Given the current high inflation, will the Chancellor guarantee halving inflation as promised by the Prime Minister?

In the absence of changing the Bank of England inflation target, what do the Government plan to do about mortgage pain?

What steps are the Government taking to ensure that investment zones do not suffer from the same problem as enterprise zones and freeports?

What additional fiscal support are the Government providing to differentiate these investment zones from enterprise zones?

A two-year fixed-interest mortgage with a 5% deposit was under 3% last August but is now north of 6%. A similar mortgage with a 25% deposit has also seen its interest rate increase from 1.25% to over 6%. How can it possibly be fair that somebody buying an average-priced house in Scotland worth around £190,000 could face such high interest rates?

Before we even get to the issue of support for mortgage holders, what is the Treasury doing to ensure the availability of mortgages, a good range of mortgage products and an end to offers being withdrawn unless there is a very, very good reason to do so?

Therein lies the problem: this will go to high energy users. The Federation of Small Businesses described the changes as “catastrophic” and the beginning of the end for tens of thousands of small businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce said that an 85% drop in the financial envelope of support will fall short for thousands of UK businesses who are seriously struggling, and UKHospitality criticised the sudden and sharp drop in support, estimating the move would cost that sector £4.5 billion in the next 12 months. Why does the Minister think they were all wrong and he is right?

I have a constituent with a number of shops. He has seen his four-weekly energy costs rise from £12,000 last October to £27,000 today. Moving on to lower tariffs, but with the reduced energy support, he will still see that £12,000 every four weeks doubled, to £24,000. What advice would the Minister give to my constituent? How would he find the £140,000 off the bottom line in a business already operating on tight margins?

Given the intention to review capital requirements, how will the Chancellor ensure the regulatory focus on stability is maintained?

Given that many consultations closed very quickly, how can we be convinced that the painful lessons of the financial crash have not been forgotten?

Half the public thinks there is inadequate regulation of political party spending and only 14% think there is transparency around it. The Paymaster General knows well that there have been concerns about the influence of dark money in the UK electoral system for many years. Why could it be that this Government are planning to suppress the right of ordinary people to vote rather than tackle the real problem of dark money buying influence in the democratic process?

Some 90% of the public think that polling station voting is safe from fraud and abuse, and they are right to think that. Personation resulted in a single conviction in 2016, 7, and 2019, and zero convictions in 2018. Given up to 3.5 million people may not have suitable ID and the Government's pilots confirmed up to 324,000 people would be denied a vote in a Great Britain election, why are this Government prepared to embark on voter suppression on an industrial scale?

Given the rise in support for independence and decline of Union, is it suspicious that the contract was awarded to Public First without competition?

How can the Minister justify siphoning off many tens of thousands of pounds from covid recovery work to fund this political research?

Monitoring is fine, but we need action. Let me raise the issue of another business: ATL Turbine Services, which brings into Scotland for repair turbine parts from around Europe and the world. It has told me that its post-Brexit admin costs are now 10 to 15 times greater than they were last year. It cannot use the Revenue's post-VAT accounting processes. It is encountering significantly more shipping errors, not just costs. Most damningly, it has said that, while the high-level structure has been put in place, the details of how it works in practice are basically non-existent and, where they do exist, have fallen short. Cost increases, administrative burdens, shipping errors, no useful guidance—when will this Government finally take these issues seriously? Would it not be better to admit, finally, that the truth is that, for business, Brexit is not working?

In February, I raised with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the issue of Wilde Mode, a company in my constituency, and the increases in shipping costs it has had. In the past week or so, it has confirmed that it is still being quoted about €1,000 to ship in from Poland, when pre Brexit it was effectively zero. What concrete action are the Government going to take to resolve these problems, to end this uncompetitiveness and to mitigate these massive Brexit-driven cost increases?

Why have the UK Government chosen to mislead the public by omitting their identity in ads?

Why have the Government chosen to flout the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) code by omitting their identity in ads?

I am struggling to see the advantages and new opportunities. A firm in my constituency, Wilde Mode Ltd, imports rolls of printed fabric from Poland. The delivery costs have increased from under €40 before Brexit to €2,000 now, making it unsustainable. When will measures to ease these problems be put in place fully and actually start to work?

Measures to ease border problems have been put in place but are they working effectively? When will these measures start making a difference?

That was possibly the worst case of deflection I have ever seen, even from a Tory. The Brexit advice on offer to businesses such as John Ross Jr, which has an exemplary 30-year record in exporting, “has fallen woefully short when it comes to one of the most important commercial issues of our time.” Instead of vague promises about future campaigns, pathetic attempts at deflection and playing rather silly politics, would it not be better to fix the problems at the UK-EU border, where real exports happen, to protect real jobs and businesses?

The Secretary of State was copied in to a letter to the Business Secretary from Vicky Leigh-Pearson, the sales director at John Ross Jr, Aberdeen, salmon producers and exporters. It described in excoriating detail the “barrage of useless information” on Brexit, which added no value or clarity for such food and drink exporting businesses. Would it not be better to fix the problems at the UK-EU border, where real exports take place, rather than make vague promises about future promotional campaigns?

The end of the transition period has been described by Scottish businesses as a “catastrophic” situation. Some have argued that if they cannot trade with the EU, they are out of the game—it is an existential threat. Can I ask the Scottish Secretary to actually show some authority in the Cabinet and insist on a minimum six-month grace period, so businesses do not fall foul of regulations which are not yet developed for a deal that is not yet agreed, but which is supposed to be in place in barely three weeks' time? This needs to be done; it needs to be done today. Otherwise, businesses will struggle dreadfully on his watch.

Protecting food standards is crucial but the Minister's previous answer seems inadequate. UK egg producers cannot compete with imports from countries allowing higher density laying hens and other low-welfare practices. The public opposes lower standards, as highlighted by a recent Which? survey. Is it really the Government's intention to support such trade deals that harm our food standards and welfare?

After a detailed discussion with NFU Scotland, I noted their concern over future trade deals due to high costs and stringent food standards in the UK compared to competitors abroad. They argue that they cannot compete with low-cost competition from countries with lower food standards. Is it time for the Government to include chapters on food, animal welfare, and standards in trade agreements?

It is just not the UK that is seeking to join CPTPP; Thailand, for example, is actively investigating it. Thailand's faculty of pharmaceutical sciences has assessed that because of the way CPTPP rules on patents and on market approval for generic drugs that impact on Government procurement and so on work, the costs of drugs would rise. Given the Bangkok Post headline that CPTPP would lead to “soaring” drugs bills, what guarantees can the Minister give that a similar rise in the cost of medicines to the NHS, for the same reasons, would not be the consequence here?

I thank the Minister for the update. However, when the non-partisan Centre for Economic Policy Research assessed the United States accession to the original and similar trans-Pacific partnership trade deal, it concluded that wages might rise for the top 10% of earners but fall for everybody else. What assessment has his Department made of the impact of CPTPP accession on income levels in the UK, and what guarantees can he give that worsening income inequality would not be a consequence here?

The gravity analysis in the internal market Command Paper shows a border between Scotland and rest of UK would have an 1.1% GDP impact. With Brexit expected to be seven times larger—losses around 8% for Scotland—when discussing with Scottish Government, will he bring forward another Command Paper insisting on single market inclusion?

Given that Which? tells us that 95% of the public want to maintain current food standards, why do this Government continue to rule out real legislative protections in a trade Bill that would accord with the views of our farmers, our doctors and the general public?

I am glad that that is being looked at because, right now, if an agreement is not reached between the UK and the European Union, UK legal practitioners—lawyers—will no longer be protected by legal or professional privilege inside the European Union. May we have a specific focus on that to ensure that jeopardy is removed, but also, more importantly, to ensure that the associated disincentive to trade in legal services is removed?

Will the Secretary of State update the House on the progress being made to ensure that the legal services trade between the UK and the European Union can be maintained after the end of this year?