PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
UK-EU Summit - 20 May 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With permission, I will update the House on the three recent trade deals that we have struck in the national interest.

First, however, I would like to say something about the horrific situation in Gaza, where the level of suffering, with innocent children being bombed again, is utterly intolerable. Over the weekend we co-ordinated a response with our allies, as set out in my statement with President Macron and Prime Minister Carney last night. I want to put on record today that we are horrified by the escalation from Israel. We repeat our demand for a ceasefire, as the only way to free the hostages; we repeat our opposition to settlements in the west bank; and we repeat our demand to massively scale up humanitarian assistance to Gaza. The recent announcement that Israel will allow a “basic quantity of food” into Gaza is totally and utterly inadequate, so we must co-ordinate our response, because this war has gone on for far too long. We cannot allow the people of Gaza to starve, and the Foreign Secretary will come to the House shortly to set out our response in detail.

Let me turn now to the three deals that this Government have struck. The principles we took into the negotiations are clear and simple. Does it drive down bills? Does it drive up jobs? Does it strengthen our borders? In each case, the answer is a resoundingly yes. These deals release us from the tired arguments of the past and, as an independent sovereign nation, allow us to seize the opportunities of the future—a clear message, sent across the globe, that Britain is back on the world stage.

We have a trade deal with the world’s fastest growing economy, India, cutting tariffs for British industries, which is a huge boost for our whisky and gin distilleries—their only concern now is whether they can produce enough to sell—and for our car manufacturers, with tariffs slashed from over 100% to just 10%, and no concessions on visas. We have a trade deal with the world’s richest economy, the United States, slashing tariffs, saving thousands upon thousands of jobs in car manufacturing in places like Jaguar Land Rover, protecting our steel and aluminium exports, and safeguarding the interests of our hugely important pharmaceutical sector.

But I can already see that, when it comes to this hat-trick of deals, it is our new partnership with the EU that the Opposition most want to talk about—and given their abject failure to strike a deal with India or the US, I cannot say I blame them—so let me spell out the benefits of this deal, which gives our country an unprecedented level of access to the EU market: the best access of any nation outside the EU or European Free Trade Association.

I will start with our security. When Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine over three years ago, a gauntlet was thrown down, and it is our responsibility to step up. That is what this world demands, and it is what this partnership delivers, strengthening our national security through a new security and defence partnership that paves the way for British defence firms to access the EU’s €150 billion defence fund. That will support British jobs, British wages and British livelihoods.

The partnership also increases co-operation on emissions trading, saving UK businesses from having to pay up to £800 million in EU carbon taxes—once again, backing British businesses. The deal will drive down bills with increased co-operation on energy, because the agreement negotiated by the Conservative party left us with a more expensive way of working with our neighbours—a needless rupture, despite our grids being connected by undersea cables. This partnership brings those systems together again, benefiting British bill payers and boosting clean British power in the North sea.

This partnership also strengthens our borders, because again, the previous deal left a huge gap and weakened our ability to work together to tackle illegal migration—the ultimate cross-border challenge. It closes that gap, including joint work on returns, preventing channel crossings and working upstream in key source and transit countries, co-operating along the whole migration route to strengthen our hand in the fight against the vile smuggling gangs. It boosts our co-operation on law enforcement, combating terrorism and serious organised crime with closer operational work with agencies like Europol and better sharing of intelligence and data, including, for the first time, facial imaging.

This partnership helps British holidaymakers, who will be able to use e-gates when they travel to Europe, ending those huge queues at passport control. It delivers for our young people, because we are now on a path towards a controlled youth experience scheme, with firm caps on numbers and visa controls—a relationship we have with so many countries around the world, some of which were even set up by the Conservative party. We should be proud to give our young people that opportunity. And, not for the first time, this Government have delivered for Britain’s steel industry, protecting our steel exports from new EU tariffs and backing our steel sector to the hilt.

Last but certainly not least, we have a new sanitary and phytosanitary deal, as promised in our manifesto, which will cut the price of a weekly shop, meaning that there will be more money in the pockets of working people, less red tape for our exporters, no more lorry drivers sitting for 16 hours at the border with rotting food in the back, and no more needless checks—the inevitable consequence of the Conservatives’ policies, which made it so much harder to trade even within our own market, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The deal means that British goods that have long been off the menu in Europe can regain their true place, including shellfish, which are hugely important for Cornwall, Devon and Scotland. Not only does our deal on fish provide stability, with no increase in the amount that EU vessels can catch in British waters, but the new SPS agreement slashes costs and red tape for our exports to the European market. We sell 70% of our seafood to that market, so there is a huge opportunity that Britain’s fisheries, in which we have made a £360 million investment, will now look to exploit.

The reaction to this deal from business has been absolutely clear. Mr Speaker, I know you are a stickler for keeping to time, so I do not have time to run through the list of supportive quotes from businesses. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”]

Order. The Prime Minister is correct.

This is not the full list, but the new partnership has been backed by the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI, the British Retail Consortium, Asda, Morrisons, Salmon Scotland, the Food & Drink Federation, the British Chamber of Commerce, Ryanair, Vodafone and producers of meat, milk and poultry—the list goes on and on. I wonder whether that long list of businesses coming out in support of the deal will temper the reaction of the Leader of the Opposition—but then again, for weeks now, she has been dismissive of the benefits of any trade deal, in defiance, frankly, of her party’s history. It is not just the Conservatives that I am talking about; the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is not here, and the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) have both shown, in their own way, that their parties simply do not get it; if your whole approach to our allies is about striking a pose, you do not get to strike a deal. What that means in a world like ours, where deals are ever more the currency of security and justice, is that you do not get to make a difference, and you do not get to deliver for Britain. That is what this partnership means.

For years, we were told that this could not be done. What the Conservatives meant was that they could not do it. We were told that a deal with the US or India was impossible; what they meant was that it was impossible for them. We were told that a choice must be made between the US and EU; what they meant was that they could not do a deal with both. This Government can and will, because we stay in the room, we fight for the national interest, and we put the British people first. These deals represent a signal that we are back on the world stage—a global champion of free trade, playing our historic role on European security—but above all, they are deals that put money in the pockets of working people, because that is what independent, sovereign nations do. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. The Prime Minister talks about a hat trick of deals—they are own goals. In 2020, the Conservatives concluded the trade and co-operation agreement, the largest and most comprehensive free trade agreement in the world. We agreed to come back in five years with improved terms. This renegotiation should have been an opportunity to improve terms for our country, but the terms are improved for the EU. The Prime Minister can dress it up as much as he wants, but he has failed. It is bad for bills; it is bad for jobs; and it is bad for borders.

This is not a deal made for Britain; this deal is made for Labour’s public relations, to show Labour on the world stage, but it is a stitch-up for our country in return for short-term headlines. Let us take the Prime Minister’s abject failures one by one. First, on fishing, he has given away the prize most desired by EU member states, and he has done so for almost nothing. It is very easy to sign deals if you are prepared to give everything away for pennies. This deal locks out our fishermen until 2038. We are now in a worse position than the Faroe Islands—a set of islands with the population of Scarborough, but which gets to have annual negotiations. The Prime Minister quoted some organisations that welcome his deal—he does not listen to them normally—but he left one out deliberately: the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has described the deal as a surrender and a giveaway. This is a Prime Minister who would pay to give away his family silver. Why is the Prime Minister selling our fishermen down the river? Is it because they do not vote Labour?

Secondly, on food and agriculture, the Prime Minister is going to pay the EU to abide by laws that we have no say on. While British farmers struggle with the family farms tax that his Chancellor has imposed on them, their regulations will now be made in Paris and enforced in Brussels. It is a total capitulation. We are not in the EU, and we are not at the table, so can the Prime Minister tell us how he will ensure accountability for the hundreds of regulations that he has signed this country up to?

Thirdly, on energy, the Prime Minister has shackled us to the EU’s emissions trading scheme. That means that the Government can no longer cut energy costs without the EU’s permission. It will also unravel parts of the India free trade agreement that he has just negotiated. This is not a technicality; it is a betrayal. The House should be in no doubt that this means higher bills, more pain and less flexibility.

Fourthly, on the Prime Minister’s manifesto promises, he said that we would not rejoin the single market. He promised no new payments, and that he would protect British interests. That promise has lasted about as long as his commitment to protect pensioners’ winter fuel allowance. He said whatever was needed to win power, and now he will say whatever is needed to keep it, even if it means selling out our sovereignty, our businesses and the public.

The truth is that most of what was announced yesterday was not a deal. There was no binding agreement on anything. Most of the items outlined are simply agreements to enter into further discussions, which we are already having. The Prime Minister is boasting that we will now avoid airport queues because we will get access to EU e-gates. It sounds great, except it is not true; some airports already allow that, and this deal does not guarantee it anywhere, as each country still has to agree. That sums up this deal perfectly: it is a lot of spin to disguise the terrible substance.

Having previously ruled out a youth mobility scheme, the Prime Minister is now desperately trying to hide his latest U-turn by rebranding the scheme as an experience. That is risible. We have no details on any cap or time limit, which begs the question: why are the Government talking about increasing migration before they have got a grip on the small boats or the legal migration system? I know that the Prime Minister does not like answering questions, but people out there want to know. Can we have some honesty about what has been discussed? How many young European workers does the Prime Minister think would be acceptable, and will they be able to bring dependants?

Even the defence commitments in this deal are hopelessly one-sided. We are making payments, but the EU is offering dialogue and consultation. This is a pitiful return for the country that leads NATO in Europe, and has troops on the ground in Estonia, defending our allies. Can the Prime Minister tell us why there was not a single word in his statement about the money that we will now be sending to Brussels? Can he set out how much those payments will cost taxpayers? In government, details matter, and so does honesty. [Laughter.] Labour Members are laughing, but this is a bad deal for the country. Look at them. This is how they laughed at the Budget. They have no idea what it is that they have signed up to. The Prime Minister said that he would stay out of the single market; he is going into the single market for agrifood, electricity and energy. He said that he would stay out of the customs union, but he is accepting EU tariff rules. How does he plan to stop the EU changing them to our disadvantage? He has no idea, and neither do any of them.

The British people know when they are being misled. They know that headlines fail. The Prime Minister did not listen to the CBI on the jobs tax, and he did not listen to the Federation of Small Businesses on the family farms tax. This deal has already unravelled. The damage is becoming clear, and the political consequences will be huge, and here he is, trumpeting his success. When he stands up in a moment, he will deflect, dismiss and distract, but we all know the truth. This is a fiction of a speech, a fraud of a deal, and a failure of a Prime Minister.

Oh dear. That was just such an unserious response. The right hon. Lady says that details matter in government; they matter in opposition as well. The SPS agreement cuts red tape and bureaucracy for all food and agricultural products going to the EU. It is a massive boost for our supermarkets, our farmers and others. Why is it that all the supermarkets have come out behind this deal? Because they know how important the SPS agreement is. It is completely in our favour. There is a huge amount of detail there. It is the best agreement.

On defence and security, we have greater operational co-ordination, and the right hon. Lady is against it at a time like this. It opens the gate to the EU defence procurement fund of €150 billion; that was a condition of the deal. She complains about emissions. [Hon. Members: “How much?”] I will tell you how much. Businesses were going to pay £800 million a year in tariffs that they will not now pay. That is why they are coming out in support of the deal. That is how much. The detail matters.

On energy, we are already connected, but we are not using that energy connection. We have electrical access to the market. On steel, we are getting rid of the tariffs. That will support British steel, but the right hon. Lady is against that, yet again. She says that e-gates access is already in existence; this deal clears the way for e-gates access. That is the huge difference it makes. [Interruption.] If any Conservative Members doubt that, they should travel across a border today and see the long queues.

On law enforcement, we have better operational working with Europol, and the right hon. Lady is against it. We have information sharing on facial mapping and dealing with criminal records, and she is against it. She is absolutely unserious. She is also against the India deal, which of course does huge things for trade in sectors such as whisky, where their only concern is whether they can produce enough. They have been absolutely clear about supporting the India deal—a deal that the Conservatives tried to do—and she now says that she is against it.

We have the US deal, which saved thousands upon thousands of jobs in car manufacturing and at Jaguar Land Rover. I do not know whether the right hon. Lady had the chance to make that trip to JLR, but she really ought to before she responds like that again. The US deal reduces tariffs on steel, so that our steel can be sold to America, and supports our whisky and gin, and she is against it. She is against every single deal. She is the only ex-Trade Secretary who is against every single deal. These deals have been welcomed broadly because they are good deals. You do not get a great long list of endorsements from all the business associations and companies for no—[Interruption.] The Conservatives are so unserious; they are lost in a descent into the abyss. They used to be a proud party of trading agreements, and they have slid off into the abyss. That is where they are.

On fishing, none of the rights negotiated by the Conservatives have been removed. There is no change in access for coastal communities, which is the same as before. There is no reduction in the British quota or increase in the EU quota; they are the same as before. We have reciprocal arrangements, which are the same as before. What is new is having the SPS agreement for the first time, and it is permanent. They were unable to do that. It reopens the EU market for shellfish and makes it much easier to sell British fish to our largest trading partner. That is hugely significant, because 72% of British fish is traded into EU markets, and it is now easier to do that. We are backing that with £360 million through our fishing and coastal grants. The Leader of the Opposition talks about the youth experience scheme. That scheme is capped, it is time-limited, and it is balanced.

In relation to standards, the truth is this: we are currently aligned in our standards, but we do not get the benefit of that. We want to continue to have high standards; that is what the British public want, and it is what this deal delivers. We will have a role in shaping any future rules, and application of them is specifically subject to our constitutional arrangements. We will have a process in this Parliament to apply the rules, but to be clear, we are already applying those rules at the moment—we are just not getting the advantage. This deal strips that away. It is good for our country and good for our economy, and it is a shame that the Leader of the Opposition cannot stand up and support it.

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

This deal is good for business and good for Britain. I congratulate the Prime Minister on embracing a good half of the Select Committee’s recommendations, which—if I might say so—were agreed on a cross-party basis. While some in this House are proposing trade barriers, the Prime Minister is building trade bridges, and that is in the national interest.

We have a deal, but we do not have a date. The Office for Budget Responsibility cannot score the gains, businesses cannot plan for the benefits, and we cannot suspend customs checks in Northern Ireland until we know when the new SPS checks will come into force. What timetable has the Prime Minister given his negotiators for when that SPS deal will come into effect? Business needs certainty, and for that, we need clarity.

First, let me pick up on my right hon. Friend’s point about the cross-party support of the Select Committee. There are Conservative Members who I think are ashamed by the response of the Leader of the Opposition, and know very well that these are good deals that should be supported. A number of her Back-Bench MPs are already coming out and saying that these deals are good and in the national interest. [Hon. Members: “Who?”] You know who they are.

I assure my right hon. Friend that we have moved at pace to get the deals, and our instruction to our teams now is to move at pace to implement them. That is what we will do. We negotiated these deals in a short number of months, and we will keep moving at the same pace.

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the appalling situation in Gaza. When he is working with our French and Canadian colleagues to put pressure on Netanyahu, will he consider, with the French, formally recognising the state of Palestine?

Turning to the EU reset deal, the Prime Minister knows that we do not think this deal goes far enough to fix our broken relationship with Europe, but there are many parts of it that we welcome. We have long been arguing for an agrifood deal to help British farmers export to Europe; for a youth mobility scheme to give our young people incredible new opportunities and British businesses, especially in hospitality, a boost; and for closer alliances on defence in the face of Putin’s imperialism and Trump’s unpredictability. I welcome the progress on those issues, even if there is only very limited progress on things such as youth mobility.

We have all seen the terrible damage caused by the Conservatives’ Brexit deal, and hearing the Conservative leader complain today is like listening to a backseat driver who previously crashed the car. Our country has moved on from the divisive Brexit wars of a decade ago, and some Members of this House need to do the same. However, does the Prime Minister accept that this deal must be only the first step, and that we must be far more ambitious in strengthening our economic and security ties with our nearest neighbours? We believe that a bespoke customs union is a key part of that—not turning back to the past, but forming a new partnership that serves our national interest. I know that the Prime Minister once made that a red line, but he will accept that the world has changed since then, so will he open negotiations on a customs union to get a better deal for Britain—a trade deal to dwarf all other trade deals?

On the right hon. Gentleman’s question about this deal being a first step, it is intended that this is the beginning of a process to complete what we have already agreed. We also intend to have annual summits so that we can take our co-operation and co-ordination further, step by step, and we will do that while keeping to the red lines in our manifesto.

On the question of a customs union, the problem with the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal—as I know he knows—is that we have just struck deals with India and the US. If we now undo that good work, we undo all the benefits of those two deals. For JLR and other car manufacturers, this is the here and now of their jobs at the moment. That is why we had our red lines and kept to those red lines, and I am not prepared to rip up the benefits that we have negotiated in those deals.

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

I begin by thanking the Prime Minister for what he has said about Gaza. The message he is sending to Netanyahu’s far-right Government could not be clearer, and it should have the unanimous support of this House. It is essentially, “This must stop.”

Turning to the grown-up EU deal, which comes hard on the heels of the two other recent trade agreements, the Government are rightly confident that those deals will be popular and will provide great benefits to our country. As such, I ask the Prime Minister this: why not take this opportunity to fix a glaring hole in our democracy and simply put those agreements to a vote, allowing them to be scrutinised by this place? I can assure him that they will be passed.

As my right hon. Friend knows, there is a process for implementing any agreement. All of these agreements will require legislation, and therefore they will go through the House on that basis.

Can I just point out to the Prime Minister that nothing can undo the fact that 17.5 million people voted leave? They voted to take back control of our laws and stop paying money to the EU. That was a considerably larger number than the 9.7 million people who voted Labour at the last election, but now the Prime Minister is submitting to EU regulations without any control and starting to pay money back to the European Union—he is giving up control over our laws and restoring payments to the European Union. He will pay a bitter political price for this betrayal.

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that we had red lines about not rejoining the EU—no single market, no customs union and no freedom of movement. We were told that it was impossible to negotiate a better deal with the EU with those red lines, but we have just done it. We have also shown that we are outside the EU, because as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, having deals with India and the US is inconsistent with membership of the EU. There could be no better evidence that we are not going back into the EU; nor are these negotiations on that basis. I know that the hon. Gentleman understands that well, so I am surprised at the way in which he has put his question.

As for control of borders, net migration quadrupled after Brexit to nearly a million. That was not controlling our borders; it was a complete lack of control by the Conservative party. On the question of payments, it is important to appreciate that we have achieved unprecedented access to EU markets without the budgetary payments of member states. That is an incredible achievement. The only payment under the SPS agreement is administrative—to support the relevant costs of implementing and administering the scheme. For schemes and payments where it is in our national interest, we will negotiate proportionate contributions, as already happens under the deal negotiated by the Conservatives—for example, in relation to research and development and Horizon. The hon. Gentleman knows all that very well.

I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

I congratulate the Prime Minister on this achievement, on top of two great trade deals. This is important if we are trying to deliver growth in the economy. Could the Prime Minister outline what he thinks the two or three main gains are to boost the economy in short order, so that we can build the public spending that we so badly need?

Our approach has been on the question of bringing our bills down, which is why the SPS agreement is so important, and of protecting and driving up jobs, which is why the EU, India and US agreements are all so important. That is particularly the case for car manufacturing, but equally so for pharmaceuticals, which are protected under our agreement. However, there is a bigger picture: these are three individual trade deals, but taken together they show that other countries want to do deals with the UK now in a way that they did not before.

With youth unemployment higher in Europe—in countries such as France, Spain, Portugal and Sweden—I can see why the EU pushed for a youth mobility scheme: to help get its youth unemployment figures down. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what impact assessment he has done of his youth scheme? What effect will it have on youth unemployment among young Brits, particularly white working-class boys, who suffer the most? Can he also tell the House today what cap he has put on the number of people coming to the UK? If he cannot, this is a bitter betrayal of British youth.

The agreement gives young people in the United Kingdom the opportunity to work, to study and to travel in Europe. It will be a capped scheme of limited duration and with visas. This, again, is something that everyone said we could not negotiate, and we have negotiated it. As for the right hon. Lady’s question about what we are doing for young people in this country, she should look to the Trailblazer scheme that we set up to help young people back into work.

Will the Prime Minister join me in inviting Conservative Members to celebrate the restoration of access to our British shellfishers, and the reduction in frictions on the 70% of our British seafood that is exported to the EU? Will he encourage those Conservative Members to get out there and help us to deploy the £360 million of fishing and coastal community funding that we have unlocked?

Under the Conservatives’ deal, shellfish was locked out, but it can now be sold back into the market, which is hugely important to places such as Cornwall. That is why their response to this is so uncertain and, if I may say so, un-Tory.

On six separate occasions since the beginning of the year I have asked the Paymaster General about plans for a youth mobility scheme, and every single time he has told me that Labour has no plans. I realise that I was in error and should have asked about a youth experience scheme, but let me ask the Prime Minister now whether he has a timescale for when such a scheme can be put into operation and we can start to see the benefits that Liberal Democrats know it can bring to young people here in the UK and across the EU.

We have moved apace to get this far, but we now need to move apace to implement what we agreed yesterday, so we will be doing that, and we will update the House as we do so.

I congratulate the Prime Minister and his colleagues on their success at the summit. The Government’s hard work has paid off: this is a good deal and a good first step. Businesses will benefit from a reduction in red tape, and consumers will see lower bills in the long run. The announcement on youth experience and Erasmus+ will be welcomed by the many young people in my constituency. I also welcome the recognition of the value of touring artists in both the EU and the UK. I realise that the barriers to touring are complex, but will the PM commit himself to keeping up the hard work so we can begin to reduce and break down those barriers?

My hon. Friend has raised an important point about touring artists. We are absolutely committed to securing a better deal for them, and that will be part of the ongoing work as we move forward from this summit to the next.

I think the Front Benches need to calm the jets a wee bit. This is obviously not a surrender, just as it is obviously no substitute for membership of the European Union; nor, indeed, is it, as the Prime Minister has said repeatedly today, providing “unprecedented access” to the EU market—that is simply absurd.

The deal does provide for co-operation on carbon storage, so will the Prime Minister build on that good work by committing his Government to providing the financial support that is necessary to take forward the Acorn project in the north-east of Scotland?

The deal does allow us to move forward on renewables and carbon capture as part of the package around renewables, which is why it is so important across the United Kingdom, but particularly in Scotland because of the potential for job opportunities there, so of course we will press on in that regard. I would gently ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider again why he should not support this deal for the benefit of the whisky sector in Scotland, and given that yesterday Salmon Scotland came out hugely in favour of it. He should stand up and support the work that we are doing.

My constituency is home to the world’s oldest biscuit factory: Carr’s has been making Table Water crackers, ginger nuts and custard creams for many decades, and in about 15 years’ time it will celebrate 200 years in business. Can the Prime Minister say more about the importance of this deal to food and drink businesses such as pladis, which owns and operates the Carr’s biscuit factory?

For food, for biscuits and all the content covered by the SPS agreement, this deal is a massive step forward. It gets rid of the red tape and bureaucracy that cost each business thousands upon thousands of pounds. This is good for biscuits, good for business.

May I have a serious answer to a very narrow and specific question? We know how many fishing rights the Prime Minister was prepared to give away for how many years in order to accede to the EU’s demands, but how much UK taxpayers’ money is he willing to hand over to the EU in order to sign up to its protectionist demands?

I remind the right hon. Lady that nothing that was negotiated on fishing by the previous Government has been given away; quite the contrary. On costs—I gave a full answer earlier—we are not paying into the EU budget in the way that EU members do, and that is why this unprecedented access is so important. In relation to schemes and programmes, yes, we will make a proportionate contribution, on the same basis, with the same principles, that the Conservative party—the then Government—negotiated the current arrangements on Horizon and research and development. It is hard to see why, having negotiated those arrangements, it is now suddenly against them.

The energy industry is central to our mission for growth, but it is also important to our tackling of the generational challenge that is climate change. This is a sentiment felt in my constituency, which is proud to be a regional hub of carbon capture and hydrogen storage. Will the Prime Minister explain how the deal supports the energy industry so that we can pursue the growth, bring down energy bills and tackle climate change?

It does so in two ways. It makes permanent the energy chapter in the current deal, and it goes beyond that to allow us to co-operate and co-ordinate more closely on energy; we have the ability for connection already, but we can now take better advantage of it.

Successive Governments and successive Parliaments have caused unnecessary and at times intolerable damage to our Union. We recognise the reductions in some checks on some issues, but can the Prime Minister explain why, if animals and animal products are now suitable to come to Northern Ireland free of checks, the European Union is still intent on banning the very veterinary medicines that are taken by those animals? If standards are the same in the United Kingdom and the European Union—and this Parliament has already decided that CE markings will be retained—why are products and manufactured goods not part of the arrangement? Will the Prime Minister confirm to this Parliament that it is his intention to rid Northern Ireland of the Windsor framework and to get rid of the barriers within our Union?

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the SPS agreement that we have negotiated for the UK as a whole is good for Northern Ireland because it complements the current SPS agreement for Northern Ireland that it comes up against. That will be a huge step forward for Northern Ireland, which I know he cares about, and others care about, and I care about. It is among the advantages of the SPS deal that we have struck.

I do understand the issue of veterinary medicines, and we are working to resolve the problem that the right hon. Gentleman has rightly described. I think we are in a better position to resolve it by co-operating and co-ordinating with the EU, which is what we are doing. On the Windsor framework, it is important that we implement the agreements that we have in place, because the blunt truth is that no one will make further agreements with a country that walks away from agreements that it has already put in place.

The last Tory Government left the British people at the back of the European queue. That was true for exporters, for farmers and for businesses, but most obviously it was true for my constituents who stood and watched other nations skip through the e-gates at airports while they waited for hours. Given that East Renfrewshire holidaymakers are eager to spend more time at the poolside and less time at passport control, can the Prime Minister tell me when he expects to see the benefits of the arrangements involving the use of e-gates?

The arrangement we got to yesterday with the EU has absolute clarity: there is no impediment to e-gates, which means that we can now work with member states to get them in place as quickly as possible. We have already started our work with them to get e-gates through. [Interruption.] We have now cleared the barrier and are getting on with it. For many years, we have had queues because of the Conservatives’ bad deal—so pipe down.

The most pernicious part of this deal is dynamic alignment, by which we become an automatic rule-taker from the European Union. Labour has been briefing journalists that we have an opt-out from that. I have read the document in detail, and we do not. Besides, the ECJ is the ultimate arbiter in a dispute, so the EU will always win. The British people voted peacefully and democratically to leave the European Union, so why has the Prime Minister surrendered that right and made us a rule-taker from the EU once again?

I had forgotten about some of the nonsense that is spouted. On the question of how the rules are made, they will go through a parliamentary process in this House.

After they have been changed.

We are already aligned. We are in alignment; we are just not getting the benefit of it. This deal gives us the benefit, which will be counted in business, jobs and bills. In relation to an independent arbiter, under this agreement there is independent arbitration where there are disputes.

Subject to the ECJ! [Interruption.]

They all know this. Every trade deal has an arbitration clause to deal with the settlement of disputes. All trade deals have that, including all the trade deals that the Conservatives negotiated.

On the question of the ECJ, if an issue of European law needs to be referred by the independent arbitrators to the court, it will give a ruling on the interpretation. It will then pass back to the arbitrators to make the final decision. That is how trade deals work, but I understand the Conservatives’ new policy. Their new policy is against any trade deals. That has never been the Conservative party’s policy before, but it is good that we have clarity now.

This deal is very welcome, particularly for my farmers in Morecambe and Lunesdale. When I was a young person, I benefited from a year in New Zealand and a year in Spain. Can the Prime Minister assure me that he will do everything he can to ensure that other young Brits get the same opportunities that I did?

I want young people in this country to have the opportunity under the scheme to work, to travel, and to involve themselves in volunteering and other activities in Europe.

Thanks to the appalling deal that the Conservatives did with the EU in 2020, we saw farmers lose 34% of their export market into the European Union. That contributed to a 41% drop in incomes for livestock farmers in my constituency and across the country, so we are encouraged to hear about the access to the European market for our farmers. Can the Prime Minister say more about that and when farmers in Westmorland and beyond might avail themselves of those opportunities?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, which will be of huge interest to his constituents. If I have got his number right, he said there was a 41% drop in trade because of the deal that the previous Government did for farmers, who they claim to champion. As he will appreciate, this deal ensures that food and agriculture going into the EU will, under the SPS agreement, do so without any red tape or bureaucracy. That will make it much easier for his constituents, and for farmers generally, to trade in the EU market and will bring down their costs, which is hugely important for farmers and his constituents.

On the question of timing, we will do it as quickly as possible. We are moving at pace. I appreciate that for farmers in his constituency and across the country, it is hugely important to undo the damage that the previous Government did.

I, too, congratulate the Prime Minister on this deal. Manchester has a student population of over 100,000, many of whom I represent. They will be pleased to hear, as I am, that the UK and the EU will develop a scheme focused on student exchange, supporting young people to study, volunteer, work or travel across Europe. Does the Prime Minister agree that this deal will provide life-changing experiences for our young people and strengthen our broken relationship with the EU for generations to come?

I can confirm that I want those experiences and opportunities for our young people, and I think the country wants those experiences for young people. I am not even sure the Conservatives are genuinely against better opportunities for our young people to work and travel in Europe.

In Boston and Skegness, my fishermen are furious that the Prime Minister has surrendered the fishing industry. My constituents are furious that he has surrendered on freedom of movement and on rule taking under the ECJ. But there is good news: does Prime Minister accept that he has also surrendered the jobs of many of his Back-Bench MPs to Reform at the next general election?

I will happily explain to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents the huge benefits of these deals, measured in jobs that will be saved, jobs that can now thrive, and bills that will come down. It is really important for our economy that we have these deals. That is in the interests of his constituents, and it is in the interests of the whole country.

I was surprised to see the SNP First Minister line up with Reform and the Leader of the Opposition against a deal that has been welcomed by the likes of Salmon Scotland, a huge exporter from Scotland, because they know it is good for their business. That is a pretty small and miserable club for the SNP to be in.

If the Prime Minister is right that our food standards are already in alignment with those of the EU, why could we not have negotiated the deal on the basis of mutual recognition of those standards, as other countries have done, rather than open ourselves up to having to alter our standards in line with whatever the EU may decide to change in the future?

That is a very good question that the right hon. Gentleman should put to Boris Johnson.

I absolutely welcome this deal, which puts us on the map as an outward-looking nation again. Above all, the benefits that it brings young people in Edinburgh South West are absolutely worth noting. We know that the deal will bring lower bills for people shopping for food and buying energy across the UK. Based on that, can the Prime Minister understand why the SNP is uniting with Reform and the Conservatives to take an isolationist approach on international trade?

I do think it is really hard to fathom, and I hope that SNP Members reconsider their position, because lining up against better trade and better business opportunities for Scotland is not in Scotland’s interest. To be lining up with Reform is not a place that I would expect them to be, but that is where they are.

I admire the Prime Minister’s faith that this deal may well end the tired arguments of the past, but judging on today’s display, I think we need to end the Conservatives—the tired party of the past to my right—before that is the case. A generation of young people have missed out on the opportunities offered by the Erasmus scheme due to the disastrous Brexit deal negotiated by the Conservatives. We are encouraged by the words in the deal about the Erasmus scheme, but what is the timescale for offering that opportunity to our young people once again?

I do not think the Conservatives need any help in retiring from the national stage—they are well on their way. It is obviously important that we take a balanced approach in negotiating access to Erasmus. As with other aspects, we want to move ahead on what we have negotiated as quickly as we can. We have moved at speed to get this far, and the instruction from both sides is to move at speed on the other elements.

I agree with the Leader of the Opposition when she says that what matters is whether the terms of the deal have improved for the country, and that detail matters. Some 16,000 firms in this country stopped exporting to Europe under the deal that her Government negotiated and exports dropped by a third, because the price of her Brexit was paperwork. Under this deal, the Government are getting rid of the much-hated export health certificate, which is worth an extra £200 on every single consignment. This Government’s deal will help business; her Government’s deal hurt business. Can the Prime Minister confirm that as part of reviewing the charges at the border, he will also look at that the Tories’ hated border operating model, so we can really get business moving?

My hon. Friend puts her finger on it. Under the Tories’ deal, there was huge bureaucracy, huge red tape, huge cost to businesses. The reason businesses have come out to support this deal in huge numbers is because they know it will make life better for them, improve their business opportunities, and drive our economy forward.

I asked the Prime Minister on 7 May to reassure the House that he would not hand over hard-won controls over UK fishing waters in backroom deals with Brussels. In reply, he said:

“a better deal…can be had.”—[Official Report, 7 May 2025; Vol. 766, c. 679.]

Does he agree that EU access to our waters until 2038 is only a better deal for Brussels and nothing short of a betrayal of British coastal communities?

The deal we have struck makes it easier for fishermen to sell into the EU market. Some 72% of their fish is sold into the EU market. Until we came along with the SPS agreement, which is permanent, they had to put up with the red tape, bureaucracy and added cost that the Tory party negotiated with disastrous consequences. This makes it easier for them to sell their fish into the market, which is hugely important to them. On shellfish exports, which were banned by the Tory party, the door is open again and they can sell into the market—hugely important.

I put on the record my thanks to the Prime Minister and the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office for this landmark first step in the Government’s reset with the European Union. As the Government remove barriers to trade, what further information can the Prime Minister share with the House about how the deal will bring down the cost of living, including for my Bolton West constituents?

I point my hon. Friend to the endorsements from the very many supermarkets yesterday who made precisely that point. It will allow them now to lower the price of goods and food on their shelves. That is good for them and their businesses, it is good for working people, and it massively helps with the cost of living.

These incremental improvements are welcome as we begin to move on from some of the illusions of Brexit, although we had all this and far, far more 10 years ago. The Prime Minister once argued that

“we should retain the benefits of the single market”.—[Official Report, 1 May 2017; Vol. 630, c. 879.]

Given his recent tendency to dismiss the views of others, what would he say to his younger self?

I think last week I was overly rude and I apologise. I do respect the right hon. Member, and she makes a serious point. We are now outside the EU. We had red lines in our manifesto on the single market. We have kept to those red lines and delivered a very good deal.

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on securing this deal. Does he agree with me that the attitude displayed by the Conservatives betrays a fundamental dislike and mistrust of all things European, which makes them totally inadequate to accept any sort of deal whatever with the EU? Can he confirm that no matter where an international trade deal is done, whether through World Trade Organisation rules or with Europe, there is always an arbitration system?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I do not think the Conservatives are just against all things European, because they say they are against the India deal as well. That is a deal they tried for eight long years to negotiate. It is deeply embarrassing for them to say that that was what they were trying to negotiate and now they are against it. They are against the deal with the US, which they said they wanted to negotiate, which saves thousands upon thousands of jobs. Go to Jaguar Land Rover and tell those workers that you are going to reverse the deal, and look at the expressions on their faces. It is further evidence of the decline of the Tory party, away from free trade. I never thought I would see that, but we are seeing that now under this Leader of the Opposition. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about arbitration clauses: they are there in every trade deal that has ever been struck.

I do not want to be a dog in the manger, but the Prime Minister’s statement appears to be very strong on self-congratulation and very short on detail. I know he does not like answering detailed questions, but the response he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) was quite simply unacceptable. When will this deal be signed off in a form that this House will be able to debate properly and vote on?

The detail of the agreement we reached yesterday was set out in a document which we released during the course of yesterday. If the right hon. Gentleman has not had the chance to see that, I will make sure that he does. On the detailed text that follows, obviously that needs to be drafted in legal form so that everybody can see it, of course, and we can debate and scrutinise it. None of this can go through without legislation, so he will have that opportunity. It is quite right that he presses for it.

The new UK-EU agreement is a welcome and pragmatic step towards rebuilding a strong trading relationship with our closest economic partner:

“this deal will help reduce costs, cut red tape, and make it easier for Scottish businesses to compete and grow across European markets.”

Those are not my words, but the words of the chief executive of the Scottish chambers of commerce. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that when Labour negotiates, businesses and customers in my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire South benefit?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are reasons why the Scottish chambers of commerce is coming out in support of the deal. It recognises the huge benefits. It is very important that we do everything we can for working people and businesses in Scotland. That is what we are delivering.

On behalf of the Green party, I broadly welcome the progress made at the summit yesterday. It is not quite the step change we need, but it is a step forward towards the closest possible relationship with our closest neighbours that we continue to champion. I would gently point out that it is hardly unprecedented, because, of course, up until we left the EU we had a much better relationship. Given that free movement of people, in addition to goods, services and capital, is such an important component of growth and building good relationships, why is the Prime Minister being so timid on the youth mobility scheme, given the huge benefits it would offer to our young people and our country as a whole?

We had a clear red line in our manifesto on freedom of movement. We did that because we had a referendum, and at the heart of that referendum, or one of the key issues, was freedom of movement. Everybody made their case and the country voted to leave. We respect that and that is why we put the red line in. What we have now negotiated is a scheme that does not cross our red lines, but is good for young people both here and in Europe.

I would like to turn to the co-operation aspect of the agreement, on which I congratulate the Prime Minister. When I was an international liaison prosecutor, my colleagues and I in the Crown Prosecution Service, Eurojust and Europol were relieved when the trade and co-operation agreement was finally agreed. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that this new deal enhances and improves our ability to tackle cross-border serious and organised crime, and to keep the people of the UK safe?

I thank my hon. Friend for her previous work. One of the important things I was able to do when I was chief prosecutor was to play a part in Eurojust. Before we left the EU, we could play our full part in Eurojust. That meant we shared evidence, strategy, arrest arrangements and issues about where a case would be prosecuted. We want to ensure that we improve law enforcement by making sure that, wherever we can, we can co-operate better with Europe. That was not possible under the deal that the Conservative party negotiated. I want to make sure that we have better co-operation on criminal justice issues.

The previous deal done by the Conservatives tied up many businesses in red tape, so I warmly welcome the progress on SPS. But advanced manufacturers in my constituency are part of integrated supply chains with the EU and they are still tied up in red tape. In light of the further summits that will be held, will the Prime Minister outline what the Government will do to reduce that red tape and allow them to grow jobs in my constituency?

I thank the hon. Gentleman. On SPS, we have taken that step—the red tape goes—but we do want to reduce trade barriers wherever we can, both with the EU and with anywhere else, frankly. At a time when we are moving into a new era on trade and the economy—we certainly are—we need to reduce trade barriers across the country for the reasons we set out.

I thank the Prime Minister for his work on this deal, which takes important steps in resetting our relationship with the EU. Beyond the lowering of trade barriers, the prospect of a youth experience scheme will excite many of my younger constituents. Does the Prime Minister agree that far from being a concession, a youth experience scheme, mirroring agreements that we already have with countries like Australia and New Zealand, would create fulfilling cultural opportunities for young people across the country?

I agree. I would remind the House that we have agreements in place with a number of other countries, some of which were actually negotiated by the Conservatives. I find it hard to believe that anybody in this House genuinely wants to make it harder for our young people to work, study and travel in Europe.

We need 15 billion barrels of oil and gas between now and 2050; we are currently expected to produce just 4 billion. New licences would support tens of thousands of jobs in this country and tens of billions in tax revenue. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the agreement on alignment on climate policies will not stand in the way of common-sense restoration of new licences in the North sea, so that we can produce the oil and gas we must consume in this country?

We have been clear about honouring new licences, and there is nothing in this deal that cuts across what we have said previously on that.

A trade deal with the world’s fastest-growing economy, which the Tories failed to achieve; a trade deal with the world’s richest economy, which they also failed to achieve; and a trade deal with the world’s biggest trading bloc, which the Tories and Reform would tear up, despite the enormous benefits for British businesses, consumers and tourists—does the Prime Minister agree that all that, plus financial stability, investment in key public services and our national security and infrastructure, makes the UK the best place to start and grow a business in the world? Would he further agree that given our fantastic quality of living, our great universities and our skilled and passionate people, the north-east should be the destination of choice for such investment?

My hon. Friend is right that the three trade deals taken together do indicate that other countries want to negotiate and deal with the UK because they can see the path that we are on. That is good and it should be welcomed, because there are huge benefits. Of course, the north-east and my hon. Friend’s constituents should benefit under all three of those deals.

The people of Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union in 2016, and overwhelmingly support rejoining it today—[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members might want to listen. That fact has been continuously ignored by successive UK Governments. The limited measures this Government have announced do not come anywhere near to repairing the hammer blow that Brexit will continue to inflict on our public finances. Indeed, the UK Government’s own figures show that the cost of Brexit is 20 times greater, or 4% of GDP, compared with this deal. Does the Prime Minister recognise that by continuing to pursue this disastrous Brexit policy, he is demonstrating that Westminster Governments will never work in the interests of Scotland?

I find it impossible to follow the hon. Gentleman’s reasoning. He thinks we should be in the EU—that was voted on, but he is entitled to his position. However, he is also against a closer relationship. I do not understand why the SNP is against this deal. This is a closer relationship. There is a complete contradiction in the argument that he is making, which is completely out of kilter with Scottish businesses, which are welcoming what we achieved yesterday. On behalf of Scotland, the SNP should be welcoming it.

I congratulate the Prime Minister on securing this sensible, pragmatic deal, which demonstrates that we can respect the result of the 2016 referendum without settling for a bodged Boris Brexit. Does the Prime Minister agree that if the Conservatives and Reform want to rip up this deal, they should have to explain to my constituents why they should pay higher prices for food and energy?

I completely agree—the Conservatives and Reform should go around the country and explain to our constituents why they should pay higher prices. I think they would get a pretty universal response.

Our fishermen had been promised, and the EU had agreed, that annual access agreements would be reverted to from 2026, but, seemingly at the 11th hour, the Prime Minister abandoned our fishing communities, our fishing fleets and control of our seas by handing not a three, four or even five-year access agreement, but a 12-year multi-annual agreement to the EU. He sold out our fishermen to meet his self-imposed deadline for announcing the agreement and has shown that he will not stand strong for UK fishermen. Can he confirm that Parliament will have the final say on the fisheries deal, and that it will not be ratified elsewhere by unelected officials in Whitehall or Brussels?

The simple fact of the matter is that, under the agreement the Conservatives struck, it was much more difficult for fishermen to sell into the European market. We are making it much easier—it is 72% of their stock. Shellfish can be sold back into that market again, and we have set up a fund for our fishing communities. The alternative, which was to come off the current agreement and then negotiate every year with no certainty at all, would not be good for anyone.

I congratulate the Prime Minister on this deal, which will benefit so many of my constituents; it is exactly what businesses in my constituency asked for when they sent me to Parliament. The youth mobility scheme will benefit local farmers, but I want to know how young people in my area will also benefit from it opening up experiences and opportunities that they would never have otherwise dreamed of. The scheme must not just benefit middle-class kids on their gap year.

I agree wholeheartedly. It has to benefit all our young people, whether through work, travel or study, and we will make sure that it does. We want to provide young people with this important opportunity and help them to take advantage of it.

How will Britain’s head start in gene-editing technology be impacted by the rule-taking reversionary measures that the Prime Minister has announced?

We are discussing and engaging on that issue, which, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, is important.

Morrisons has said that the deal will

“ease…pressure on food prices”,

Asda has said it

“has the potential to significantly reduce costs and bureaucracy”,

and the British Retail Consortium has said it will help to “keep costs down”. Does the Prime Minister agree with their assessment that this deal will help families in Bracknell Forest and across the country facing a high cost of living?

The deal will massively help my hon. Friend’s constituents because it will bring costs down. Morrisons is not the only supermarket that has come out in support of the agreement—pretty well all the supermarkets have come out openly supporting it. There is a reason for that: it will bring the prices on their shelves down, and that is good for working people across the country.

I welcome the SPS part of yesterday’s agreement, as I am sure will all the farmers of South Devon and those exporting fish and shellfish from Brixham. The Prime Minister may not know the answer to my question, but perhaps one of his Ministers will. Will bivalve molluscs that are fished in grade B waters, which are very important for one of my major exporters, be included in the SPS agreement?

The hon. Lady raises an important issue. I am not going to pretend that I have the answer in my back pocket, but I will make sure that she gets a proper, detailed answer to her question, which she can then make use of with her constituents.

It is brilliant that the Brexit logjam that has cast a long shadow over this House for so many years has been smashed by this Prime Minister. Could he indicate when we might hear a bit more about the youth experience scheme that has been so yearned for and so welcomed by the universities and the English language teaching sector, and also by my staff, team and son, who were born too late to have a say in any of the mess that the Tories left behind?

We will develop the plan on the youth experience scheme with our partners. We have instructed our teams to move on all fronts as quickly as we can.

The Prime Minister states that a new security and defence partnership will pave the way for British defence firms to access the new European defence fund, which I am sure we can collectively agree will allow our continent to defend ourselves against Putin’s autocratic regime. How long does the Prime Minister think access to this fund will take—weeks, months or years?

It will certainly not take years. The whole point of the fund is to be part of the collective response to the challenge in Ukraine. The fund was one of the initiatives that came out of the work that we were doing with the coalition of the willing. Everybody involved wants to move at speed, and that is the basis on which we have approached this matter. What yesterday does is knock out one of the gateway issues that we were otherwise facing, so that we can work with others to access the fund, but we will work as quickly as we can, because the situation in Ukraine is extremely serious and will need to be addressed as soon as possible.

I thank the Prime Minister for negotiating this deal, which is good for the UK and, according to umpteen businesses, good for Scotland. As someone who benefited from a year in France many years ago, I welcome the work that is under way to give young people in my constituency access to a youth experience scheme, but will the Prime Minister work at pace to ensure that our sportspeople and musicians can showcase their talents and are no longer subjected to the Tories’ botched Brexit?

I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. We will work as quickly as we can on that issue, because, whichever way people voted, they did not vote to stop creatives and sportspeople crossing national boundaries to showcase their talent—in whatever way that may be—so we do need to resolve it.

The impact of the Creative Europe programme between 2014 and 2019 on the UK arts, film, publishing and other creative sectors was hugely beneficial, and not just for practitioners and organisations but for the country as a whole. Will the Government look into the possibility of participating again in this creative programme to further boost the economic potential of our creative industries?

We set out yesterday the areas where we had reached agreement. We will now have annual summits, but we will approach that matter on a value-for-money basis.

I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Paymaster General on this deal, which makes the people of York Outer better off, and, in particular, on the agreement on e-gates, which the Conservative party could never achieve. Will the Government prioritise e-gates talks with member states in popular holiday destinations such as Spain, Portugal and France to ease summer travel chaos for sun-seeking Brits?

We already are doing so, because it is important that we now get on with this as quickly as we can.

Ursula von der Leyen yesterday said that a second step of further negotiations is required before British firms would be eligible to compete for joint procurements aligned to the Security Action for Europe fund. The Prime Minister spoke warmly about the positive industry response, but the chief executive officer of the ADS Group has said that it was “somewhat underwhelming” in its lack of detail. Therefore, what is the detail on which further negotiation is required before British firms even have the possibility of bidding for access to the SAFE fund, let alone creating thousands of jobs?

Let me answer the hon. Member directly. The first thing was to get through the first gateway. As this is a fund that is being set up at the moment, the second gateway is to negotiate our way into the scheme. That was always the two-stage process. The scheme itself has not been in existence for very long and is being developed, and so, along with our European partners, we will move that on at pace.

Although residents and businesses in York will welcome this deal, our university sector is our second largest export. Will the Prime Minister say more about how this deal will benefit higher education, not least in our research base but also in being able to attract the very best into our country?

We do want to attract the very best into our country and we will continue our efforts to do so. The measures that we set out yesterday will now help in that effort. They are not the total sum of our effort, but they will help in that effort.

After every EU summit, the people of Northern Ireland have been subjected to spin, broken promises and, in some cases, downright lies. The Prime Minister today said that the new SPS agreement will mean no more lorry drivers queuing for 16 hours at the border with rotting food in the back and no more needless checks that made the borders trade so difficult, even within our own market between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If what he is saying is true, can he tell me today that the £140 million border post being built in my constituency, spread over 10 acres and designed to carry out the very checks that he says are now disappearing, is no longer necessary and that its construction can now stop?

The right hon. Member raises an important point. What we want to do with this agreement is ensure that we do remove unnecessary checks wherever they are, but we particularly had in focus the situation between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I want to ensure that we have real improvement in the situation on the ground and do not go to unnecessary expense. I genuinely believe that, for Northern Ireland, this was a big step in the right direction yesterday. We will continue to ensure that we make progress.

Unlike the SNP’s singular failure wholeheartedly to support our defence sector, this deal is good for Scottish defence firms. Does the Prime Minister agree that Scottish firms gaining access to the €150 billion European defence fund is a huge opportunity for jobs and manufacturers in Scotland and in my constituency of Central Ayrshire?

Yes, absolutely. Getting that gateway open is hugely important for Scottish defence and security businesses. Those businesses are world leading, and so it would be a welcome opportunity for them.

The Labour Government cannot answer how much the Chagos deal cost. The Labour Government cannot answer how much NHS England has cost. Can the Prime Minister tell us how much this reset deal will cost, and that there will be no further expenditure to the EU?

I have set out how the costs will be approached, but what we are not going to do is make those budgetary payments that other EU members make. We will look at proportionate payments into schemes, as is currently the case in relation to Horizon, which was negotiated by the previous Government. But the cost of the Tories to the country has been absolutely incalculable.

May I congratulate the Prime Minister on securing a landmark deal with our European neighbours? The Prime Minister will know that my constituency has been a leading light in the creative industries for a long time—and not just because my predecessor was a double Oscar-winning actress. Local actors have been coming to me expressing their frustration about securing work in Europe because of delays with work visas, and also because of the limit of 90 days for UK nationals. Can the Prime Minister reassure my local performers that they will not just be waiting in the wings while the rest of Europe takes centre stage?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter, as it is of great importance to her constituents and to many others. Our creative sector is incredible. Whether people voted leave or remain, I honestly do not think that anybody really wanted or intended that our creatives should have difficulties getting on with their trade, and we will work at pace to try to resolve that.

British people having access to e-gates is welcome. As the Minister for EU Relations told the BBC, it should ensure more time for UK residents when abroad. But my constituents have a better suggestion for achieving that. Does the Prime Minister agree that we should be developing a reciprocal travel arrangement, so that Brits can return to six-month visits to the continent, as EU visitors can here, doing away with the confusing 90-day and 180-day rule.

The e-gates will make a huge difference and will probably be the first impact that many people see. Hopefully, we will get those in train just as quickly as we can. We are also looking at other measures.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and this deal. Perhaps most important to people in Gateshead will be the downward pressure on food prices, so I ask the Prime Minister, when it comes to food prices and to this deal, would he rather listen to Asda, Morrisons and M&S, or to the Leader of the Opposition, who does not think that sandwiches are food?

I listen to businesses on this, and they are universal in what they say about food. That is why I am surprised that the Conservative party is against a deal that brings down the price of food.

Dynamic alignment undermines sovereignty, and to undermine sovereignty does not just undermine the central principle that 17.4 million people voted for; it also undermines everybody who respects the democratic outcome of that referendum. Therefore, if the Prime Minister will not think again about this Brexit betrayal, will he, at the very least, reinstate the European Scrutiny Committee of this House, so that this House can scrutinise every single rule that we now have to take rather than make?

I have set out the position in relation to how the rules will be applied. We are already aligned, but we do not get the benefit. This deal allows us to get the benefit, which is why businesses are so in favour of it. Every trade deal requires agreement on both sides as to the way forward, and this agreement is no different.

I congratulate the Prime Minister on this common-sense reset. Does he agree that the Conservatives slammed the door of opportunity in the faces of younger generations with their useless Brexit deal, and that this youth mobility scheme opens up life-changing experiences for young people from Southampton? Will he also say how schools and universities can have input into shaping the best scheme possible?

The scheme does provide great opportunity, and we will make sure that all those interested are able to help us in the design of it.

I want to re-emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). A constituent of mine runs an agricultural consultancy. This requires travel to the EU, which is especially frequent during seasonal peaks, and he has been hampered by the rolling 90-day rule. The issue is that EU citizens can come to the UK for 180 days in 365. We are asking for an equalisation of that scheme. Is the Prime Minister going to look at that?

We are looking at a range of issues. I completely understand the point the hon. Lady makes and the frustration that the situation causes for her constituents and for people across the country.

I spent this morning with British metal manufacturing businesses, which are so important in my constituency and across the west midlands. Like so many other sectors, this industry welcomes the deal, particularly the emissions trading scheme linkage and the steel safeguarding that will boost jobs, boost trade and cut red tape. Does the Prime Minister agree that this deal firmly backs UK manufacturing and metal industries, and will he continue to bang the drum for them here and around the world?

I firmly agree with my hon. Friend, and what she says applies not just to this deal but to the India and US deals. We have made real progress when it comes to our exports.

Given that my constituents overwhelmingly voted to take back control of their borders in the 2016 referendum, what safeguards is the Prime Minister putting in place to ensure that his youth experience scheme is not open borders by the back door, which would be seen by my constituents as yet another Brexit betrayal?

The scheme will be time-limited, visa-led and capped. It is a good scheme for young people in this country to go to Europe, and it will have those features, which we negotiated because we had a red line about freedom of movement.

Calder Valley is home to many of the small and medium-sized enterprises that simply stopped trading with Europe because of the disastrous deal agreed by the Conservatives. Can the Prime Minister assure me that he will not stop here with this deal, but will continue to work to open more of our borders to more of our businesses?

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. The Federation of Small Businesses has come out strongly in favour of this deal because it knows the impact it will have on small and medium-sized businesses.

I thank the Prime Minister for the statement. The deal is certainly a step in the right direction, and having closer ties with Europe has got to be good for businesses and farming. Specifically on medicine supplies and shortages, I have heard from a worryingly large number of people in Winchester with chronic health conditions who require vital daily medication to manage their condition—anti-seizure medication or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder medication, for example. Will the Prime Minister commit to removing medicine supply barriers with Europe and to delivering an agreement with the European Medicines Agency to ensure that we can free up such supplies?

The hon. Member will have seen how far we got yesterday, but we obviously want to move forward from there. We will look at a range of other issues. I cannot make any promise or commitment here—it would be wrong to do so—but where there are frustrations, we want to unblock them. Common sense drives this.

We have deals with India and with the United States, and now this Government are repairing our relationship with Europe—something that I and thousands of my constituents welcome. I congratulate the Prime Minister and ask him to go as fast as possible to secure the finalisation of the scheme that will allow our young people to live, work and study in Europe.

I endorse my hon. Friend’s comments, and we will go at pace to move on the commitments we made yesterday.

Some of the free trade deals we already have require us to have autonomy over our regulation. The Prime Minister has said today that we will not be a rule taker because we can discuss the rules in this place, but discussion is not the same as control. Can he confirm that he has not ceded control to disapply or diverge from regulations in Europe?

The hon. Lady will see from the agreement text that it is subject to our constitutional arrangements, and in the application of the rules, it is the application in this House that matters.

Can I put on record my thanks to everyone who has worked so hard to get this hat-trick of deals across the line? The EU is Wales’s biggest trading partner, with over 90% of Welsh lamb that is exported going to the EU. Does the Prime Minister agree that this landmark agreement is brilliant news for food and drink producers in Wales, not least mussel producers and farmers in my constituency?

This deal will make a huge difference to my hon. Friend’s constituents, and she is absolutely right to champion their interests. It will hugely help their businesses, trade and local economy.

In an earlier answer, the Prime Minister said that he would continue with the implementation of the Windsor framework. That will see more bureaucracy and red tape introduced between Great Britain and Northern Ireland before an SPS deal can be delivered. If the Prime Minister’s partnership with the EU is so positive, does he not agree that it would be better to pause the implementation of any more bureaucracy and red tape that would add costs to Northern Ireland businesses before his deal can be achieved?

I do not think we should pause the implementation of deals that we have already got, but I do agree with the underlying sentiment that we should be doing everything we can through this deal and in further steps to ensure that trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the same as across the rest of the United Kingdom.

As the proud owner of two English bulldogs, I welcome the reintroduction of pet passports. Not only will this make it easier for us to travel to Europe with Clive and Bertie, but it will bring down the cost massively. That is not the only part of the deal that will bring bills down for British consumers. Can the Prime Minister tell us how my constituents will benefit from this deal?

An hour and a half, and we have only just got to pet passports—but I am really glad my hon. Friend mentions it. The deal contains an advance for pet passports, along with the many other advances that will progress as soon as possible. I assume that the Conservatives are against pet passport progress as well.

Will the Prime Minister admit to the British people that this deal takes the country back under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, which is now able once again to overrule our courts, meaning we are surrendering our judicial sovereignty?

No, that is just wrong under the agreement. There is an independent arbitration—

Subject to the Court!

It is the same as the Windsor framework, which the right hon. Gentleman’s party negotiated. This is an important point: it is an independent arbitration process. There is the same process for pretty well every trade deal that is struck, not just by us and other countries but by most other countries. In this particular case, if the independent arbitration needs reference on a point of law, it is referred to the ECJ, which then refers it back to the independent arbitrator to make a decision. That is how it operates.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I warmly welcome this landmark deal with the European Union. I welcome in particular the commitment to work towards a youth experience scheme to once again allow our young people to live, work and travel freely in Europe. Does the Prime Minister agree that although this Labour Government are taking important steps to open up opportunities that will shape our young people’s future, the Conservatives are dangerously stuck in the past?

I do agree. I think they are lost in the past—actually I think they are lost all together now, on a decline into oblivion. As I say, a once great party that used to support trade deals is now against every single trade deal. It is a pretty extraordinary turnaround.

Paragraph 27 of the common understanding published yesterday requires the “immediate application” of European Union rules relating to food, sanitary and phytosanitary safety. Can the Prime Minister set out what measures would be open to the EU should this Parliament choose not to adopt those new European Union laws?

We are not making an argument for lowering our standards, and we are proud to have high standards at the moment. We want to maintain those high standards, but there will of course be provision, should the occasion arise, for dealing with any conflicts that may emerge.

The Business and Trade Committee visited Brussels earlier this year, where we saw at first hand how the previous Conservative Government damaged our relationships with our close trading partners—and British businesses paid the price. Can the Prime Minister confirm that this Labour Government are putting our national interest first in getting the deals, showing that Labour is the party of business?

I can. We have approached this on a serious, pragmatic basis. We have got a deal with 10 strands that massively takes our country forward. That is on top of the India deal and the US deal. The Conservatives spent many years failing to get these deals; that is the truth of it.

In the UK-EU summit, co-operation on access to medicines was noticeably scarce. That is an area where we are falling massively behind compared with our European allies. Can the Prime Minister ask the Minister for Secondary Care to meet me, so that we can discuss why only 25% of new cancer medicines approved by the EU are fully available in the UK?

The hon. Member raises an important point, and we will continue our discussions with others to try to resolve some of the frustrations—to which, common sense would suggest, we can find a better solution, and we will.

Sunderland is proud to be a city of makers, from cars to music. Without reversing Brexit, those makers need access to Europe, whether that is exporters such as Nissan, which need the certainty to export, or musicians, who need the freedom to tour. Can the Prime Minister outline how this deal will support good jobs in Sunderland, whether they be in the motor or the music industry?

Let me rest on my hon. Friend’s first example, which was of cars. The India deal, which massively slashed the tariff on cars, is good for car manufacturing and good for car exports, and the deal with the US saves thousands upon thousands of jobs in the car industry, which is why it should be welcomed.

Many will be concerned that the Prime Minister’s EU deal does not cover the UK’s participation in future EU research programmes. How will the Prime Minister ensure that we can participate in future EU research programmes once Horizon finishes?

As the hon. Member knows, we are committed to Horizon. We will retain that commitment to research, because it is so important for our national interest.

It never ceases to surprise me how little the Opposition understand about making trade deals. Perhaps that is why they never made a good one. We do not need to explain that to the 19,000 small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency; they have been choked by the red tape agreed by the Conservatives. Those businesses agree with the Federation of Small Businesses that this deal will finally reduce and get rid of the bottleneck. Can the Prime Minister tell the businesses in my constituency and across the country when we can finally be relieved of the Tories’ red tape that is crushing our small businesses?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the red tape having such an impact on our small businesses. That is why I am pleased that we have made progress. We now need to make further progress as quickly as we can to ensure that businesses thrive in the markets in which they want to trade.

I note the careful wording of the Prime Minister’s statement—it talks about Britain being “back on the world stage”, and delivering for Britain. That is not the United Kingdom. I note that his SPS deal is for Great Britain. That, of course, is because Northern Ireland has already been captured by the EU and is subject to its laws and its customs code. That is why the Irish sea border remains. As for the SPS deal as it applies to Northern Ireland, is it correct that customs declarations and customs checks will still continue on goods from GB to Northern Ireland, even though they might be SPS goods? Those checks will still operate.

Yesterday was a step forward in that regard. The deal allows us to reduce frustrations and barriers, which nobody wants to see. I can assure the hon. and learned Member that I genuinely want us to get into the best position we can on Northern Ireland. It mattered to me in the negotiations, and it is one of the principles that we took into them. We will continue with that work, because I know how much it matters.

I suspect that even if there was a barrel of salt herring in it for every Opposition Member, this fishing deal would still not be salty enough for them. In fact, it is a sweet deal for prawn fishermen and shellfish fishermen in Na h-Eileanan an Iar, for salmon producers and for crofters, although not for their lambs. Is not the real betrayal of fishing communities the fact—this is the challenge for Reform—that 80% of England’s fishing quota is in the hands of foreign companies or the super-rich? The challenge for the SNP is that 45% of Scotland’s quota is in the hands of a few companies. The challenge for us is to unwind that privatisation of the ocean and make sure that fishing communities across the UK benefit.

That is why it is so important that we are putting the money—more than £300 million—into working with those communities to take advantage of the deal that we struck yesterday.

We heard from Ministers over the weekend that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. The Prime Minister said in his statement that the deal paves the way for access to the €150 billion defence industrial programme, SAFE—Security Action for Europe. If everything has been agreed, why does the security and defence partnership not include access to the SAFE industrial programme now?

That is because the programme itself is being developed at speed. It was only announced the other week. It was announced in response to, and as part of, the work we are doing with the coalition of the willing. Knocking out the first gateway was important. We will now work with the EU to ensure that we can access that fund as quickly as possible. It is not a long-existing fund that has been in place for years; it is developing at the moment in response to the situation in Ukraine. I think the hon. Member knows that.

The response to today’s deal has been striking. We need to drive down the cost of food for our constituents, and retailers are lining up to say that the deal will have that impact, yet the Tories and Reform would like to put those costs back on to my constituents. At a time when we should support our farmers and food producers, we are removing barriers and red tape, yet Opposition parties would like to bring those barriers back. My constituents voted for change because they were fed up with narrow ideological interests holding our country back. Does this deal not show why my constituents were so right to do so?

The principles are: bills down and jobs up, and that is exactly what this deal delivers.

The Prime Minister has spent the past hour and a half indicating the benefits that he sees from the deal. Does he recognise that a potentially toxic side effect of the deal is that some on the left of UK politics will see this as the first step towards rowing back on what the people voted for nine years ago, while those on the right of UK politics will see a determination to stop them? Rather than the deal bringing people together, it could therefore cause toxic division.

We have taken a pragmatic, common-sense approach, with an absolute focus on reducing bills—that is hugely important to people, particularly in a cost of living crisis—and driving up jobs in our economy. Those are the principles that have driven this. I recognise that those at the extremes, on whichever side people want to say that they are on, will never be satisfied, but the country is fed up with nine years-worth of continued discussion, debate and toxic divide. It is time to move on from that and to look forward, not backward, and this deal will help us do that.

The truth is that this deal with the EU is good for my constituents in Fife, good for Scotland, and good for the UK. Does the Prime Minister agree that the SNP is tying itself up in knots over this deal? While the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) and the Scottish First Minister are desperate to talk it down, the Deputy First Minister was in Downing Street last night saying how wonderful it is, and she is right.

I learned this morning that the Deputy First Minister was in the garden at Downing Street last night. She was with businesses for a business reception. It was buzzing, because they were celebrating the deal. It was good to have her there. I would like to see other SNP Members joining her, because she has the right judgment on this one.

Fishermen in my constituency were let down by the Conservatives and their Brexit friends, and they now feel very disappointed by the news about EU vessel access within the six to 12-mile zone. Both before and since Brexit, we have retained regulatory autonomy in that zone. Will the Prime Minister ensure that we exercise our right to control the access of vessels in that area, and have control of grandfather rights, kilowatt effort and fishing methods, as well as other regulatory controls, to ensure that the area is properly regulated?

The arrangements are the same as those currently in place, and they are reciprocal, which is really important. What will be of huge benefit to the hon. Member’s constituents will be the reduction in red tape and bureaucracy for them when selling stock to the EU market, which is where a huge percentage—over 70%—of it goes to. That will come without the red tape, which drives up their costs.

Interventions such as those from the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) have really demonstrated that the Conservative party has parted company with those of us who have run small exporting businesses. Perhaps instead of collaborating with those on the Reform Benches, he could talk to small businesses in my constituency in the defence supply chain, or those who support Nissan by being in its automotive supply chain, and who stand to benefit from this trade deal. Does the Prime Minister agree that we are not carping on and talking down our country, as Reform and the Conservatives do? Instead, this Labour Government’s plan for change is delivering for British jobs and British businesses.

Yes. There is only one party of business now, and it is right here, in government.

I support the fishing sector in Portavogie in my constituency, and the Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation there speaks on behalf of those in Ardglass and Kilkeel as well. As the Member for South Down (Chris Hazzard) does not bother attending the House, we have to speak for all those fishing villages. Too often in negotiations between the UK and the EU, our fishing industry has been the sacrificial lamb. Does the Prime Minister agree that just as the annexation of Northern Ireland should not have been the price that the previous Government paid for exiting the EU, the interests of both Northern Ireland and the wider UK fishing industry should not be expendable? Will he commit to bringing forward additional financial and practical support for our local fleets in those three ports, and for processors, as they grapple with reduced access in the years ahead?

I assure the hon. Member that the £360 million fund will be brought forward as quickly as possible. We can discuss with him in due course how that will affect his constituents and those he is representing effectively in the Chamber today.

I congratulate the Prime Minister on a realistic, sober, sensible deal that will deliver for businesses in my constituency, including, through the SPS deal, those like Northumberland Honey, which face real barriers to exporting. I particularly welcome the first step to a youth mobility experience. The economy of the north-east, with its world-class universities, has much to gain. Does he agree that it is through fostering co-operation, interdependence and trade that we defeat the radical right, not just in the Chamber but at the ballot box?

We need to take common-sense steps, in our national interest, on the economy, trade and business, and to give young people the opportunities that they deserve.

Our opponents talk of “surrender” and believe that they have a monopoly on concepts such as patriotism, but in order to trade we need to co-operate. Does the Prime Minister agree that co-operating with our nearest neighbours and with the United States and India is not weak and not surrender? It is strong; it is pro-business; it is pro-worker; it is in the national interest; and it is in the interests of my constituents in Rugby, businesses, farmers, holidaymakers and young people.

What is astonishing is that the Conservatives do not want to co-operate with the EU, India or the US. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition’s approach to diplomacy is to accuse the Indian Government of “fake news”. That is not a good basis for a relationship through which to negotiate a better outcome.

We have learned a lot about trade policy in the House today. The Conservative party is still desperately defending its failed deal, and as for Reform, we had a no-show from the leader of the party of no deal. Labour is the only party that is serious about getting a good deal with the European Union. I congratulate the Prime Minister. Having campaigned for a youth mobility deal, I thank him for the agreement in principle, but ask him to go as fast as possible to ensure that our young people have the opportunity to travel and work in the European Union.

I thank my hon. Friend. We will move at pace on all fronts. It is important that young people have those opportunities.

I thank you for getting everybody in, Madam Deputy Speaker; it has been a mammoth session. I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I notice that many businesses are in support of the deal. My constituency is home to many great businesses, from manufacturing companies to pharmaceutical companies, and from defence manufacturers to food exporters. Will the Prime Minister outline how the deal will benefit my great businesses in Harlow?

It will massively reduce bureaucracy and red tape, making it easier for businesses to do business. It will also open up opportunities on defence and security. That is why it has been so welcomed by the business community.

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t be so patronising!

It was his language, not mine, but this is an important point.

We genuinely get on. Come on, what is the answer?

We do. There is independent arbitration here, as there is for all of this. That can settle most issues. Where an issue of European law arises, which will not always be the case—

Of course it is European law—

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