. There was the obsession with blue passports, which came at the expense of being able to trade and keep a business going.

We have also been here before with the previous Government, which is why all those Conservative Members who were here before 2024 need to hang their heads in shame at some of the arguments that they are making about this. The previous Government wanted us to have our own UK charter mark. They wanted British businesses to run two separate charter mark arrangements. Undertaking testing requirements for both the UKCA and the European CE to allow a business to be able to sell in both markets was costing businesses hundreds of thousands of pounds. The costs could go as high as £200,000 per product range. I am actually quoting from the previous Government’s own impact assessment of the legislation, and I am happy to send that document to the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), who is chuntering from the Opposition Benches.

UK conformity assessment marking covered goods worth £109 billion. It is little wonder that after four years, and I believe the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham might have been on that very Committee when it happened, those obsessed with the Brexit freedoms were hit with cold, hard reality and had to climb down and say that British companies that had met European standards had also met the British charter mark. They had to roll over the charter mark, because if they had not, their own impact assessment would have shown that it cost British businesses up to £1.6 billion in the decade. That is the Brexit bonus of which Opposition Members are so proud—billions of extra cost to British businesses because they are trying to fill in two forms at once to sell the same item to different sets of consumers.

The Bill is about so much more than just kitemarking. We need to be clear that it does not mean that we have automatic access to the EU market. It means that British businesses can see what the regulatory landscape might look like ahead of them. That is very important in these uncertain times. It also prevents the UK becoming a dumping ground for goods that are no longer considered safe in the European Union. I certainly believe that my constituents need to be confident that we will not be flooded with cheap goods that are bad for them.

It also does not mean that we have to align automatically, and I hope that answers the question from the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham. I am not here arguing for automatic alignment. After all, there are examples of where we have taken a different approach. The vaping legislation was something that Conservative Members opposed, but it put us ahead of European product legislation. The Bill has protections for the British pint. The Lords wrote those in.

It is also clear that choosing not to participate does not mean that UK consumers are not affected. We saw that with mobile phone charging cables. Even though we are too small a market to influence Apple, the European Union acting together made Apple stop selling us multiple cables. As somebody who was carrying around multiple pieces of equipment, I am very grateful for that.

We may also want to look at examples where we might learn from our colleagues. Right now the European Union has been taking the lead on carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons—basically what is in a synthetic football pitch. Our kids right now in the United Kingdom play on pitches that have dangerous chemicals in them, but our European colleagues’ kids are not playing on those. When we talk about alignment, sometimes we are talking about sharing good practice on how to make our kids safer—the consumer regulations product safety that we were talking about.

I suspect that is why the previous Government, in the end, with all their obsession with Brexit freedoms and with all the powers they had, did not diverge very much. Indeed, under their watch, there were only five cases of active diversion. There were 15 cases of passive divergence, where basically they did not update regulations. For all the huffing and puffing, when faced with the cold, hard reality of having different regulatory regimes for goods in this country from those of our next door neighbours, where we might also want to sell, the previous Government took the better approach; they did not look to make British businesses try to double up on their paperwork. Indeed, where we have diverged there are clearly problems being stored up. Anybody watching the court case about sandeels knows what is coming down the line.

This Government are not going to mess British business around in the way that the previous Government did with their huffing and puffing about whether previous Governments in other countries were friend or foe. We need to make trade work. British businesses need less paperwork. That means being clear about where we will diverge, where we will align, why that makes a difference and what that means for product standards.

I think we agree across the House that we want high standards. That is delivered not by being not European, or pro-European, but by looking at what the regulatory regimes are. That is why it matters that we have paused some of the current proposals of divergence—on a new recycling label regime, on the “not for EU” labelling, and on the new checks on agrifood imports. We are looking at what works for British businesses so that we can make it easier for them to trade. That is why I wanted to speak in this debate.

What we need to do in the Bill—I hope the Minister will be open to this—is be clear about the direction of travel and the proper, right way and point for Parliament to be part of that process. If we are going to diverge, we should be clear why that would be in the British interest and how we as a Parliament will have that conversation. Where we have information, we should update our constituents, who might have businesses with products that take 18 to 36 months to develop. They need to know the regulatory regime, for example of the toys they want to make, and which markets they can sell into. That is why it matters that we have parliamentary scrutiny.

I welcome sinners who repenteth about the value of that, but I do not want to see British business faced with the idea of us having to consult on absolutely everything. I do not have an erratic fear of the Europeans somehow holding us back if they help us ensure that our kids are not playing football on pitches that have carcinogenic chemicals on them. That is common-sense British politics, and that is what the Bill needs to deliver.

Regulatory uncertainty undermines economic growth. If economic growth is our primary ambition, we need to reduce the amount of times we ask British businesses to be part of consultations, because they need to have confidence about where regulation is going. That is why it matters that we say, “We are not going to start diverging for the sake of it, but only because we can see there is a national interest in it.”

I will finish on this point. It matters to so many of our growth ambitions that construction materials are also covered under the Bill. Construction costs are due to rise much further here than in the European Union. Many of us who want our hospitals rebuilt and house building to happen know that if we spend our time giving uncertainty to British businesses about which way the regulations will go, we will not get the investment that we want. The cold, hard reality of businesses’ decision making is that they do not want to invest on a risk. My question to the Minister is: how can we give British business certainty about the direction of travel and ensure that we have the right consultation and engagement process for Parliament so that, where there are points where we would diverge—like we did on vaping—we can do that, too? It is not an either/or. Frankly, we have to get over the idea that if something is European, it is somehow taking us back. Nine years after we voted to leave the European Union, and six years after the legislation to do that, what the EU is doing still affects our British businesses.

We have a choice in this House. We can continue to peddle fantasies—I am sorry that the shadow Secretary of State is no longer in his place; he seemed not even to know about the capitulation that his Government must have made in his eye over the charter mark—but we owe it to British businesses who are being hammered by Tory Brexit and facing economic uncertainty not to add to the pile of paperwork in their in-trays as the Opposition would. I hope that when the Minister sets out that direction of travel, he will be open to ideas about how we can secure that. British businesses may have stopped listening to Opposition Members, but they will listen to us if we get this right.

“Chapter 4A

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Cooper]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. He is a very experienced parliamentarian and knows full well that to arrive at this stage with, as we have heard from other Members, a telephone directory of amendments is quite an incredible situation. How could any self-respecting Secretary of State for Business and Trade stand over the anti-growth regulations contained in—but not confined to—parts 1, 2 and 4 of this Bill? Even a trainee solicitor can see that they strip out flexibility for both employees and employers, making it less likely that people—especially young people and people with sketchy backgrounds—will be hired for that all-important first job. Whither your employee rights if you have no job?

As someone who bends his elbow, I am familiar with the occasionally coarse atmosphere in pubs. My daughter took a part-time job in a bar while studying at university, but I see nothing useful for her in the Bill’s bid to make employers liable for third-party harassment. It is why I also support our amendment to exclude the hospitality sector from this onerous clause. Aside from the fact that my daughter was well capable of dealing with the rare rude, sexist or obstreperous client under existing laws, clause 18 risks the Bill becoming a snooper’s charter—a busybody’s dream. If our amendment 289 falls, the public bar will no longer be the cockpit of free speech, but placed in the purview of the censorious, and the malicious gauleiters of orthodoxy.

Set as we are in a sea of troubles amid global turmoil, are Labour really so afraid of off-colour jokes, or the bar stool crank with outré political views, that it will establish the banter police? One of my criticisms of the Holyrood Parliament in Edinburgh is that it passes “never mind the quality, feel the width” legislation in a bid for self-justification. With this Bill, that accusation could rightly be levelled at this Government, too.

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

I will be proud to see this Bill progress through Parliament and to develop accordingly. That is what the amendments before us offer us the chance to do. May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), who is no longer in her place, and the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for the work that they are doing?

In the short time available to me, I wish to speak to new clause 7, which reflects a manifesto commitment made by the Labour party that said explicitly that the current parental leave system does not support working families. Millions of people across this country will recognise that that is the case. New clause 7 is about putting meat on the bones of that commitment, because it is long overdue. We are behind the curve in this country in how we treat dads. I wish to thank everybody who has signed this amendment, because it sends the message that we care about our fathers in this country.

We have the worst paternity leave in the EU, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), who is no longer in his place, pointed out. Two weeks is just enough time for the dad to realise that the meconium is going to stop and that they might eventually get three hours’ sleep at some point. Let us see how our economic competitors treat dads better. Dads get 16 months in Sweden, eight months for each parent and three months protected for the dad. In France, Spain, Norway and Luxembourg, dads get at least six weeks. In Japan, they get a year. Why do they do that? It is because dads make a difference. Yes, this Bill would give them a day one right to paternity leave, but only two weeks. One in five dads—35% of them—in this country does not take any leave at all, because they cannot afford to do so. They need a paid and protected right of itself to benefit from paternity leave. It benefits them and it benefits their kids. It is better for the mental health of the father. It means that they take fewer sick days—there is evidence to prove that—and it is good for the kids. It is also good for the mums.

We need to end the battle of the sexes when it comes to childcare, because research shows that women really cannot win. Even when we do not have kids, we pay the price because of maternity discrimination. We all know of employers who do not employ women in their 20s and 30s because of the risk that ladies do babies. The challenge with this legislation, which rightfully strengthens maternity discrimination powers, is that it could inadvertently reinforce that message if we do not bring forward legislation to support fathers. [Interruption.] I am glad Conservative Members support what I am saying. I wish they would vote with us on this tonight.

The gender pay gap does exist in this country, but it is basically a maternity pay gap, because the motherhood penalty is all too real. By the time of their first child, a woman’s wages are a third below a man’s within 20 months. Members might say that that is to do with working part-time, but that is even when women return to the front. One in nine mums have been dismissed, made redundant or forced out. Women are considered 10% less competent in the workplace when they become mums, as if juggling things make them less able to do things rather than more. Childless women are eight times more likely to be promoted. Conversely, dads are considered 5% more committed than non-dads because we expect them to be in work, paying for their children rather than helping to look after them.

I want to deal not in caricatures but in cold, hard cash. Above all, supporting paternity leave in its own right, and leave for the other parents in relationships, is good for the economy. It helps boost women’s participation and productivity. Countries with better paid parental leave have a smaller gender participation gap in their economy, with all the economic benefits that that brings. Closing that gap could bring £23 billion into our economy—1% of GDP.

[Joe Robertson]

The hon. Member is talking about the benefits of her new clause to fathers, but does she accept that the effect of the Bill will be negative and harmful to everyone and to the economy, by stripping £5 billion away from businesses? It is no good that her new clause would be helpful for fathers if the net effect of the Bill is bad for everyone, through the damage done to the economy.

[Ms Creasy]

I wish that the hon. Gentleman had been listening, because I just pointed out that dealing with the gender pay gap would bring £23 billion to our economy. That is exactly how we pay for better parental leave—it is a cost-neutral proposal.

A newsflash for those who have not worked it out: mothers are already paying for this childcare in their lower wages, opportunities and progression. Women’s salaries are hit by 33% after the birth of their first child. Women are doing 450 million hours of unpaid childcare in this country, which equates to £382 billion worth of work—twice as much as men. A consultation could explicitly look into these issues and at how we can share that cost and benefit fairly, so that both men and women can contribute equally to our society and look after their children equally. It could look explicitly at self-employed parents. After all, there are nearly a million self-employed dads in this country, who pay £1.1 billion in national insurance contributions. They do not get any parental leave at all.

We know that shared parental leave is not the answer. Only 2% of dads have taken it in the 10 years that it has been available, because it is not paid. That is why we must be explicit that any consultation must look at the pay that needs to be behind parental leave, as well as at protecting it. Those on the lowest incomes do not take shared parental leave at all. More shared parental leave has been claimed in London alone than in Wales, Scotland, the north-west and the north-east combined.

Above all, this is about our kids. God knows, we love them all dearly, but we can all understand why 20% of divorces take place in the first five years after having a child: because of the unequal situation that we put families in and the pressures that that creates—the mum and dad guilt. We have a choice in this place about whether we deal with mum and dad guilt, with the Government making a proper commitment with a proper timetable, and with proper involvement from Parliament and the Women and Equalities Committee.

To all those who will say, “Well, I struggled, and so should you,” I say that that is bad for the economy and bad for our kids. It means that fathers do not get the time to work out the quirks of their children, so mums end up being the ones who know how to cut the sandwiches. It means that mums end up doing more of the childcare and dads get pushed further away from their children. If this Government are serious about supporting families—I believe that they are—they need to show us the detail. That way, in every family, which come in all shapes and sizes, every parent—whether the father, the non-birthing parent or the mother—will have the time to be the best parent and contributor. That is why these policies are massively popular with Conservative and Reform voters—if only the Reform MPs were here to do something for men for a change.

This long overdue change will make a difference. I hope that Ministers are listening to why it matters to show a commitment to this, and I look forward to hearing to what they have to say in response to the new clause.

Royal Assent

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the King has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2025

Crown Estate Act 2025.

Employment Rights Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

First, I think I need to mention that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) is celebrating his 40th birthday today, and what a great way to spend his birthday. He is one of the people who have worked tirelessly over many years in different guises to help us get where we are today.

Given the number of speeches and contributions, it is just not going to be possible to pay tribute to everyone in the time I have, or indeed to reference every speech and every amendment, but I will do my best to cover as much as possible.

I will start with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), whose new clause 73 relates to significant structural changes to the statutory sick pay system. I thought she made a very personal and persuasive speech, and I agree with her that phased returns to work are an effective tool in supporting people to stay in or return to work, helping to reduce the flow into economic inactivity and the cost to businesses of sickness absence. By removing the waiting period, employees will be entitled to statutory sick pay for every day of work missed. This better enables phased returns to work—for example, by supporting someone who normally works five days a week to work a three-day week, being paid SSP for the other two days. That simply would not have been possible under the existing system. We are committed to continuing to work closely with employees and employers to develop and implement a system that is fair, supportive and effective in kick-starting economic growth and breaking down barriers to opportunity, and we will continue to have conversations about that.

Turning to new clause 102 from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), I pay tribute to him for his work as a shadow Minister in this area. The changes we are bringing in through this Bill mean that up to 1.3 million low-paid employees will now be entitled to statutory sick pay, and all eligible employees will be paid from the first day of sickness absence, benefiting millions of employees. The new percentage rate is consistent with the structure used for other statutory payments. It is simple to understand and implement, and with the removal of waiting periods, the internal modelling from the Department for Work and Pensions shows that most employees, even those who may nominally earn less per week, will not be worse off over the course of their sickness absence.

I believe the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) was her first from the Back Benches, and I do not think she will be on them for very long if she continues to make such contributions. I thought it was an excellent speech, and the way she spoke about her constituent Mr B really hammered home the importance of tackling non-disclosure agreements. I would like to pay tribute to her ongoing efforts to ensure that victims of misconduct and bullying can speak up about their experiences, and get the help and support they need.

I want to thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for originally tabling the amendment, and for meeting me last week to share, sadly, another horrific story about the abuse of NDAs. I also thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for her contribution in this area.

There are legitimate uses of NDAs, but I want to be clear—we have heard too many examples of this today—that they should not be used to silence victims of harassment or other misconduct. I understand that hon. Members want to ensure equal protection in relation to NDAs concerning harassment across the economy, and I absolutely hear what they have said. However, we have to acknowledge that this would be a far-reaching change, and it would be to take a significant step without properly engaging with workers, employers and stakeholders, and assessing the impact on sectors across the economy. I want to reiterate that I recognise that non-disclosure agreements are an important question that warrants further consideration, and we will continue to look at the issues raised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley said that she wants me to go further, and I look forward to engaging with her and with organisations such as Can’t Buy My Silence.

New clause 30, in the name of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), would give employees who are special constables the right to time off work to carry out their voluntary police duties. I join him in paying tribute to special constables, who make an invaluable contribution to policing across the country. It would not be appropriate, however, to support additional legislation on this matter without a comprehensive analysis on the impact such a change could bring to policing. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we debated it in Committee and my officials have been in discussion with colleagues at the Home Office to learn more about the topic. Further engagement is continuing with the staff association for special constables and the Association of Special Constabulary Officers. I recognise that the legislation is now half a century old and needs a considerable look. We cannot support the amendment tonight, but I am glad that there is at least one Member on the Conservative Benches who supports increasing employment rights.

Turning to new clause 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), I want to start by recognising the key role that paternal leave plays in supporting working families. The arrival of a child is transformative for all parents. The Government understand and value the vital role that fathers and partners play in raising children, and we want to support them to do that. I commend my hon. Friend for her work in this area.

We already have a statutory framework in place that guarantees eligible employed fathers and partners a protected period of paternity leave, ensuring that they cannot be required to work while claiming that leave, or be discriminated against by their employer for taking it. However, I recognise what my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) said about the limitations on those protections. I also pay tribute to her for her work on this issue.

Paternity leave is available to the father of the child or the mother’s partner irrespective of their gender, and the leave can be taken by the father or partner at any point in the first year following the child’s birth or adoption. I acknowledge the wider point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, which is that we need to do more to ensure that the parental leave system as a whole supports working families. As a Government, we have committed to doing that. I recently met The Dad Shift, Pregnant then Screwed and Working Families to discuss that very issue.

Through the Bill, we are making paternity leave and unpaid parental leave day one rights, meaning that employees will be eligible to give notice of their intent to take leave from their first day of employment, removing any continuity of service requirement. That brings them both into line with maternity leave and adoption leave, simplifying the system. We are also committed to reviewing the parental leave system. The review will be conducted separately from this Bill. Work is already under way across Government on planning for its delivery and will commence before Royal Assent. We are scoping the work already under way across the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Business and Trade, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. We of course want and expect to engage widely with stakeholders as part of that review process, and I would expect my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow to engage with us in that respect.

New clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), would partially reinstate, to the Equality Act 2010, a similar measure that was sponsored by the previous Labour Government. This Government continue to have sympathy with its aims. We all know that the statutory questionnaire was sometimes found to be a helpful, informative tool. While the Government will not support new clause 6, we will be giving close consideration to the impact of the repeal of the statutory questionnaire and any steps that may be needed during this Parliament.

[Ms Creasy]

I am very pleased to hear confirmation that the review into parental rights, which I understand will begin in June, will go ahead. The Minister talks about stakeholders. Will he confirm whether they will include our trade union colleagues, because many of us are very happy to withdraw our amendments tonight on the basis that working people can be part of the conversation?

[Justin Madders]

I would fully expect us to consult with all relevant parties, so I do not think my hon. Friend need have any worries in that respect.

I pay tribute to two people who have been instrumental in shaping our thoughts on this issue: my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne). They tabled amendments on employment status. It is important to say that we are taking action in respect of those who work for umbrella companies. We have been clear that some reforms in the plan to make work pay will take longer to undertake and implement. We see consulting on a simpler two-part framework as a longer-term goal, but I assure them both that I remain committed to that. I also hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East says in relation to his concerns about fire and rehire. We will be looking very closely at how our reforms work in practice.

New clause 17 seeks to create a legal definition of kinship care to be used to establish eligibility for kinship care leave. New clause 18 aims to establish a new kinship care leave entitlement for employed kinship carers, with a minimum of 52 weeks of leave available for eligible employees. I am pleased to say that the Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will, for the first time, create a legal definition of kinship care for the purposes of specific measures in the Bill. By defining kinship care in law, the legislation will ensure that all local authorities have a clear and consistent understanding of what constitutes kinship care. I am also pleased to say that the Government have recently announced a £40 million package to trial a new kinship allowance. This is the single biggest investment made by this Government in kinship care to date and will enable children to be raised within their communities by their extended families.

New clause 10—another Liberal Democrat new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling)—which we debated in Committee, would commit the Government to introducing an entitlement for employees with caring responsibilities to be paid their usual wage while taking carer’s leave. While we have stressed the Government’s commitment to supporting employed unpaid carers and I have been engaging with Ministers and relevant bodies on the matter, the Carer’s Leave Act 2023 only recently gave employed carers a new right to time off work to care for a dependant with a long-term care need, so we are reviewing this measure and considering whether further support is required.

I recognise that many of their amendments and new clauses come from a good place, but the Liberal Democrats have to decide whether they are going to be Manchester United or Manchester City; their speeches were littered with concerns about the increase in costs from the Bill, yet every new clause and amendment seems only to add to those costs. I understand that they are coming from a good place, but they have to decide whether or not they support the Bill. I hope they can make that decision before tomorrow night. At least the Liberal Democrats are here, unlike the new kids on the block, who are absent from the Benches behind them—I pay tribute to them for actually turning up today.

I will now address the points raised by the Opposition on harassment, as set out in amendments 288 and 289, in the name of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). Those amendments seek either to exclude the hospitality sector and sports venues from the Bill’s obligations for employers not to permit the harassment of their employees by third parties or to remove clause 18 altogether, thus depriving employees of protection from all types of harassment by third parties under the Equality Act. Let us be clear: this Government are committed to making workplaces and working conditions free from harassment, and we must therefore protect employees from third-party harassment.

I want to underline two important points in relation to clause 18. First, on the expectations it places on employers, I would like to assure the House that employers cannot and are not expected to police or control every action of third parties; instead, employers simply need to do what is reasonable. What is reasonable will, of course, depend on the specific circumstances of the employer. Further, the steps that an employer can reasonably take in respect of the actions of third parties in its workplace are clearly more limited than the steps it can take in respect of its employees, and employment tribunals will, of course, take that into account when considering the facts of the case.

The second point relates to the threshold for what constitutes harassment. Far too often, I have heard objections to clause 18 implying that employers will be liable if their staff are offended by comments made by third parties, which is not the case at all—a fact reflected, I think, by the Conservatives supporting a similar measure in the previous Parliament. In his opening remarks, the shadow Minister asked what evidence there was that this clause was needed. The NHS staff survey for 2023 revealed that a quarter of all staff had suffered harassment, bullying or abuse from patients or service users, while a Unite survey said that 56% of its members had suffered third-party harassment. Presumably that is why UKHospitality, in its written evidence to the Bill Committee, said that it supported the measures in principle. I will work with them to ensure that we protect everyone in the sector, because I believe that everyone who works in this country deserves protection from harassment. I think it is incredible that the Opposition cannot see a problem with arguing against that.

I will turn to new clause 105 on substitution clauses, which was tabled by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy). I think it is fair to say that we are aware of the risks. I have been working closely with the Minister for Border Security on illegal working by irregular migrants in the gig economy and the role that substitution clauses play in facilitating that. We will continue to work closely with the Home Office on this issue.

The Opposition also tabled new clause 87, which seeks to require the Secretary of State to have regard to the UK’s international competitiveness and economic growth when making any regulations under parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. The Government are already laser-focused on this key objective. Our plan to make work pay is a pro-growth package and sets out an ambitious agenda to deliver our plan for change by ensuring that employment rights are fit for a modern economy, empower working people and contribute to economic growth.

The plan will bring the UK back into line with our international competitors and directly address our low-growth, low-productivity and low-pay economy. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may be laughing, but they are the people who delivered that economy for so many years. International competitors and growth are at the heart of what we do. We will pay close attention to the potential impacts as we develop regulations to implement the measures in the Bill.

On small business support, I remind Members that I had a meeting with representatives from Inkwell, who said that introducing these changes will help create a happy and productive workplace and create a level playing field for employers. That is exactly what we want to achieve with the Bill. We understand that the best businesses want to look after their staff and that treating them well is good for business, good for workers and good for the wider economy. The Opposition’s narrow view seems to be that anything that is good for workers is automatically bad for businesses. We absolutely reject that analysis.

In conclusion, giving people a baseline of security and respect at work is fundamental. It is clear that we need a change from the system where people do not know what hours they will get from one week to the next, where people with caring responsibilities never get the same benefits of flexibility as their employers, where a minority of rogue employers can fire and rehire at will, and where care workers and teaching assistants have all been undervalued for far too long. It is time to end these injustices. It is time to make work pay.

North Sea Energy

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman paints a lovely picture of walking up the hill in his constituency� I am sure we would all enjoy doing that. He makes an important point about solar. We need to make sure that we are taking people with us and doing the right things, which is what we are trying to do. We know that even if we pushed as far as we could on solar, it would still account for less than 1% of the overall land and the same proportion of our agricultural land�it is a small amount. He is right to want to make sure that his constituents have an environment that they like and enjoy. It is equally right to say that we will need infrastructure in our communities, and that people should see a benefit where we ask them to have infrastructure. There is the solar taskforce, which is looking at all these issues.

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

It is good to see the Government taking a very sensible approach in the consultation to working with our European partners on how we develop renewable energy and get energy costs down. As with so many other areas, our constituents have paid higher bills because the previous Government refused to work with our European counterparts. Can the Minister give us a bit more detail? As we look to expand our capacity to create renewable energy, she will be very aware that there is a risk of an �800 million charge because of the variation between our emissions trading schemes. Can she also tell us a bit more about what working with the North Seas Energy Co-operation might entail, and whether we might rejoin that organisation to help drive down bills further for our constituents?

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend raises a number of thorny issues relating to ETS, for which I am responsible in the Department. We have been having lots of conversations about how we progress, what the EU does, what we do and what we need to do moving forward. These things are enormously complicated, because pulling a lever here will have an unintended consequence over there, so we are treading carefully, as she would expect.

On the EU partnerships and the new relationships that we have with our partners, they are incredibly important. Today the Prime Minister is with the Taoiseach in Ireland, and we are agreeing an energy partnership. We will be working together in the Celtic sea and the Irish sea to speed up progress on wind turbines by using data and our resources to look at our marine landscape and get to a point where private investors can invest quicker. These things are worth doing, and we will certainly carry on doing them.

Paternity Leave and Pay

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

I have spent the last 13 years advising women, in particular, in employment tribunals, and I have advised a lot of women who have suffered maternity discrimination. That was an absolute mainstay of my practice. My comments will be completely heteronormative; that is not to disparage any other family structures.

During the pandemic, for the first time large numbers of women and men were able to work from home. I say that because prior to the pandemic I spent a lot of time advising women on flexible working requests. If they asked to work from home for one or perhaps two days a week, that was habitually turned down. They were told that it was completely impossible; employers would not hear of it. Once men did it, it became absolutely acceptable, and it is now absolutely fine in most organisations for parents of either gender to work from home for one or two days a week.

If women continue to take the overwhelming majority of parental leave, they will continue to take the entire career burden and will be systematically discriminated against for it. This is a widespread issue: 54,000 women a year lose their jobs when they are pregnant or on maternity leave.

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

We also have to think about all the women who do not have children but are discriminated against anyway because employers expect them to. Does my hon. Friend agree that to get paternity leave right, we have to ensure that everyone in their 30s and 40s is equally discriminated against because they might go off and have children?

[Mrs Russell]

I completely recognise what my hon. Friend says. The risk zone for women’s careers starts when they are approximately 25 and carries on until they are at least 45. I have been advised not to wear my wedding ring to interviews because I was likely to be viewed as a pregnancy risk. Until we deal with that—until men take significant amounts of leave and are paid properly to do it—we will continue to face this issue, and women will be systematically discriminated against, as she says, whether they have children or not.

Approximately 12% of employers disclosed in a YouGov poll that they were reluctant to hire a woman simply because she might become pregnant. This is a widespread issue, whether women have children or not. We need non-transferable, “use it or lose it” parental leave for the second parent and we must ensure that that is paid at a rate such that people are actually able to take the leave. Once we have that and it becomes the default minimum—some fathers will choose to take significantly longer—everyone will be a risk, and everyone will be able to have career development. That will change the entire attitude towards maternity leave in our society. As I said, 54,000 women a year lose their jobs when pregnant or on maternity leave. All the women I advised thought they were just individually unlucky but given the volume of them I can say that they were not unlucky—it was systematic.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) on securing this long-overdue debate. Previous debates have had a minimal turnout, so it is fantastic to see so many people here. I also pay tribute to the Dad Shift and the original campaigners Pregnant Then Screwed and Joeli Brearley.

Joeli Brearley came up with the pancake test: if we consistently put mums and dads in two different boxes, with mums looking after babies and dads having to go back to work after those first two weeks, when you have just realised that the meconium will eventually stop, it is mums who learn how to feed the child pancakes and dads who do not. It is mums who will get why some days the child wants pancakes rolled up, some days they want them flat and some days they want them with cream. That everyday caring for children is at the heart of being able to look after them, and slowly but surely it ends up being easier for the mum to take the child and to deal with the toddler, and dads get further and further away.

That is why, in the minute I have left, I want to argue in front of the Minister for PaPa—protected and paid leave—which we need for mums and dads in every single relationship. There is a risk that the Employment Rights Bill and the brilliant changes it introduces could entrench the challenges we are discussing, rather than helping us to resolve them. What do I mean by that? I mean that, if we entrench the idea that shared parental leave is the answer to the challenge, we are entrenching one of the biggest crimes against relationships. As the data shows us time and again, it is mums who end up having to look after children and mums who end up having to take that link. That is why in this country there is a motherhood penalty, which means that mums are seen as less committed, less capable, less competent and less worthy of promotion.

[Mrs Russell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the idea that “part-timer” is a term of abuse is a shocking concept, and that what we are discussing today could help with that?

[Ms Creasy]

I completely agree. I was also shocked to hear Conservative Members, who obviously are not in this Chamber today, talking about flexible working as somehow lesser working. When people work flexibly, they do not work less—that is why they end up sending emails in the evening, because they are prioritising their time to do bedtime. They make it work for their family.

This debate is about making things work for families and tackling the inequalities in the workplace. Those inequalities are why we have a gender pay gap in this country—though in fact it is not a gender pay gap, but a motherhood pay gap. There is also a fatherhood premium, but we are showing in this debate that it is not a premium at all, because asking dads to work harder and longer and to be away from their children is not what modern dads want. That is why so many fathers look at flexibility in the workplace when they take on jobs, and that is why this debate matters.

If we want to support every family, it cannot just be the wealthiest who can set the terms on when they get to see their kids and make those pancakes. I therefore urge the Minister to consider an amendment that many of us will be tabling relating to PaPa for dads in their own right, because that will help every member of the family. I said it in the main Chamber, and I will say it again here: having PaPa is good for us, because our economic competitors are doing it, and we have some of the worst rates of paternity leave. It is also good because we can prevent another generation of dads reaching the stage of having teenagers who they have no relationship with, because they have not been there—not just to make pancakes, but to be the best dad they want to be.

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.