That this House takes note of the case for a UK-EU customs union and the impact of connections with the EU single market on the United Kingdom economy.
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to introduce this debate. It will see a number of comings and goings. We welcome the noble Lords, Lord Doyle, Lord Docherty and Lord Pitt-Watson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, and say farewell to the noble Lord, Lord Offord. For the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, the House of Lords must seem like a haven of peace and tranquillity compared with his previous domain in Downing Street, not least in recent days. The noble Baroness, Lady Gill, brings a welcome additional Sikh voice to your Lordships’ House, and the noble Lords, Lords Docherty and Lord Pitt-Watson, bring a combination of business, academic and charity experience to our proceedings. We look forward to all their speeches today. We wish the noble Lord, Lord Offord, well as he contemplates pastures new.
The wording of today’s debate may sound rather dry and technical, but it deals with two of the biggest issues facing the country: how to improve growth and prosperity, and what our place in the world should be in the current turbulent times. I support the Government in making growth a, if not the, top policy priority. Growth in the UK has stalled over recent years, and this has led to constrained real incomes, weakened public revenues and, as a result, higher government borrowing. The Government sought to stimulate growth through a variety of investment incentives and educational and productivity measures, but these have been patchy and, even if eventually fruitful, will in many cases not yield real benefits for years to come.
There are many explanations as to why the UK’s growth has been so anaemic in recent years, but there can be no doubt that one of them is Brexit. There are many estimates of the impact of Brexit on the UK economy, but they all point in the same direction. Probably the best known is the OBR’s estimate that Brexit will reduce GDP by 4% over a 15-year period, that UK-EU trade will fall by 15%, and that Brexit has already had a negative impact on the public finances to the tune of over £40 billion over the period to 2024. Recent research by the US National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that the negative impact of Brexit has been much greater. What we know for certain is that goods exports to the EU in 2024 were 18% below 2019 levels and food exports were down 30%.
Inward investment, which is crucial to productivity and growth, has also been hit. House of Commons research has shown that FDI flows are well below the levels projected under pre-Brexit trends, and research by the Productivity Institute has shown that, post-Brexit, there are intensified regional inequalities in the inward investment that we are still attracting.
Polling amongst SMEs shows that over half believe that Brexit has made them less competitive globally because of shrinking access to EU customers and disrupted supply chains. And things are not getting better. The British Chambers of Commerce, reporting just last month, said that trade frictions are worsening. The reasons for this dismal picture are not hard to see: increased bureaucracy, including customs declarations and physical checks; competing regulatory frameworks; staffing shortages; and the inability of UK companies to participate in EU programmes, which have not been replicated by this country. So, Brexit has unambiguously hit growth and, if things remain unchanged, will increasingly do so.
My Lords, I rise with some hesitation and a great deal of gratitude to make my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House. I am acutely aware of the experience, independence of mind, and breadth and depth of knowledge that surrounds me.
Last Tuesday was a sublime experience for me and my family and friends; I still pinch myself to check that it was real. I am deeply grateful to my supporters, my noble friends Lord Kennedy and Lady Smith, for their guidance and support over many years. I am also grateful for the kindness shown to me by Black Rod’s office, by Mr Ingram and his team of doorkeepers, and by the Reading Clerk, Dr Christopher Johnson. His flexibility in enabling me to take my oath on my mother’s Gutka, a Sikh prayer book—sadly, she passed away just before Christmas—meant so much to me, especially as the first Sikh woman on the Labour Benches.
It has been quite a journey since I left Ludhiana, in Punjab, as a child. With huge support from my family, friends, members of my party and my colleagues at Sikhs for Labour, I have arrived here. My first home was in Southall, a rich, multicultural area that is one of the beating hearts to this day in the London Borough of Ealing—unsurprisingly, given that for many decades it has been a first stop on many migrants’ journey into this land. That was at a time when bussing children out of their locality was the norm, and I ended up at Walford High in Northolt. I give thanks to investments by earlier Labour Governments, and two super teachers who mentored me to go on to further education and to embrace every opportunity that came my way. Hence, Southall is part of my title, as I too want to inspire the present generation of children who are growing up there, and at my old school, that you too can dream and aspire to succeed in whatever walk you choose.
My political home is the West Midlands and it is fitting that that is included in my title too. My love of jewellery is known to many, especially pieces made by our talented artisans. I first came across them in the Jewellery Quarter, thanks to the Birmingham Assay Office, which had concerns about proposals from Brussels that we worked together to mitigate. I moved into Jewellery Quarter soon afterwards, and long before it became hip and one of the best places to live in the country. It was such a rewarding experience, with its wonderful restaurants, cafés and bars, excellent road and rail connections—a perfect example of imaginative inner-city regeneration—that I stayed there for over two decades.
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, for that absolutely excellent speech, revealing her rich experience in many areas across both the European Union and localities in the UK. She has already made one significant mark on our work: I was not aware that you could have two locations in your title. I am sure there are precedents for it, but the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, has certainly established that. I am pretty sure that, if the citizens of Jewellery in Birmingham and Southall in Ealing get to read that speech, they will be very proud of their girl for what she is achieving on their and other people’s behalf in this country.
We are proud of her on these Benches, too. She is going to bring a fresh perspective on a number of things, including housing and inequality, and perhaps on the EU as well. She was not exactly on any party line with her remarks at the end, but her basic pro-Europeanism shone through very strongly. We look forward to further speeches to come, which again will make us think and take us forward. We have a new colleague who will be a big hitter in this Chamber. While I am on my feet, I wish the other noble Lords who will be delivering their maiden speeches today all the very best for the future. If they do as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, they will be doing very well.
I follow the noble Lord, Lord Newby, in a number of ways—not all ways—and I appreciated his opening speech very much. It set the scene for this debate very well and the scene for the country more generally. I, too, like him, remember vividly in the EU referendum that not everyone on the leave campaign thought that leaving the EU necessarily meant leaving the customs union and the single market. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, was among those who initially thought that. Reference has been made to Boris Johnson’s famous remarks that we could have our cake and eat it, keep the benefits and still leave—one of the biggest whoppers told in that very bitter campaign.
Order. We have quite a tight time limit, and everybody wants to hear from my noble friend and for her to be able to respond, so if my noble friend could finish—
I finish with an appeal to the other side to open their minds and maybe open their hearts a little bit, recognise the situation we are now in, not the situation we were in, and take the country forward on that basis.
My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me on behalf of these Benches, this side of the House, to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, on her admirable maiden speech. She referred to feeling a little intimidated coming here and to the experience and depth of knowledge in this House, but from her speech, it was perfectly clear that she is going to add considerably both to the experience and the depth of knowledge, and we strongly welcome her for that. She has huge experience in the European Parliament—as she said, she spent 16 years there. That is one area of expertise, but she also has expertise on housing, because she was the chief executive of a housing association. Her maiden speech was both eloquent and moving. She referred to her love of jewellery, and I am sure she will be a jewel in your Lordships’ House for a long time to come.
As was said in the noble Baroness’s excellent maiden speech, and by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, of course, it is a good idea that Britain should seek to improve its relations with the EU. But a customs union is emphatically not the way, and quite rightly, the Prime Minister has said that a customs union is a red line. We just hope that it is one of these red lines that he does not actually cross.
Brexit can be, has been and was blamed by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for almost everything. Ministers refer to the OBR, which said that Brexit has already caused a 4% decline in GDP. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, admitted, the statistic actually was that the 4% decline would happen over 15 years. Some 4% over 15 years is, on an annualised basis, a very small amount, difficult to measure accurately, especially when the effects of Brexit, as the OBR has admitted, can hardly be distinguished from those of Covid, energy prices or the war in Ukraine.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, pointed out that goods exports to the EU remain below pre-pandemic Brexit levels. In 2024, as he said, they were 18% below the 2019 level. However, goods exports to non-EU countries over the same period were also down by 14%. So what do we conclude from this—that Brexit has caused damage to exports outside the EU? That seems rather improbable.
I am just finishing—is now pleading for exclusion from any steps towards alignment. The Liberals claim a customs union would boost government revenues. They have suddenly become followers of Donald Trump, believing that “tariff” is the most beautiful word in the English language, but a customs union would mean that we would be obliged to share our customs revenues with the EU.
A customs union does not make any sense. The Prime Minister is quite right. It ought to be a red line. Gladstone would have been horrified at the stance of the Liberal party. He would have called what it is putting forward the road to servitude. It makes no sense.
My Lords, before we come to the next speaker, I just remind your Lordships’ House that this is a time-limited debate, and we also have a number of maiden speeches, which will obviously go a little over the speaking limit. We want to leave enough time for the Minister to respond to the many questions that your Lordships will have. We ask speakers to please stick to the four-minute speaking time.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is surely to be congratulated on his timely choice of topic. The hard fact is that both this House and the other place will be debating how to remedy the lamentable post-Brexit deal struck in 2019 for the foreseeable future. I welcome most warmly the maiden speaker who preceded me, the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, and the three who will succeed me.
What I regret about the scope of our debate is its failure to address the single most urgent issue in our relationship: the security relationship with other European countries. With Putin continuing his aggression against a democratic European country—Ukraine—and doubts over the attitude of President Trump on this and other issues, there is no time to lose on strengthening European security co-operation and the European pillar of NATO. The failure to agree the first step along that road at the end of last year was totally regrettable and does not reflect well on either side, most prominently, in my view, on the European Union.
I hope the Minister, in replying to this debate, will borrow a phrase from a previous Prime Minister of her party and say that we will not take no for an answer and will persevere with our efforts to build that stronger security relationship.
Many of the items agreed at last May’s UK-EU summit as part of the reset are extraordinarily welcome, and I hope the Minister will give the House an update on the state of negotiations and on the preparations for the next meeting in that series, scheduled for this summer.
The veterinary agreements are clearly essential to remove the many sanitary and phytosanitary obstacles hampering agri-food trade in both directions. The energy agreements on our emissions trading schemes and on co-operation over interlinking connectors and the development of renewable energy projects in the North Sea will equally be mutually beneficial. The EU’s introduction of cross-border adjustment measures a few days ago makes it essential that we avoid those CBAMs becoming yet another non-tariff barrier to trade when we need similarity of treatment to prevent the diversion of imports into the EU and resulting damage to ourselves.
My Lords, I begin by thanking Black Rod, Garter, the clerk, the doorkeepers and all the staff of this House for the kindness that they have shown me since joining. I thank noble Lords from every side who have, without exception, made me feel so welcome. I thank my supporters—my noble friends Lady Armstrong of Hill Top and Lady Elliott of Whitburn Bay—for their encouragement and support, and my noble friends Lady Smith of Basildon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark for the thoughtfulness they have both shown towards me.
I grew up in a small suburb of Glasgow that few people have heard of and even fewer can pronounce. I studied at Strathclyde University, but it was at school that my interest in politics first developed. I attended St Ninian’s High School in Kirkintilloch. While my favourite subject was art, I vividly recall a young teacher in my third-year guidance class who was at pains to emphasise the importance of democracy. Indeed, that teacher created an election just to show us how democracy worked. It was the first time I stood for election. When it was time to vote, the teacher stood at the front of the class behind an improvised ballot box and we lined up to vote. My opponent happened to be in front of me. As he cast his ballot, he turned around to tell me that because there were only two of us on the ballot, he felt the right thing to do was to vote for me. I am embarrassed to admit that I also thought the right thing to do was to vote for me. I won by one vote.
After university I began a career in banking, specialising in real estate, PFI and public/private partnerships. In 1997 I was seconded to work for the incoming Labour Government on their regional development policy. I left the city in 2002 and moved to Newcastle upon Tyne, which is my adopted home. It is where I met my husband and where our children are growing up. Since then, my work has involved almost every aspect of economic development, principally in the north-east of England. It is a challenge to persuade private capital, which has a choice, to regions that have historically lower levels of accumulated wealth, capital formation and economic growth. Accelerating growth in our regions is essential—which is not to argue for slower growth in London and the south-east, although London and the south-east should irrigate, not drain.
20 of 65 shown
In the meantime, the international context has changed significantly, and not in a good way. The Ukraine war has posed increasingly urgent questions for the whole of Europe, including the UK, about how it defends itself, both economically and militarily, against an aggressive Russian state. For the past year, President Trump’s re-election has led to a Catherine wheel of anti-European rhetoric and actions that have destabilised the Atlantic economic and security status quo. It is impossible to predict how the remainder of the Trump presidency will unfold, but there is now, I think, a widespread realisation that whatever happens, we will not return to the transatlantic economic and security equilibrium that we enjoyed throughout the post-war era.
This realisation that things have changed for good and that a new policy response is required has been articulated most eloquently by Canadian Premier Carney, speaking in Davos last week. He argued that the post-war rules-based international order has been upset and that new approaches are needed. He argued that sovereignty grounded in rules had to be increasingly anchored in the ability to withstand pressure, and that the key now was to build coalitions that work.
For Britain, by far the most significant coalition that can work better is that with the EU. The EU has responded to US threats to NATO funding by stepping up to the plate on increased military expenditure—in the case of Germany, dramatically so. In recent days, it has effectively faced down President Trump by threatening retaliatory tariffs if he imposes tariffs on Europe in his bid to take over Greenland. Post-Brexit, there have been some who have called for a much closer economic alignment with the US and further distancing from the EU. If it ever was, that approach is now clearly no longer a viable option.
The only viable option, in a world where Russia acts as a brutal aggressor, China poses a raft of security and economic threats, and the US is unreliable at best, is for the UK to rebuild and strengthen its ties with the EU. There is a need for this on security issues, on which there is already considerable progress, but there is also definitely a need for it on economic grounds. This inevitably means readdressing the issue of our membership of the EU customs union and the single market.
There are the beginnings of a recognition of that from the Government, who have embarked on a so-called reset of our relations with the EU. This led, last summer, to the first post-Brexit UK-EU summit, and agreement on a new strategic partnership with the EU that covered a significant but limited range of issues, including fishing, energy, student exchanges, and food and agricultural products. Progress on these matters has been somewhat fitful, but the Government have recently committed to reaching detailed agreements on all the issues covered by the new strategic partnership by the time of the next summit, which is expected by the summer. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is still the Government’s aim and expectation.
The Government have also signed a number of trade agreements with non-EU countries, which offer the prospect of increased long-term trade flows. Sadly, the potential benefits from those deals are extremely modest. Indeed, it is estimated that the benefits of even the limited measures in the Government’s reset will bring at least twice the benefits of the UK-India trade agreement, which is itself by far the most significant of our new trade agreements. In our view, the measures proposed in the reset, although positive and valuable, are not enough—nowhere near enough.
Our argument that rejoining a customs union with the EU is now urgently required to promote growth has been accepted by some members of the Cabinet. Wes Streeting has made the point repeatedly in recent months, as has David Lammy, who argued last month that such a move was essential to reduce trade friction. The Business Secretary, Peter Kyle, has also turned his mind to the issue in recent days. Early last week he described Lib Dem calls to rejoin the customs union as “utopianism” and said:
“What gives me anxiety is growth this year … that gives me more concern than … the customs union”.
However, he then went to Davos and said that
“it would be crazy not to engage with the prospect of a customs union”.
One hopes that he does now engage with the issue—and on a more consistent basis. Keir Starmer has also said that he is prepared to consider closer alignment with the single market, but not to the extent of returning to freedom of movement. If all this is timid—far too timid, in our view—at least it shows that the Government accept that closer alignment with the EU would indeed bring benefits to the UK.
No such timidity of approach applies to Kemi Badenoch, who recently said that joining the customs union would be “bizarre”. It would, she said,
“make us all poorer and damage British business and … farming.”
Given that this is the exact opposite of what British business is saying, the bizarre thing is that she seems to believe it. As for Reform, Nigel Farage is promoting the idea of a free trade deal with the US as the answer to our economic problems, and regards even the Government’s reset as a “giveaway”, which he will fight “tooth and nail”. He, at least, has the sole virtue of consistency.
Noble Lords will be aware that Liberal Democrat policy is to rejoin both the customs union and the single market, with the ultimate goal of rejoining the EU. Therefore, for us, the question is how we get there. We accept that, as the single market covers both services and goods, and the UK’s trade in services with the EU is large and in positive balance, being a member of the single market would bring greater overall benefits than membership of the customs union. However, we believe, from a practical point of view, that it would be more straightforward to negotiate a customs union deal, that time is now of the essence, and that we could get started on it straightaway.
We must accept that the EU does not see the prospect of years more negotiations with the UK on these issues as a priority, and is likely to prove a tough negotiator. It is particularly likely to be unsympathetic to any deal with the UK that seeks to cherry-pick bits of the customs union or single market that particularly benefit us. Any British Government will have to be prepared to accept this, and to explain it to the electorate. The seductive mantra of Boris Johnson of having your cake and eating it was always false. It would be a recipe for failure if we adopted that as our basic negotiating stance.
The EU, like the UK, is in something of a state of shock, given on the one hand the threats from Russia and on the other the new unreliability of the US. There is a new recognition that the whole of Europe, including the UK, must act decisively against these external threats, and a new willingness to contemplate closer working arrangements.
There is also now much stronger and majority support for getting the UK back into the heart of the EU, particularly among young people. This was recently brought home to me when, a few months ago, at the end of a school talk in Bridlington—one of the strongest pro-Brexit communities in 2016—I asked the pupils whether they agreed with my approach to the EU. To my surprise and pleasure, a forest of hand went up. They clearly see the EU as offering new opportunities for themselves and their community. We should not dash their hopes.
It is therefore for the UK now to set out clearly and unambiguously its long-term aspirations for a renewed relationship with the EU, and to prosecute that policy energetically and with urgency. The Government have made a few tentative steps in the right direction, but they are not enough. Today’s crises require swift and substantive action. The Government must now rise to this challenge. I beg to move.
I come here conscious that my experience is only one among many, but I am hopeful that I will none the less be of service to this House in the debates that lie ahead. Over the years, I have been privileged to work in three main areas: housing and regeneration, reducing inequalities, and Britain’s relations with the EU. Having spent my life in public service, though with spells in corporate and tech sectors that left their indelible marks on me, I saw first-hand when I was running a housing association the real difference a good home can make to a person’s life chances in education, health and employment. I am still totally committed to eradicating inequalities in all fields. Today, inequality can be experienced in several ways, including digital inequality. So how we succeed as a society will depend on how data is harnessed and how we manage AI to reduce its impact, including on those in the creative sector.
Brexit cut my tenure of almost 16 years as an MEP short. As it happens, this coming Saturday, 31 January, will be exactly six years after Britain left the EU. How regrettable it is to see the damage inflicted on our economy. I remain a passionate advocate of the project, though my son still reproaches me that I was very much absent when he was growing up. Nevertheless, he has grown up to be a fine young man, working as a creative, as it happens, who cares deeply about his work and society.
Recent international developments have brought us to a turning point in our relations with the EU. Not only is it necessary to rebuild the trust lost in the Brexit years, but trade and defence must be our top priority, given that the world has changed around us and our approach to alliances must do, too. I welcome that this Government have signed a trade agreement with India, as did the EU on Tuesday, which I championed for many years while I was there.
However, as the EU has been faced with new challenges, its instruments and procedures need to evolve accordingly. At the same time, UK-EU relations need to be more ambitious, particularly in the fields of trade, defence and security. Rejoining instruments from another era such as the customs union cannot be the answer. New challenges demand new structures and new models of co-operation.
I look forward to working together with your Lordships in this House in facing today’s challenges and defending nothing less than the cause of a better life for our fellow citizens in a troubled and turbulent world.
Now, we are faced with reality, and a hard reality it is, too, as the evidence of the costs of leaving the EU continues to pile up. I am not going to repeat all the statistics that were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, other than to say that goods exports are still languishing below pre-2019 levels. I am particularly concerned about small firms, bewildered still by increased paperwork and customs-related red tape.
Nor are non-EU countries filling the gaps. The new trade deals have so far been disappointing. The one with India is unfortunately not yet in force. Others, such as the one with Japan, replicate the EU arrangements; Canada is more interested in a deal with the EU than with us; and the deal with Australia is very good for Australia, but reflects a desperation on our part to get some agreements over the line. As for a deal with the US, as Mark Carney said at Davos recently:
“We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition”.
I acknowledge warmly that the US has helped rescue us and other Europeans in the past, but can we still rely on it, given the capricious behaviour of the present White House Administration? Well, nobody is too clear about that.
So it seems to me that this can be used in a number of ways, with a number of opportunities as well as a number of threats. It can be used to open a new chapter with the EU, as we huddle together with our neighbours and allies and try to make common cause on a wider range of issues. Defence is an obvious priority area at the moment, but trade should also be another. Prime Minister Carney’s call for medium-sized powers to come together should be heeded and used by the UK as a way to approach our problems in a new way. We need that new way and we need it quickly: we need this reset of key relationships, as the Government are at last exploring.
As the excellent Library briefing for this debate reminds us, the Office for Budget Responsibility reckons that UK imports and exports are both 15% lower than if the UK had remained in the EU. That is a heavy blow to our growth prospects.
I live in hope that people on the other side of this House will begin to acknowledge that the history of our brief time outside the EU has not been good; it has been bad. There have been failures all around, and it was precipitated by us leaving the EU. I look forward, not backward. I do not want to replay old arguments, but I hope that the reset will be bold and wide-ranging. It should challenge those in the Conservative Party—and, I guess, the Reform party too—to recognise the reality that we need a new deal with the EU and perhaps follow up the Carney speech.
There are four major claimed benefits of Brexit, as set out recently by the Conservative Party leader, particularly the freedom to negotiate our own trade deals.
Over the same period, the UK’s performance in services was much better and well above its pre-epidemic levels. The fact remains that since Brexit, the British economy has moved largely in line with the larger EU economies. Italy and Germany have performed worse than Britain, France slightly better. Germany and Italy did not leave the EU and yet have performed worse than us.
A customs union is not the answer. If the question is growth, there must be a different way, and a customs union could do great harm. There would be very little gain from lower tariffs, because most UK-EU goods trade is already tariff-free. If we joined a customs union, we would have to accept tariff-free imports from those countries that the EU had negotiated trade agreements with, but we would not have the reciprocal benefit of being able to export tariff-free to those countries.
Our ability to do independent trade deals would end. We would have to renegotiate or cancel trade deals done since Brexit. The loss of the US agreement would be significant. It is actually our largest single trading partner. The pharmaceutical industry sells 25% of its exports to, and enjoys free access to, the US, while EU pharmaceuticals pay a tariff of 15%. Are we going to put this hugely important industry in danger through leaving that agreement or having to renegotiate it?
Alignment, a favourite subject of noble Lords, of regulations makes sense where individual sectors actually want it, provided that it is repealable and changeable if conditions change. Dynamic alignment, where we permanently hand over control of our laws, is a step too far and unnecessary.
It is interesting to recall how the financial services sector, which we were told after Brexit must align with the EU to survive, is now, according to recent reports in the FT—
A mobility agreement for young people moving in both directions would be a welcome complement to the decision to rejoin Erasmus+. Should we balk at the need to accept, in some areas, continuous adjustment to changes in EU rules? I do not believe so. After all, any British-based company that trades into our largest overseas market, the EU, is already having to meet those rules. There is no impediment to our having stricter rules than the EU. When the Minister replies, can she say where the consultation over rejoining the pan-European rules of origin convention has got to and when the Government will announce a decision on that? I will not comment on the customs union issue, because there is nothing like enough clarity yet on what that might entail to form a judgment. I will listen carefully to those in this debate who support going down that road.
It is often said by commentators that the EU does not rate the reset of the UK-EU relationship as being very high among its crowded order of priorities. No doubt there is some truth in that, but it is not the whole truth. The changes in geopolitical circumstances since the referendum in 2016 have made it more necessary to build a solid new post-Brexit relationship, capable of greater load bearing than the one agreed in 2019. It is essential that we show a firmness of purpose and a restoration of trust and do not repeat the errors of earlier years by squabbling among ourselves over the details of the way ahead.
That brings me to this debate. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, discuss last week the symbolism of the Woolsack and the centrality of business and wealth creation to the well-being and functioning of the state. I could not agree more. If only economic growth could be delivered by certainty of view alone. If one relies not on self-belief but on evidence and fact, one can only conclude that the decision to leave the customs union has been nothing other than an unmitigated disaster—for UK business, for our economy and for the Exchequer, upon which the health of our public services depends.
Drawing together my start in the classroom where I cast my first vote and today, there is a common factor in each beyond my own involvement. The energetic young teacher in whose class I first stood for election was then called Mr McFall. He is better known to noble Lords as the noble Lord, Lord McFall of Alcluith, the Lord Speaker. It would have been beyond the comprehension of my teenage self to imagine that 43 years later I would be introduced to this House at all, never mind be welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord McFall. His lifetime of public service is an inspiration. In an infinitely more modest way, I am grateful to be given this opportunity to serve.