Ms Stella Creasy
MP for Walthamstow · Labour (Co-op) · United Kingdom
“I thank the Foreign Secretary for his clear-sighted commitment not only to talk about a two-state solution, but to actually try to act to achieve it, as the only foundation of a safe Israel and a free Palestine.”
“Could he reassure the House that we will not acquiesce and bend to such pressure, and that the only action that could ever be acceptable to us to make us contemplate reversing this ban would be a halt on the E1 development and a permanent end to settler violence?”
“I start by paying tribute to the new Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for all the work she did on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on these issues. I know that she will do a brilliant job in this role.”
“I do not really understand the technology, but I know that he does, and I understand and share his fear accordingly. We come here today to debate this Bill because we all know that trust is a bygone issue in our politics.”
“We would welcome her having that conversation, which might be more illuminating than whether she is concerned about Zach Goldmsith’s leaflets. I add my support to the amendments tabled by my hon.”
“From today, if we do not take a stand with this Bill to tackle the ways that money has infiltrated our politics, the risk is that they will think we are acting in the interests of our own back pockets.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,976 lines we hold for Ms Stella Creasy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 100.
“Now we appear acting as if nothing has changed and that we should be invited to Sunday lunch. We owe respect to our colleagues in Europe when they are dealing with challenges such as Putin and economic uncertainty, and looking at what we can all do to secure peace in the middle east. They are owed some respect from us, and although sometimes it appears, frankly, as if we think our colleagues in Europe do not read our newspapers, I promise that they do. The challenge for all of us is that we owe truth to our colleagues in Europe and truth to our constituents. It would take years to renegotiate to rejoin the European Union, even if we were to get a fast-tracked arrangement and they could be confident that we would not change our mind again.”
“It’s fine: the bouncers won’t recognise us; we can walk back in.” The brutal reality is that we have left the European Union, and we owe it to people who care about this country—I think everybody in this Chamber does, even if they still purport to believe that Brexit was a good idea—to talk truths to our constituents and work out what we can do to salvage what is left. That is what today’s debate is all about. Nobody here is saying that rejoining should be the sole priority of the Government. We know full well that, because we are facing a salvage operation, Europe will only talk to us once more. Who can blame them? For years, we were like that difficult, awkward man our aunt married, who turned up at Christmas and always caused a fuss—and thank God she divorced him.”
“By any metric, it is easy to understand why Robert brought forward the petition. To me, the Brexiteers are like those people—we all have met them on a night out—who join the group, start a fight in the club and get everyone kicked out, but who still maintain, three hours later, as they are walking everyone around a completely empty industrial estate somewhere, that they know a great club that everyone can get into. The challenge for those of us who recognise the damage done to this country—the damage to our national reputation and to our economies, communities and values from the idea that our European neighbours and friends would feel in any way unwelcome—is that we do not want to be that weirdo who says, “Well, if we walk around the streets a few more times, we can go back.”
“Indeed, we have seen that what was a bad situation in leaving the European Union was compounded by the ways in which the previous Administration chose to leave it. What on earth made them decide that we would not even share security alerts with our colleagues in Europe? How on earth is it in the interests of British farmers to not even share food security alerts with our colleagues, simply because the system had the word “Europe” in the title? The border operating model is adding billions of pounds to the cost of food in this country. What on earth made them think that adding £145 every time that a pallet of food came over here was somehow in the interests of British consumers or indeed British businesses? And that is before we even get on to the uncertain geopolitical situation that we are in.”
“The pandemic spared some of the blushes of those who still try to claim that we have got some elusive sovereignty as a result of leaving the European Union, but we can see the damage. Our constituents can see the damage. Many Members have already cited some of the relevant figures; let me cite some more. As a result of Brexit, 1.8 million fewer jobs have been created in our economy, and that number is likely to rise to 3 million by 2035. Some 16,500 small businesses have stopped exporting to Europe all together. Those of us who were part of the parliamentary delegation last week had the pleasure of listening to Lord Frost trying to argue that up was down, but we know the truth for our constituents. We have seen the damage.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Mundell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on setting out the nature of this debate so well. May I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) that many of us who were here during the Brexit negotiations and remember the pain of those evenings—as well as the fisticuffs—know only too well that the scars cut deep? That is also why Robert, who I congratulate on his petition, needs to know the truth. If the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) was in the country, I am sure that he would be telling all of us that we need straight talking, so let us have some straight talking. Brexit is a disaster. It is a disaster by anybody’s metric, not least those according to whom it was purported to be a route to the promised land.”
“I do not disagree with my hon. Friend, but it is so plain to see how we have cut ourselves off. Even in the pandemic, and initially standing up to Putin in Ukraine, we were outside the room shouting in. We owe it to our constituents now to be as brutal as we can be and humble as we need to be to make the case for what we can do in the next 18 months.”
“I am old enough to remember when this country used to celebrate, as part of our national cultural life, young men from the north-east going to Germany to upskill and train. That programme was called “Auf Wiedersehen, Pet”, and I am sure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was a regular viewer. That was absolutely youth mobility at the time. Our young people in this country did not vote for this situation, and they should not bear the brunt of it. They need us to fight for every opportunity that can come for them. A youth mobility deal—not freedom of movement, because we can control how people come here—which we already have with other countries, is in their interest if it is not just about students. Let us talk about every young person.”
“With the uncertainty and inconsistency of whoever is in the White House, our constituents need us to remember a simple truth about Brexit: we can fight many things in life, but we cannot fight geography. Trade with our neighbours is always going to be critical to the future economy, so we must do what we can to reduce the trade barriers. Some of us were into the youth mobility scheme before it was fashionable; and some of us, over a year ago, were arguing for it. We consider that it is absolutely in the interests of the British public to get one. We do not believe what came back last summer was the right deal for this country, but we should absolutely be looking at what is possible. In that conversation, we must prioritise our apprenticeships.”
“I just want to say a little more on that, because I am supremely conscious of time. The previous Administration chose to walk us out of any foreign affairs co-operation. That includes not just hard power, but soft power. For us in the Labour movement for Europe, it is an utter priority to secure a defence and security co-operation agreement, and to include aid in that conversation. Europe is the third largest donor around the world. Whatever one thinks of the cuts to the aid budget, duplication is a problem, but so too is separation, when looking at how we can stand up to threats we face around the world. We absolutely must join the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, as my colleagues have pointed out. These times call for moving on from talk of red lines to talk of mutual benefit.”
“Aneurin Bevan told us that “The language of priorities is the religion of socialism.” I stand here, ruthlessly prioritising the British interest, which was always about being stronger and taller on the world stage, and being confident that we could work with other countries. Never more have we needed that spirit, but never more have we needed to be clear about what needs to be done and when. I recognise the passion behind this petition; I simply say to those petitioning: let us not fall into the Brexiteers’ trap of offering false hope, when the people in this country need real change, real relationships and real solutions. The hon. Member for Clacton may not be here, but his spirit infuses our debate if we do otherwise.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right on all fronts. A youth mobility or opportunity scheme with apprenticeships at its heart is the right thing to do, and crucially—in the timeline I have set out for the salvation of this country and for salvaging something from the damage Brexit has done—it could be achieved within an 18-month window. One final item to add to the list of things we could do in 18 months is about our energy security, in particular the emissions trading scheme and the carbon border adjustment mechanism. For many of us, for our vital industries and for defence, including steel, it is absolutely critical that we get our CBAM and emissions trading schemes aligned.”
“The hon. and learned Member is right that many of us feel desperately sad about the position that Northern Ireland was put in as a result of Brexit. However, I hate to tell him that because of the value of the Good Friday agreement, the services sector is included in the Northern Ireland protocol. The hon. and learned Gentleman made much stir of the 50 people from his constituency who deigned to sign the petition, dismissing those who might be supportive of having a relationship with the European Union. What does he say to the 693,525 voters in Northern Ireland—the majority of voters in Northern Ireland—who voted to remain? There are many issues of contention thrown around in this debate, but if he wants to talk numbers, those numbers matter.”
“This is not what the hostage families want to see, and we should speak for them as much as for the innocent civilians in Gaza and the Palestinians whose lives are being lost. For the avoidance of doubt, will the Foreign Secretary be clear that we do not agree with but condemn the words of Israel Katz, as they are not going to bring forward the ceasefire or uphold international law if they are left unchallenged?”
“I think we all share the Foreign Secretary’s shock, anger and frustration at the breakdown of the ceasefire and the deaths that we are seeing in Gaza. As today’s debate shows, words matter. I want to follow up on the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), given that we are now hearing reports of ground activities in Gaza, led by Israeli forces. Israel Katz, the Defence Minister, claimed that the “evacuation” of Gaza would resume and he is threatening “total devastation”. Those are not the actions of a Government who want peace; they are the actions of an increasingly authoritarian Government who are more interested in their own political survival than in the survival of any innocent civilian, be they Palestinian or Israeli.”
“Women are considered 10% less competent in the workplace when they become mums, as if juggling things make them less able to do things rather than more. Childless women are eight times more likely to be promoted. Conversely, dads are considered 5% more committed than non-dads because we expect them to be in work, paying for their children rather than helping to look after them. I want to deal not in caricatures but in cold, hard cash. Above all, supporting paternity leave in its own right, and leave for the other parents in relationships, is good for the economy. It helps boost women’s participation and productivity. Countries with better paid parental leave have a smaller gender participation gap in their economy, with all the economic benefits that that brings. Closing that gap could bring £23 billion into our economy—1% of GDP.”
“The challenge with this legislation, which rightfully strengthens maternity discrimination powers, is that it could inadvertently reinforce that message if we do not bring forward legislation to support fathers. [Interruption.] I am glad Conservative Members support what I am saying. I wish they would vote with us on this tonight. The gender pay gap does exist in this country, but it is basically a maternity pay gap, because the motherhood penalty is all too real. By the time of their first child, a woman’s wages are a third below a man’s within 20 months. Members might say that that is to do with working part-time, but that is even when women return to the front. One in nine mums have been dismissed, made redundant or forced out.”
“Yes, this Bill would give them a day one right to paternity leave, but only two weeks. One in five dads—35% of them—in this country does not take any leave at all, because they cannot afford to do so. They need a paid and protected right of itself to benefit from paternity leave. It benefits them and it benefits their kids. It is better for the mental health of the father. It means that they take fewer sick days—there is evidence to prove that—and it is good for the kids. It is also good for the mums. We need to end the battle of the sexes when it comes to childcare, because research shows that women really cannot win. Even when we do not have kids, we pay the price because of maternity discrimination. We all know of employers who do not employ women in their 20s and 30s because of the risk that ladies do babies.”
“We are behind the curve in this country in how we treat dads. I wish to thank everybody who has signed this amendment, because it sends the message that we care about our fathers in this country. We have the worst paternity leave in the EU, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), who is no longer in his place, pointed out. Two weeks is just enough time for the dad to realise that the meconium is going to stop and that they might eventually get three hours’ sleep at some point. Let us see how our economic competitors treat dads better. Dads get 16 months in Sweden, eight months for each parent and three months protected for the dad. In France, Spain, Norway and Luxembourg, dads get at least six weeks. In Japan, they get a year. Why do they do that? It is because dads make a difference.”
“I will be proud to see this Bill progress through Parliament and to develop accordingly. That is what the amendments before us offer us the chance to do. May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), who is no longer in her place, and the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for the work that they are doing? In the short time available to me, I wish to speak to new clause 7, which reflects a manifesto commitment made by the Labour party that said explicitly that the current parental leave system does not support working families. Millions of people across this country will recognise that that is the case. New clause 7 is about putting meat on the bones of that commitment, because it is long overdue.”
“It means that mums end up doing more of the childcare and dads get pushed further away from their children. If this Government are serious about supporting families—I believe that they are—they need to show us the detail. That way, in every family, which come in all shapes and sizes, every parent—whether the father, the non-birthing parent or the mother—will have the time to be the best parent and contributor. That is why these policies are massively popular with Conservative and Reform voters—if only the Reform MPs were here to do something for men for a change. This long overdue change will make a difference. I hope that Ministers are listening to why it matters to show a commitment to this, and I look forward to hearing to what they have to say in response to the new clause.”
“God knows, we love them all dearly, but we can all understand why 20% of divorces take place in the first five years after having a child: because of the unequal situation that we put families in and the pressures that that creates—the mum and dad guilt. We have a choice in this place about whether we deal with mum and dad guilt, with the Government making a proper commitment with a proper timetable, and with proper involvement from Parliament and the Women and Equalities Committee. To all those who will say, “Well, I struggled, and so should you,” I say that that is bad for the economy and bad for our kids. It means that fathers do not get the time to work out the quirks of their children, so mums end up being the ones who know how to cut the sandwiches.”
“It could look explicitly at self-employed parents. After all, there are nearly a million self-employed dads in this country, who pay £1.1 billion in national insurance contributions. They do not get any parental leave at all. We know that shared parental leave is not the answer. Only 2% of dads have taken it in the 10 years that it has been available, because it is not paid. That is why we must be explicit that any consultation must look at the pay that needs to be behind parental leave, as well as at protecting it. Those on the lowest incomes do not take shared parental leave at all. More shared parental leave has been claimed in London alone than in Wales, Scotland, the north-west and the north-east combined. Above all, this is about our kids.”
“I wish that the hon. Gentleman had been listening, because I just pointed out that dealing with the gender pay gap would bring £23 billion to our economy. That is exactly how we pay for better parental leave—it is a cost-neutral proposal. A newsflash for those who have not worked it out: mothers are already paying for this childcare in their lower wages, opportunities and progression. Women’s salaries are hit by 33% after the birth of their first child. Women are doing 450 million hours of unpaid childcare in this country, which equates to £382 billion worth of work—twice as much as men. A consultation could explicitly look into these issues and at how we can share that cost and benefit fairly, so that both men and women can contribute equally to our society and look after their children equally.”
“I am very pleased to hear confirmation that the review into parental rights, which I understand will begin in June, will go ahead. The Minister talks about stakeholders. Will he confirm whether they will include our trade union colleagues, because many of us are very happy to withdraw our amendments tonight on the basis that working people can be part of the conversation?”
“The Minister paints an extremely concerning picture of what is happening in Syria. On 9 December, the Government announced a temporary pause in accepting asylum applications from people from Syria, because of our hopes for the country’s future. In the light of what he is telling us, what conversations has he had with his colleagues in Government about what should inform that assessment moving forward and what it means for people in our country?”
“It is good to see the Government taking a very sensible approach in the consultation to working with our European partners on how we develop renewable energy and get energy costs down. As with so many other areas, our constituents have paid higher bills because the previous Government refused to work with our European counterparts. Can the Minister give us a bit more detail? As we look to expand our capacity to create renewable energy, she will be very aware that there is a risk of an £800 million charge because of the variation between our emissions trading schemes. Can she also tell us a bit more about what working with the North Seas Energy Co-operation might entail, and whether we might rejoin that organisation to help drive down bills further for our constituents?”
“Members are right about the scale of the challenges with regulation and fines, but we need to do something about the fact that much more pressure can be brought to bear on MPs at local level because the results have been much closer. This is not some Netflix drama; this is the state of British democracy at the moment. Everybody in this Chamber has a vested interest in resolving it so that we can have free speech. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.”
“It is a grave irony to me that many of us came here yesterday to defend aid as part of national security work, because part of our aid budget goes on tackling disinformation and disruption in the democracies of other countries, but we are not doing anything about it at local level. Just the other week, The Guardian reported that a network of Telegram channels with Russian links is encouraging UK residents to commit violent attacks on mosques and offering cryptocurrency in return. These activities are also happening online, as we have all seen. The online is now the offline threat, and vice versa. We saw that with Cambridge Analytica, and nobody really acted then.”
“In America, a 527 group is created primarily to influence the selection, nomination, election or appointment of candidates at local level, and many of us now have third-party organisations that are active in our local communities and trying to create disinformation to disrupt our local democracy. People may ask what the problem is in my constituency, because I have a substantial majority, but given that one in five MPs have a majority of less than 5%, these activities—fake leaflets, third-party adverts on Facebook and so on—could be critical to the outcome of local and, indeed, national elections. We have gagging laws for charities, but we have nothing to deal with the businesses that are behind this and that are funding these activities.”
“Time and again, Transparency International has drawn our attention to the current data on this, and that is before we even get to Taylor Swift, because she is right: “It’s me, you, hi—we are the problem”. As politicians, we have not regulated this, even though we have seen these problems time and again. In the short time available to me, I want to make a plea to the Minister to ensure she is looking at the impact at local level. When money is channelled through unincorporated organisations, many of us will have seen the impacts in our communities and our constituencies and, frankly, the failures of the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to intervene.”
“A foreign agent, who is now part of the structures of a foreign state, is openly talking about interfering in our democracy—buying it, and boasting about doing so—and he is not the only one. I guess that, for many, the idea that politics is so infused with money is not a surprise. After all, we have been trying for over 160 years to regulate foreign donations —and indeed local donations—in this country. For the avoidance of doubt, donating to a political party is a noble thing for people to do, given the concerns and passions they may have, and we in this Chamber have all sought donations. However, we have seen scandals through the years, starting with David Lloyd George and including the cash for questions affair and the personal protective equipment issue.”
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Like everybody in the Chamber, I must be sure to draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. “Follow the money” is one of those phrases we always hear, as if there is somehow a crushing inevitability that money determines outcomes in all areas of life, whether personal or political, but now in our democracy there is a clear and present danger that the loudest voices and largest wallets will dominate, and that the two are connected. Even in these difficult political climes, it is extraordinary to think that the existential threat to our country’s democracy posed by the suggestion that Elon Musk could donate £100 million to any political party here has not caused a Cobra meeting to be called, because it is a national security threat.”
“My hon. Friend’s constituents and mine will recognise well the title of Amnesty International’s report: “Five years of silence and struggle in Kashmir”. Does she agree we are making it very clear that this Government and the MPs present today will not allow that to be the case for human rights in Kashmir?”
“For the avoidance of doubt—may Oded’s memory be a blessing, and in his cause we will follow up—can the Minister be clear that we will evacuate people who need medical assistance from Gaza to the UK?”
“The people of both Israel and Palestine have been failed by their leadership, with horrific consequences. One person who knew that more than most was my constituent’s father, Oded Lifschitz, whose coffin we saw paraded horrifically through the streets of Khan Yunis. We should say his name in this place, because he dedicated his life to securing peace between Israel and Palestine. He drove ambulances over the border to help Palestinian people. We can be clear in this Chamber that withholding aid and using starvation as a weapon of war is wrong, but if we want to challenge that leadership, we must step up ourselves. The Minister previously spoke about what we are doing to try to support medical needs in Gaza.”
“I join those thanking the Prime Minister for setting out how clearly the safety of the world and the future of Ukraine relies on this moment. I for one am saddened that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is no longer in his place, because he might have learned a thing or two. His previous advice to Prime Ministers was that when President Macron was elected, he would loathe us and be anti-British—how out of depth and out of touch with the British national interest that advice is. Given the coalition that the Prime Minister is building, and the concern of all of us about using resources effectively, will he please tell us a little more about what conversations he has had with our European allies on how we can reduce the duplication of effort involved in the plans going forward?”
“Changing the record and making this an economic issue could change the lives of millions in this country—and help our GDP, which helps the lads as well. Every £1 of additional public investment in obstetrics and gynaecology services is estimated to deliver a return on investment of £11. In other words, every extra pound gets us 10 times more than that. The gender pensions gap currently stands at 35% because women are living longer. If we sorted out their health, they could work and we could get something back for our economy. Minister, please help us to make the case to your Treasury colleagues to get the money we need to get this country moving via the women.”
“Two in five women said that their professional life has been negatively affected by the gender health gap, because they have missed out on important meetings, promotions or pay rises, but the same proportion said that they would never be able to mention it to a manager. That has to change. We also have to recognise that experience is not equal. We know about the brilliant Five X More campaign on maternity services and the shocking experiences that women have. It is not just in maternity services where we see women from the global majority experiencing negativity. Women from those communities are twice as, and in some cases three times more, likely to experience long-term conditions that can negatively affect working, whether that is chronic pain, anxiety, hypertension, osteoarthritis, diabetes or morbid obesity.”
“We do have to talk about lady parts and lady issues, but I want to make this more about wonga than wombs, because we are losing billions of pounds to our economy every single year by failing to support women’s health. Absenteeism due to severe period pain, heavy periods, endometriosis, fibroids and ovarian cysts is estimated to cost the UK economy nearly £11 billion per annum. Women have lost 14 million working days a year to the menopause. Painful periods cost an estimated £531 million in sick days. One in four women consider leaving their job due to their menopause experience; one in 10 do. If we changed that, it would generate £1.5 billion a year for the economy. But this problem is not being talked about in terms of an economic loss.”
“We understand that, but even when we are not awake we are losing this battle. A 2022 study of trauma patients found that women were half as likely as men to be given tranexamic acid, which reduces the risk of death from excessive bleeding by up to 30%—literally a life-and-death division. Women have longer life expectancy, but we spend more of our lives in ill health. As we have said, even when we go to the doctor’s, we are not believed. It is also about provision. After all, abortion is healthcare, but it is not a given that anyone can access it in this country. Nor is it a given that anyone can access sexual health services, because they are not a requirement of general practice, even in 2025.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq, and to hear so many brilliantly powerful speeches. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing the debate. I am pleased to see the Minister and the shadow Minister, but I want to say in my speech why they should not be here. A Treasury Minister and their shadow should respond to this debate, because poor women’s health is costing this country billions of pounds. We have all talked about the stats. It is not just about lady issues or even to do with ladies’ bodies—it is how women are thought about. A fifth of women report that they were called “dramatic” when they sought help for their mental health, and 27% of those who spoke up were told that their issues could be hormonal.”
“Only refugees whose cases prove that they would be at harm if they returned home are given indefinite leave to remain in this country—30,000 people last year. They will not leave the United Kingdom to return to the bombs and the dictators, but without a route to citizenship they will find it harder to get a job to support their families, get a mortgage, or have a say in their local communities. Will the Minister meet me, and other MPs who are concerned about the new guidance on naturalisation, to talk about how we can properly support integration in the UK?”
“I am sure that our Ukrainian allies will listen to the steadfast support in this House and feel heartened, and that they will also notice whose voices are absent from the House at this time. There are press reports that a deal is apparently imminent on Ukrainian mineral deposits for America as the price of continued support, so is there anything more that we and our European partners can do to stop the eventual products—those crucial metals—ending up in the hands of enemy and competitor states? Has that issue been discussed?”
“Will he also reassure us that the resolution of the emissions trading scheme is still on the agenda for the May talks with Europe?”
“I echo Labour Members’ support for steel as a nationally important infrastructure industry that we must protect in this country. Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee—who is no longer in the Chamber—I also agree that we must try to avoid escalation. Part of that is about our relationship with Europe, which is our largest market for exported steel after America, so can the Minister update us on what conversations he has had with his European counterparts? This issue of CBAM is absolutely critical to the British steel industry, which is on its knees after 15 years of a Conservative Government who failed to see its value.”
“Is that not another good reason why we should rethink it?”
“I thank the Minister for the thoughtful way in which he is proceeding. We all recognise that climate change is a threat to growth rather than a driver of it, whether that is through flooding, fires or the chaos that it causes. It is therefore shocking that the previous Government did not take account of emissions and the impact that they might have on our economy in making the decision to proceed with Rosebank, and it is right that we rethink that. I recognise what the Minister said about court judgments. May I press him, though? His predecessors had to admit that there was no energy security in proceeding with Rosebank because 80% of the oil and gas that it would provide would not be for the UK market, so it would not drive down British consumers’ bills. Is that still his understanding of the project?”
“I guess I should not be surprised to hear the Conservatives trying to defend an impossibly bad deal for British business, which is why I am so relieved that the grown-ups are going to Europe and working out what is in the national interest. May I press the Minister on something that it is very clearly in the national interest to resolve with our European partners? National Grid estimates that it will cost the UK Exchequer £5 billion to £8 billion over this Parliament to have a differential emissions trading scheme between us and Europe. Pollution does not respect borders, and we all want to tackle the climate crisis. Can he confirm that resolving the issues around the carbon border adjustment mechanism will be on the agenda for the summit in May?”
“I welcome the Liberal Democrats’ interest in youth mobility. Those of us who bought their first album recognise that one of the challenges here is to get the right deal for British workers. Does the hon. Lady agree that the deal that was offered last year, which would have seen British workers being able to go to only one country under the scheme, was not the right one for this country and that, if we are to have a youth mobility scheme, we need to renegotiate what is being offered?”